Why are attitude–behaviour inconsistencies uncomfortable? Using motivational theories to explore individual differences in dissonance arousal and motivation to compensate
- 1.6k Downloads
Using cognitive dissonance theories and self-determination theory, we explored the role of individual differences in global and contextual motivational orientations on dissonance arousal processes following spontaneous attitude–behaviour inconsistencies (ABIs). Study 1 (N = 382) showed that individual differences in global motivation relate to the frequency of ABIs and dissonance arousal across important life domains. Studies 2 (N = 282) and 3 (N = 202) showed that individual differences in contextual motivation toward the environment predict the relative frequency of ABIs and the quantity and quality of proximal motivation to compensate for ABIs in that context. Autonomous motivation was associated with a tendency to compensate for ABIs to both reduce dissonance and restore self-integrity. Controlled motivation disposed individuals to reduce dissonance to protect ego-invested self-structures, and to be indifferent to non self-threatening ABIs. Amotivation left people indifferent to ABIs. Individual differences in motivational orientations could explain why ABIs are uncomfortable and motivate people to compensate differently when they face ABIs.
KeywordsCognitive dissonance theory Action-based model of dissonance Self-determination theory Dissonance arousal Attitude–behaviour consistency
This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Grant No. SSHRC-435-2013-0997) and conducted at the University of Ottawa as part of the first author’s doctoral thesis project. The University of Alberta is the first author’s current affiliation. We wish to thank the Human Motivation Research Laboratory research assistants and trainees who provided assistance with this research.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson and Company.Google Scholar
- Harmon-Jones, E. (1999). Toward an understanding of the motivation underlying dissonance effects: Is the production of aversive consequences necessary? In E. Harmon-Jones & J. Mills (Eds.), Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp. 71–99). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Harmon-Jones, E. (2000). Cognitive dissonance and experienced negative affect: Evidence that dissonance increases experienced negative affect even in the absence of aversive consequences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1490–1501. doi: 10.1177/01461672002612004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hodgins, H. S., Weibust, K. S., Weinstein, N., Shiffman, S., Miller, A., Coombs, G., et al. (2010). The cost of self-protection: Threat response and performance as a function of autonomous and controlled motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1101–1114. doi: 10.1177/0146167210375618.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lavergne, K. J., Sharp, E. C., Pelletier, L. G., & Holtby, A. (2010). The role of perceived government style in the facilitation of self-determined and non self-determined motivation for pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 169–177. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Leippe, M. R., & Eisenstadt, D. (1999). A self-accountability model of dissonance reduction: Multiple modes on a continuum of elaboration. In E. Harmon-Jones & J. Mills (Eds.), Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp. 201–232). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Leippe, M. R., & Eisenstadt, D. (2010). Self-persuasion when it matters to self: Attitude importance and dissonance reduction after counterattitudinal advocacy. In M. H. Gonzales, C. Tavris, & J. Aronson (Eds.), The scientist and the humanist: A festschrift in Honor of Elliot Aronson (pp. 175–199). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus (Version 7) [Computer software]. Los Angeles, CA: Authors.Google Scholar
- Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Autonomy is no illusion: Self-determination theory and the empirical study of authenticity, awareness, and will. In J. Greenberg, S. L. Koole, & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of experimental existential psychology (pp. 449–479). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399–419). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Sharp, E., Pelletier, L. G., Blanchard, C., & Séguin-Lévesque, C. (2003). The global motivation scale: Its validity and usefulness in predicting success and failure at self-regulation. In Poster session presented at the 4th Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
- Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar