اثر بازگشت‌پذیری انتخاب بر تغییر نگرش در ناهماهنگی شناختی: پارادایم انتخاب آزاد

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری روانشناسی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

2 عضو هیئت علمی

چکیده

هدف: هدف پژوهش تعیین اثر بازگشت‌پذیری انتخاب بر تغییر نگرش در پارادایم انتخاب آزاد نظریه ناهماهنگی شناختی فستینگر (1957) بود. روش: پژوهش شبه‌آزمایشی در قالب طرح بین‌آزمودنی 4 گروهی با پیش‌آزمون، پس‌آزمون و گروه گواه و جامعه آماری 650 دانشجوی روان‌شناسی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی در سال تحصیلی 94-1393بود. برای حضور 15 نفر در هر گروه طبق پیشنهاد دلاور (1396)، 60 نفر از آ­ن­ها به­شکل نمونه‌گیری در دسترس و همتاسازی از نظر سن و جنس انتخاب و به دو گروه‌ انتخاب آسان و دو گروه‌ دشوار 30 نفری و هریک به گروه‌های انتخاب بازگشت‌پذیر و بازگشت‌ناپذیر 15 نفری تقسیم شدند. هشت آزمون روان‌شناسی که بر اساس میزان پیچیدگی انتخاب‌شده بودند به آزمودنی‌ها داده شد تا قبل و بعد از انتخاب به ارزیابی مطلوبیت آن‌ها بپردازند. گروه بازگشت‌پذیر پس از انتخاب می‌توانستند آن را عوض کنند. تغییر نگرش، به‌وسیله پرسشنامه پژوهشگر ساخته 1393 این پژوهشگران، در پیش‌آزمون و پس‌آزمون سنجیده شد. با حذف 6 پرسشنامه‌های ناقص، داده‌های 54 نفر با تحلیل واریانس عاملی تحلیل شد. یافته‌ها: نتایج نشان داد در گروه‌های انتخاب دشوار، نگرش گروه انتخاب بازگشت‌ناپذیر به گزینه انتخاب‌شده به‌طورمعناداری مثبت‌تر شد درحالی‌که در گروه انتخاب بازگشت‌پذیر نگرش منفی‌تر شد (48/29=F، 001/0=P). نتیجه‌گیری‌: این نتایج نشان می‌دهند فقط در انتخاب‌های بازگشت‌ناپذیر تغییر نگرش مثبت رخ می‌دهد. از این‌رو فروشندگان کالا و خدمات برای کمک به مثبت‌تر شدن نگرش خریداران، بهتر است فرایند تعویض کالا را بیش از حد هموار نسازند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The effect of reversibility of choice on attitude change in cognitive dissonance: Free choice paradigm

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ruhollah Mansouri Sepehr 1
  • Mahmood Heidari 2
  • Fatemeh Bagherian 2
  • Omid Shokri 2
1 Ph.D student at Shahid Beheshti University
2 Faculty member
چکیده [English]

AbstractAim. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of reversibility of choice on attitude change in the "free choice paradigm" of cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957). Methods. This study was a quasi-experimental study conducted in a between-subject pretest- posttest with control group design. In accordance with Delavar’s (2016) suggestion, in order to place 15 participants in each group, sixty students (from among 650) at the Faculty of Psychology of Shahid Beheshti University in the academic year 2014-2015 were selected. Selection was based on participants’ availability. These were then divided into groups of easy (N=30) and difficult (N=30) choice which were divided into groups of reversible (N=15) and irreversible (N=15) choice. Groups were matched on age and gender. They were given eight psychological tests which were selected based on the degree of complexity to evaluate them before and after choice. Reversible group could change their choice after they made it. The attitude change was assessed by a researcher-made questionnaire, which was made by the researchers of this study to be use in pretest and posttest. After removing six subjects because of incomplete questionnaires, the data for 54 subjects was analyzed by ANOVA. Results. Analysis showed that in difficult choices groups, the attitude of irreversible choice group got significantly more positive about the selected choice, whereas the attitude of the reversible group got more negative (F= 29.48, P= 0.001). Conclusion. These results support the idea that positive attitude change in free choice paradigm only occurs in irreversible situations. Therefore, it is better for sellers and service providers to not facilitate replacement very much.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • attitude
  • Choice
  • cognition
  • dissonance
  • Paradigm
  • reversibility

