Advertisement

Motivation and Emotion

, Volume 40, Issue 6, pp 842–861 | Cite as

Why are attitude–behaviour inconsistencies uncomfortable? Using motivational theories to explore individual differences in dissonance arousal and motivation to compensate

  • Karine J. LavergneEmail author
  • Luc G. Pelletier
Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Cognitive dissonance theory Action-based model of dissonance Self-determination theory Dissonance arousal Attitude–behaviour consistency 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

Ethical standards

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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

11031_2016_9577_MOESM1_ESM.docx (18 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 17 kb)
11031_2016_9577_MOESM2_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 14 kb)

References

  1. Brannon, L. A., Tagler, M. J., & Eagly, A. H. (2007). The moderating role of attitude strength in selective exposure to information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 611–617. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109–134. doi: 10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49, 14–23. doi: 10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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, 382–394. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1978). Attitudinal qualities relating to the strength of the attitude–behavior relationship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 398–408. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(78)90035-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson and Company.Google Scholar
  9. Glasman, L. R., & Albarracín, D. (2006). Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: A meta-analysis of the attitude–behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 778–822. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.778.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Harmon-Jones, E., Amodio, D. M., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2009). Action-based model of dissonance: A review, integration, and expansion of conceptions of cognitive conflict. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 119–166. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00403-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hodgins, H. S. (2008). Motivation, threshold for threat, and quieting the ego. In H. A. Wayment & J. J. Bauer (Eds.), Transcending self-interest: Psychological explorations of the quiet ego (pp. 117–124). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Hodgins, H. S., Yacko, H. A., & Gottlieb, E. (2006). Autonomy and nondefensiveness. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 283–293. doi: 10.1007/s11031-006-9036-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koestner, R., Bernieri, F., & Zuckerman, M. (1992). Self-regulation and consistency between attitudes, traits, and behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 52–59. doi: 10.1177/0146167292181008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental education research, 8(3), 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lavergne, K. J., & Pelletier, L. G. (2015). Predicting individual differences in the choice of strategy to compensate for attitude–behaviour inconsistencies in the environmental domain. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 44, 135–148. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus (Version 7) [Computer software]. Los Angeles, CA: Authors.Google Scholar
  23. Newby-Clark, I. R., McGregor, I., & Zanna, M. P. (2002). Thinking and caring about cognitive inconsistency: When and for whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel uncomfortable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 157–166. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.2.157.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Pelletier, L. G., & Dion, S. C. (2007). An examination of general and specific motivational mechanisms for the relations between body dissatisfaction and eating behaviors. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 303–333. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2007.26.3.303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pelletier, L. G., Green-Demers, I., & Béland, A. (1997). Why do people adopt certain environmental behaviors? French validation of the Motivation Towards the Environment Scale. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 29, 145–156. doi: 10.1037/0008-400X.29.3.145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pelletier, L. G., Tuson, K. M., Green-Demers, I., Noels, K., & Beaton, A. M. (1998). Why are you doing things for the environment? The Motivation Toward the Environment Scale (MTES). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 437–468. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01714.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pelletier, L. G., & Vallerand, R. J. (1990). The Revised Self-Consciousness Scale: A translation and a French–Canadian validation of the Revised Self-Consciousness Scale. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 22, 191–206. doi: 10.1037/h0078983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference Chi square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514. doi: 10.1007/BF02296192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1980). Private and public self-attention, resistance to change, and dissonance reduction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 390–405. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). The Self-Consciousness Scale: A revised version for use with general populations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 687–699. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1985.tb02268.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schlomer, G. L., Bauman, S., & Card, N. A. (2010). Best practices for missing data management in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 1–10. doi: 10.1037/a0018082.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  36. Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 271–360. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60019-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations