Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stroebe, W.
Right arrow Articles by Diehl, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Stroebe, W.
Right arrow Articles by Diehl, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 14, No. 1, 136-144 (1988)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167288141014

When Social Support Fails

Supporter Characteristics in Compliance-Induced Attitude Change

Wolfgang Stroebe

University of Tubingen

Michael Diehl

University of Tubingen

An extension of the motivational assumptions of the heuristic model and the elaboration likelihood model of attitude change to counter attitudinal advocacy was tested. In a series of studies on the role of social support in attitude change following counter attitudinal advocacy, Stroebe and Diehl (1981) demonstrated that social support reduced attitude change only under conditions favorable to the arousal of dissonance. Under low choice or minimal consequences, social support was associated with an increase in attitude change. The present article suggests an interpretation of these findings in terms of motivational influences on levels of processing: Subjects engage in the cognitive effort of self-justification only when motivated to do so because of responsibility for a negative act. In the absence of such responsibility, subjects use the behavior of others (i.e., social support) merely as a cue for their opinion judgment. This was tested in an experiment that manipulated attitude similarity between subject and confederate in addition to social support and severity of consequences. A three-factor interaction on attitude change was obtained that was consistent with the differential processing hypothesis. Whereas under severe consequences attitude change was in line with dissonance predictions, a pattern of change consistent with balance theory was observed under minimal consequences. Implications of these findings for dissonance and conformity research are discussed.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?