مراجع

  1. Aios-Ferrer, C., & Shi, F. (2015). Choice-induced preference change and the free-choice paradigm: A clarification. Judgment & Decision Making, 10(1): 34-49.
  2. Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1962). Performance expectancy as a determinant of actual performance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 17(1): 178–182.
  3. Cooper, J. (1992). Dissonance and the return of the self-concept. Psychological Inquiry, 3(4): 320–323.
  4. Cooper, J. (2007). Cognitive dissonance: fifty years of a classic theory. Los Angeles: Sage publications.
  5. Danielsson, M., & Bengtsson, H. (2016). Global self-esteem and the processing of positive information about the self. Personality and Individual Differences, 99(1): 325-330.
  6. Dillard, J. & Pfau, M. (2002). The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice. USA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  7. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  8. Fointiat, V., & Pelt, A. (2015). Do I know what I’m doing? Cognitive dissonance and action identification theory. The Spanish journal of psychology, 18(5): 1-6.
  9. Harmon-Jones, E., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2007). Cognitive dissonance theory after 50 years of development. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 38(1): 7-16.
  10. Harris, P., Harris, P. R., & Miles, E. (2017). Self-affirmation improves performance on tasks related to executive functioning. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70(1): 281-285.
  11. Hodis, F. A., Tait, C., Hodis, G. M., Hodis, M. A., & Scornavacca, E. (2016). Analyzing student motivation at the confluence of achievement goals and their underlying reasons: an investigation of goal complexes. Social Psychology of Education, 19(3): 643-660.
  12. Kimel, S. Y., Lopez-Duran, N., & Kitayama, S. (2015). Physiological correlates of choice-induced dissonance: An exploration of HPA-axis responses. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28(4): 309-316.
  13. Kroesen, M., Handy, S., & Chorus, C. (2017). Do attitudes cause behavior or vice versa? An alternative conceptualization of the attitude-behavior relationship in travel behavior modeling. Transportation Research Part, 101(1): 190-202.
  14. Lavergne, K. J., & Pelletier, L. G. (2016). Why are attitude–behavior inconsistencies uncomfortable? Using motivational theories to explore individual differences in dissonance arousal and motivation to compensate. Motivation and Emotion, 40(6): 842-861.
  15. Liang, Y. J. (2016). Reading to make a decision or to reduce cognitive dissonance? The effect of selecting and reading online reviews from a post-decision context. Computers in Human Behavior, 64(1): 463-471.
  16. Morvan, C., & O'Connor, A. J. (2017). An analysis of Leon Festinger's a theory of cognitive dissonance. London: Macat International Ltd.
  17. Phillips, J. G., Hoon, T., & London, J. (2016). Dynamic selective exposure during decision-making. The Journal of General Psychology, 143(4): 239-253.
  18. Raymond, E. M. (2011). A sexual assault prevention program for men based on cognitive dissonance theory. University of Wyoming.
  19. Risen, J. L., & Chen, M. K. (2010). How to study choice-induced attitude change: strategies for fixing the free-choice paradigm. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(12): 1151-1164.
  20. She, P., Zeng, H., & Yang, B. (2016). Effect of self-consistency group intervention for adolescents with schizophrenia: An inpatient randomized controlled trial. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 73(1): 63-70.
  21. Shultz, T., Leveille, E., & Lepper, M. (1999). Free choice and cognitive dissonance revisited: Choosing "lesser evils" versus "greater goods". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(1): 40-48.
  22. Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Lynch, M. (1993). Dissonance and affirmational resources: Resilience against self-image threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6): 885–896.
  23. Yardley, I. (2016). Cognitive dissonance: Conservation of the circle. Create Space Independent Publishing Platform.

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار