Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Accounting for consistency and change in responses to influence attempts: An examination of preference for consistency

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The long-standing question of individual differences’ impact in influence research was addressed by examining the possibility that an individual’s level of Preference for Consistency (PFC) may account for some of the variability. Consistent with predictions, high and low PFC individuals did not differ in susceptibility to influence attempts when they did not hold an initial position on an issue. However, when an initial position was stated, high PFC individuals altered their position (from initial to final) significantly more than low PFC individuals, indicating that PFC may moderate the effects of influence. Discussion focuses on the salience of commitments made by participants as explanations for the pattern of results, and the implications of PFC for psychological research.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, V. L. (1965). Situational factors in conformity. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 133–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, E. (1968). Dissonance theory: Progress and problems. In R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire, T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg, & P. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook (pp. 5–27). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, E. (1969). The theory of cognitive dissonance: A current perspective. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70, whole number 416.

  • Bator, R. J., Guadagno, R., & Cialdini, R. B. (1996). Behavioral validation of the preference for consistency scale. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York.

  • Chaiken, S., & Yates, S. (1985). Affective-cognitive consistency and thought-induced attitude polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1470–1481.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., Trost, M. R., & Newsom, J. T. (1995). Preference for consistency: The development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioral implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 318–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council, J. R., Grant, D. L., Smith, E. J. H., & Matz, D. C. (1997). Preference for consistency and volunteer research participation. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago.

  • Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271–282.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, C. E. (1987). Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: Effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 306–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latané, B., & Bourgeois, M. J. (1996). Experimental evidence for dynamic social impact: The emergence of subcultures in electronic groups. Journal of Communication, 46, 35–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latané, B., & L'Herrou, T. (1996). Spatial clustering in the conformity game: Dynamic social impact in electronic groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1218–1230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, W. J. (1968). Personality and susceptibility to social influence. In E. F. Borgatta & W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 1130–1187). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, R. (1975). Affective-cognitive consistency, attitudes, conformity, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 83–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, M. J. (1960). A structural theory of attitude dynamics. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 319–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winer, B. J. (1962). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, W, & Stagner, B. (1994). Why are some people easier to influence than others? In S. Shavitt & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Augsburg College, USA

    David C. Matz

  2. North Dakota State University, USA

    Verlin B. Hinsz

Authors
  1. David C. Matz
    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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Matz, D.C., Hinsz, V.B. Accounting for consistency and change in responses to influence attempts: An examination of preference for consistency. Curr Psychol 22, 23–36 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-003-1010-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-003-1010-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation