Forced Compliance, Misattribution and Trivialization

Abstract

Simon, Greenberg, and Brehm (1995) found evidence of a new mode of dissonance reduction: trivialization. The purpose of this study was to show that trivialization can be used in misattribution situations to reduce dissonance after the execution of a counterattitudinal behavior. In the experiment reported here (2 x 2 design), participants had to write down arguments in favor of selective admission to the university. This task was carried out in high choice condition. Half of the participants were confronted with a source of misattribution (ultrasound waves) and half were not. Afterwards, the participants' attitudes toward the issue and their extent of trivialization were measured. The collection order of these two measures was manipulated. As expected, with a source of misattribution, participants did not change their attitude, but trivialized. In addition, trivialization and attitude change were found to be alternative dissonance-reduction modes: when participants trivialized they did not change their attitude, and inversely, when they changed their attitude they did not trivialize.

Some prior considerations about dissonance to understand its reduction: Comment on McGrath (2017)

“…As they focus on the behavior and the commitment, the conceptions strongly limit the reduction process to a rationalization of the behavior, mostly with a change of attitude. In this view, the arousal is not absent of the conceptualization and could be considered as a mediator for attitude change (e.g., Joule & Martinie, ; Zanna & Cooper, ). However, the only motivation for dissonance reduction is to reduce the inconsistency responsible for the CDS.…”

“…In this view, the arousal is not absent of the conceptualization and could be considered as a mediator for attitude change (e.g., Joule & Martinie, 2008;Zanna & Cooper, 1974). However, the only motivation for dissonance reduction is to reduce the inconsistency responsible for the CDS.…”

Do I Know What I’m Doing? Cognitive Dissonance and Action Identification Theory

“…From Beauvois and Joule’s perspectives, these two rationalization processes are mutually exclusive (Gotz-Marchand, Gotz, & Irle, 1974; Simon, Greenberg, & Brehm, 1995) as choosing one of them makes it highly unlikely that the other will also be chosen. Moreover, Joule and Martinie (2008) have put this exclusive switch model of alternate modes of dissonance reduction to the test, using the misattribution paradigm (Fointiat, 1996; Wright, Rule, Ferguson, McGuire, & Wells, 1992; Zanna & Cooper, 1974). Besides this exclusive model of modes of reduction (sometimes referred to as the “all-or-none model”) some researchers support a complementary model (also called “hydraulic model”, Brehm & Cohen, 1962; Fointiat, 1998; Leippe & Eisenstadt, 1994; Stone, Wiegand, Cooper, & Aronson, 1997).…”

Some Theoretical Considerations on Attitude, Arousal and Affect during Cognitive Dissonance

“…They may also agree to undertake a second, related behavior (act rationalization, Beauvois, Joule, & Brunetti, 1993). They can modify their usual behavior (Dickerson, Thibodeau, Aronson, & Miller, 1992), play down the importance accorded to the cognitions involved in the state of dissonance (trivialization, Joule & Martinie, 2008;Simon, Greenberg, & Brehm, 1995) or feel less responsible for their behavior (denial of responsibility, Gosling, Denizeau, & Oberlé, 2006).…”