Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Monin, B.
Right arrow Articles by Hopg, M. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 7, No. 3, 207-220 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/1368430204046108
© 2004 SAGE Publications

Reacting to an Assumed Situation vs. Conforming to an Assumed Reaction: The Role of Perceived Speaker Attitude in Vicarious Dissonance

Benoft Monin

Stanford University

Michael I. Norton

Massachusetts Institute of Technologp

Joel Cooper

Princeton University

Michael A. Hopg

University of Queensland

Witnessing an ingroup member acting against his or her belief can lead individuals who identify with that group to change their own attitude in the direction of that counterattitudinal behavior. Two studies demonstrate this vicarious dissonance effect among high ingroup identifiers and show that this attitude change is not attributable to conformity to a perceived change in speaker attitude. Study 1 shows that the effect occurs-indeed, is stronger-even when it is clear that the speaker disagrees with the position espoused, and Study 2 shows that foreseeable aversive consequences bring about attitude change in the observer without any parallel impact on the perceived attitude of the speaker. Furthermore. the assumption that vicarious dissonance is at heart a group phenomenon is supported by the results indicating that attitude change is not impacted either by individual differences in dispositional empathy or measures of interpersonal affinity.

Key Words: cognitivedissonance • conformity • vicarious processes

References

  • Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psycholog New York: Houghton Mifflin .
  • Barquissau. M.. Schmeder. T.. & Lickel, B. (2004. February). Grouzdng pains: Parents experience of vlicarionas shame and guilt Poster session presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology. Austin. TX.
  • Bem. D. J. (1965). An experimental analysis of selfpersuasion . Journal of Expetimen tal Social Psychology 1, 199-218 .
  • Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative explanation of cognitive dissonance phenomena . Psychological Review, 74 183-200 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Cooper, J., & Fazio, R. H. (1984). A new look at dissonance theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 17). New York: Academic Press .
  • Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 113-126 .[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach Boulder, CO: Westview Press .
  • Elliot, A.J., & Devine, P. G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort . Journal of Personality and Social Pychology, 67 382-394 .[CrossRef]
  • Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cogntlive dissonlance Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press .
  • Gilbert. D. T.. & Malone. P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias . Pcvchological Butlletin. 117 21-38 .
  • Goethals, G. R.. Cooper.J.- & Naficv, A. (1979). Role of foreseen, foreseeable, and unforeseen behavioral consequences in the arousal of cognitive dissonance . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 1179-1185 .[CrossRef]
  • Harmon-Jones, E., Brehm,J. W., Greenberg,J., Simon, L., & Nelson, D. E. (1996). Evidence that the production of aversive consequences is not necessary to create cognitive dissonance . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 5-16 .[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills J. (Eds.) (1999). Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology Washington, DC: American Psychological Association .
  • Hogg, M. A., Cooper-Shaw, L.. & Holzworth, D. W (1993). Group prototypicality and depersonalized attraction in small interactive groups . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 19 452-465 .[Abstract]
  • Kelley. H. H. (1967). Attribution theorv in social psychology . Nebraska symposium on -motivatiov. 14 192-241 .
  • Linder, D. E., Cooper.J.. &Jones. E. E. (1967). Decision freedom as a determinant of the role of incentive magnitude in attitude change . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 6, 245-254 .[CrossRef]
  • Losch. M. E. & Cacioppo.J. T. (1990). Cognitive dissonance may enhance sympathetic tonus. but attitudes are changed to reduce negative affect rather than arousal . Journal of Expenimental Social Psychology, 26 2289-2304 .
  • Monin, B., & Norton, M. I. (2003). Pemrceptions of a fluid consensus: Uniqueness bias. false consensus. false polarization and pluralistic ignorance in a water conservation crisis . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 559-567 .[Abstract]
  • Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall .
  • Norton, M. I., Monin, B., Cooper, J., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). Vicarious dissonance: Attitude change from the inconsistency of others . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 47-62 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 174-221). New York: Academic Press .

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Monin, B.
Right arrow Articles by Hopg, M. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?