Subject Population, Thought Modality, and Cognitive Dissonance

Biddle, Bruce J.; Pinkerton, Janice K.; Petty, Richard E.

doi:10.1207/s15324834basp0903_4

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, elections are normative processes, heavily laden with ritual, symbolism, and convention (Edelman, 1964). Biddle, Pinkerton, and Petty (1988) asserted that the different traditions of dissonance research are often tapping phenomena that are in some ways distinct: "It is clear that the induced-compliance paradigm involves normative elements that are not present in the choice-among-alternatives paradigm. The former involves at least one norm, whereas the latter involves preferences alone" (p. 216).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive Dissonance and Post‐Decision Attitude Change in Six Presidential Elections

Beasley

Joslyn

2001

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data from the National Election Studies were examined in an effort to isolate cognitive dissonance of two kinds: dissonance arising from a behavioral commitment in the form of voting, and dissonance arising from inconsistencies associated with having supported the losing candidate. Feeling thermometer ratings of the two principal presidential candidates obtained before and immediately after six elections (1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, and 1996) were analyzed. Regression estimates supported a dissonance reduction explanation of observed attitude changes. Voters, as compared to nonvoters, tended to increase the evaluative distance between candidates after an election, whereas supporters of the losing candidate were more likely than supporters of the winning candidate to decrease such evaluative distances. An additional examination of voters yielded results consistent with dissonance theory: After the election, respondents reporting favorable evaluations of both candidates (a difficult choice) tended to spread comparative candidate evaluations compared to respondents who were favorable toward only one candidate (an easy choice). The results both support and cast doubt on prior studies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%