Effect of commitment on responsiveness to an extreme consonant communication.

Abstract

Processes by which an attitude is polarized via social interaction were investigated in Experiment I. Subjects were led to expect interaction with the same partner or a different partner in three future sessions (high or low commitment to future interaction, respectively). All subjects received a communication from the partner which advocated either a less extreme or more extreme position than the subject's. Commitment to future interaction facilitated attitude change toward the partner's position regardless of extremity. Commitment to a consonant act (Experiment II), manipulated via public or private identification of subjects' consonant essay, also facilitated change toward an extreme consonant communication, but increased resistance to a discrepant communication. The results suggest that processes related to commitment may provide one explanation for the polarization of attitudes.In typical investigations of attitude change, one determines the reactions of the subject to a communication advocating an opinion opposite to his own. A good deal of the literature is concerned with the conditions under which a discrepant communication leads the subject to abandon his attitudinal position in favor of the opposite one.In contrast, the present research investigated the largely unexplored area of attitude change in response to an extreme but consonant communication. In this case, the extreme communication may be viewed as consonant in that it implies broad agreement with an initial attitude but specifically advocates a position more extreme than the subject's. Although relatively little is known about shifts from moderate to more extreme atti-

How brand attribute typicality and consumer commitment moderate the influence of comparative advertising

“…Kiesler (1971), who defines commitment in attitudinal and behavioral terms, suggests that more committed individuals are more discriminating and resistant to change. His theory and experiments extend perspectives of other studies suggesting that committed individuals reject communications attacking their position (Pallack et al, 1972) and pay closer attention to and selectively perceive information reinforcing their position (Bazerman et al, 1982;Crosby and Taylor, 1983). The motivation to defend attitudes and associated beliefs occurs even at the cost of accuracy (e.g., Pomerantz et al, 1995).…”

Effects of complaining versus negative word of mouth on subsequent changes in satisfaction: The role of public commitment

“…According to him, a key factor that determines the magnitude of the commitment is the publicness with which the individual declares his/her commitment to a position (also see Halverson & Pallak, 1978). Individuals who are publicly committed are more resistant to later attacks and are more susceptible to attitude-consistent appeals than those who make their commitments privately (Pallak et al, 1972). Attitudes stated publicly are relatively stable and are more likely to result in consistent behaviors (Cialdini, 1993;Pallak, Cook, & Sullivan, 1980).…”

Commitment and leisure behavior: A theoretical perspective

“…These variables, which generally address social-psychological attachments, have included the number of social relations attached to a particular behavior, organizational status, opportunities for achievement, psychological importance of the activity in relation to other interests, degree of volition perceived by the subject, and resistance to change (S. M. Lee, 1971;Sheldon, 1971;Vaske, 1980;Buchanan, 1974;Jacobs and Buchanan, 1981;Kiesler et al, 1967;Pallack et al, 1972;Kiesler, 1977;Halverson and Pallack, 1978;.…”