CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 728Social and Intergroup PsychologyPsychology of Social InfluencePsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Preference for consistency: The development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioral implications.

Cialdini, Robert B., Trost, Melanie R., Newsom, Jason T.·1995·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.318
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A measure of preference for consistency (the PFC Scale) was developed. In three construct validation experiments, scores on the PFC successfully predicted individuals who would and would not be susceptible to a set of standard consistency-based effects: cognitive balance, foot in the door, and dissonance. The pattern of results in each of the experiments suggested the type of consistency that the PFC measures: a tendency to base one's responses to incoming stimuli on the implications of existing (prior entry) variables, such as previous expectancies, commitments, and choices. A surprisingly large percentage (at least half) of our participants showed no strong inherent preference for consistency—a finding that may explain the frequent failure to detect or replicate (a) traditional consistency effects and (b) a wide variety of other experimental phenomena. It is quite remarkable how many of the great, early theorists of social psychology developed or played an important role in developing consistency theories of human motivation (Brehm& Cohen, 1962;Festinger, 1957;Heider, 1946, 1958; McGuire, 1960; Newcomb, 1953; Osgood & Tannenbaum, 1955; Rokeach, 1960; Rosenberg & Abelson, 1960; Zajonc, 1960). It seems equally remarkable, then, that despite the counsel of so respected an array of minds and despite a decade-long cornucopia of supportive work (from the late 1950s to the late 1960s), consistency-based explanations are rarely invoked in present-day social psychological accounts of human functioning (Aronson, 1992; Berkowitz & Devine, 1989), even though several of the faithful have continued through the years to try to draw attention to the applicability of consistency motives to a wide array of behavior (Aronson, 1992; Cialdini & DeNicholas, 1989; McGuire, 1990; Wicklund & Brehm, 1976;Insko, 1984). To what are we to attribute this rather dramatic shift by social psychologists away from the explanatory utility of the consistency principle—that people are motivated toward cognitive consistency and will change their beliefs, attitudes, perceptions, and actions to achieve it? On a general level, one could point to the often decried trendiness of scientific investigation and to the reward structure of the scientific enterprise, which make well-researched issues less

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.318

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 728

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Cialdini, R. B., Trost, M. R., & Newsom, J. T.
Affiliations
Arizona State University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1995-08
Volume
69
Issue
2
Pages
318-328
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
DOI
10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.318
OpenAlex
W2169455100
Cited by
728
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 48 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 22
FWCI
23.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychology of Social Influence
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
preference for consistency, cognitive consistency, cognitive balance, foot-in-the-door effect, cognitive dissonance, replication failure, construct validity, prior expectations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review