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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Excluded participants (n = 217) reported similar levels of global motivation and self-consciousness as included participants (n = 382; see Table 1), and there were no differences in gender or first language composition across the two groups (α = .05).
Compared to participants who were included in analyses (n = 282; see Table 2), participants who were excluded from analyses (n = 57, M = 4.25, SD = 1.09) reported weaker pro-environmental attitudes, t(337) = −2.55, p = .01, 95 % CI [−.68, −.09], d = 0.28. There were no group differences on scores of global or contextual motivation, self-consciousness, or the relative frequency of counter-environmental actions, or in gender or first language composition (α = .05).
The intended scale was 0–21 to allow for frequencies of up to three times per day. However, due to a typo, the actual scale was 0–20. Because we computed a ratio score, we assumed the error had a negligible impact on the reliability of the scores.
Festinger (1957) did not explicitly theorize about the relationship between attitude importance and the incidence of spontaneous attitude-behaviour inconsistencies. However, previous research implies that strong attitudes characterized by high confidence (i.e., certainty) and a wide latitude of rejection (i.e., extremity) bolster attitude-behaviour consistency (Fazio and Zanna 1978). These two attitudinal dimensions are captured by the measure of pro-environmental attitude strength used in this study.
Compared to participants who were included in analyses (n = 202; see Table 3), those who were excluded from analyses (n = 57, M = 0.39, SD = 0.23) reported greater amotivation toward the environment, t(253) = 2.37, p = .02, 95 % CI [.01, .16], d = .30. There were no group differences on scores of autonomous or controlled motivation toward the environment or in gender or first language composition (α = .05).
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.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.
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.
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.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49, 14–23. doi:10.1037/0708-55220.127.116.11.
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:10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1682.
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.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson and Company.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus (Version 7) [Computer software]. Los Angeles, CA: Authors.
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:10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.124.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1990.
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.
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.
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.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
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.
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.
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Lavergne, K.J., Pelletier, L.G. Why are attitude–behaviour inconsistencies uncomfortable? Using motivational theories to explore individual differences in dissonance arousal and motivation to compensate. Motiv Emot 40, 842–861 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-016-9577-3
- Cognitive dissonance theory
- Action-based model of dissonance
- Self-determination theory
- Dissonance arousal
- Attitude–behaviour consistency