Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Leveraging judgmental anchors and cognitive dissonance to change dating behavior expectations

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Misperceptions about common or appropriate dating behaviors are prevalent within the undergraduate population. This research sought to counteract those misperceptions by using numerical anchors and cognitive dissonance to create positive dating behavior expectations. The introduction of high numerical anchors led dating behavior expectations about respect and trust to assimilate in a healthier direction toward the anchor value. A dissonance manipulation resulted in higher levels of psychological discomfort and a unique method of assessing magnitude of dissonance was conducted, although no substantial effect of dissonance was observed on future dating behavior intentions. Overall, future dating behavior intentions for respect, trust, communication and helping behaviors were in healthy directions. Additionally, dating behavior intentions assessed four to six weeks after the study remained in a healthy direction. These findings contribute to our knowledge regarding the use of numerical anchors, cognitive dissonance, and undergraduate dating behavior expectations and intentions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The dataset generated and analyzed during the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Notes

  1. Attitudes, perceived social norms, and perceived behavioral control regarding the four dating behavior categories were also assessed. However, these measures will not be discussed in this paper as they are not relevant to our research questions and hypotheses.

References

  • Aronson, E., Fried, C., & Stone, J. (1991). Overcoming denial and increasing the intention to use condoms through the induction of hypocrisy. American Journal of Public Health, 81(12), 1636–1638.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, A. D. (2010). Fostering healthy norms to prevent violence and abuse: The social norms approach. The Prevention of Sexual Violence: A Practitioner’s Sourcebook, 147–171.

  • Blankenship, K. L., Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Detweiler-Bedell, B., & Macy, C. L. (2008). Elaboration and consequences of anchored estimates: An attitudinal perspective on numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(6), 1465–1476.

  • Burgoon, J. K. (2015). Expectancy violations theory. In C. R. Berger & M. E. Roloff (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of interpersonal communication. John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic102.

  • Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1994). The limits of anchoring. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7(4), 223–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(2), 115–153.

  • Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (2002). Incorporating the irrelevant: Anchors in judgments of belief and value. In T. Gilovich, D. W. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 120–138). Cambridge University Press.

  • Dating. (2017). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating

  • Elliot, A. J., & Devine, P. G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 382–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychological Science, 12(5), 391–396.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

  • Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.

  • Fine, M. A., & Harvey, J. H. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution. Psychology Press.

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2011). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Taylor & Francis.

  • Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40(1), 35–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gawronski, B. (2012). Back to the future of dissonance theory: Cognitive consistency as a core motive. Social Cognition, 30(6), 652–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harmon-Jones, E., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2007). Cognitive dissonance theory after 50 years of development. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 38(1), 7–16.

  • Hinsz, V. B., Kalnbach, L. R., & Lorentz, N. R. (1997). Using judgmental anchors to establish challenging self-set goals without jeopardizing commitment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71(3), 287–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordens, K., & Van Overwalle, F. (2005). Cognitive dissonance and affect: An initial test of a connectionist account. Psychologica Belgica, 45(3), 157–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

  • Levy, N., Harmon-Jones, C., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2018). Dissonance and discomfort: Does a simple cognitive inconsistency evoke a negative affective state? Motivation Science, 4(2), 95–108.

  • Lewis, M. L., Lee, C. M., Patrick, M. E., & Fossos, N. (2007). Gender-specific normative misperceptions of risky sexual behavior and alcohol-related risky sexual behavior. Sex Roles, 57(1–2), 81–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, J., Mowrey, R., Nesbitt, G., & O’Neil, D. (2004). Risky business: Misperceived norms of sexual behavior among college students. NASPA Journal, 42(1), 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martens, M., Page, J., Mowry, E., Damann, K., Taylor, K., & Cimini, D. (2006). Differences between actual and perceived student norms: An examination of alcohol use, drug use, and sexual behavior. Journal of American College Health, 54(5), 295–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, C. E., & Kardatzke, K. N. (2007). Dating violence among college students: Key issues for college counselors. Journal of College Counseling, 10(1), 79–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(2), 136–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1987). Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring- and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(1), 84–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. McGraw-Hill.

  • Scholly, K., Katz, A., Gascoigne, J., & Holk, P. (2005). Using social norms theory to explain perceptions and sexual health behaviors of undergraduate college students: An exploratory study. Journal of American College Health, 53(4), 159–166.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stangor, C. (2000). Stereotypes and prejudice: Essential readings. Psychology press.

  • Stinson, R. D. (2010). Hooking up in young adulthood: A review of factors influencing the sexual behavior of college students. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 24(2), 98–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, J., & Fernandez, N. C. (2011). When thinking about less failure causes more dissonance: The effect of elaboration and recall on behavior change following hypocrisy. Social Influence, 6(4), 199–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • University of Washington (2021). Healthy vs. unhealthy relationships. Retrieved May 7th, 2021 from https://wellbeing.uw.edu/resources/healthy-vs-unhealthy-relationships/

  • Van Lange, P. A., De Bruin, E., Otten, W., & Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 733–746.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule-expanded form. The University of Iowa.

  • Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Detweiler-Bedell, B. T., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (2001). Implications of attitude change theories for numerical anchoring: Anchor plausibility and the limits of anchor effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(1), 62–69.

  • Wood, W. (2000). Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 539–570.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Dept. 2765, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, 58108-6050, USA

    Anna M. Semanko & Verlin B. Hinsz

Authors
  1. Anna M. Semanko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Verlin B. Hinsz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna M. Semanko.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest in this research.

Declarations and Ethics Approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with proper ethical standards. This study and its’ methodology was approved by the North Dakota State University Institutional Review Board.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Semanko, A.M., Hinsz, V.B. Leveraging judgmental anchors and cognitive dissonance to change dating behavior expectations. Curr Psychol 42, 7211–7223 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01995-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01995-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation