Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 370

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Decision freedom as a determinant of the role of incentive magnitude in attitude change.

Linder, Darwyn E., Cooper, Joel, Jones, Edward E.·1967·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

In the forced-compliance paradigm, attitude change following a counterattitudinal performance has been shown to be both a direct (reinforcement prediction) and an inverse (dissonance prediction) function of the amount of incentive offered. An experiment successfully demonstrated that if S feels free not to comply attitude change will be inversely related to incentive magnitude, but that the positive relationship will hold if this freedom is reduced. It was hypothesized that the procedure of an earlier study by Rosenberg, whose results supported the reinforcement prediction, inadvertently reduced Ss' freedom not to comply. When this procedure was closely replicated in a 2nd experiment, the positive relationship was again found, but when the procedure was modified to make a decision not to comply a viable alternative for S, the inverse relationship resulted. The 2 experiments together show that a low incentive arouses dissonance, leading to attitude change, only when the person remains free to decide against compliance after he has been fully informed about the incentive. If the incentive is announced after the person Is committed to compliance, a reinforcement effect obtains. If a person can be induced to behave publicly in a manner that does not follow from his private attitudes, he will experience cognitive dissonance. The magnitude of dissonance will be greater when there are few reasons for complying than when there are many reasons (Festinger, 19S7). This dissonance may be reduced by an accommodating change in private attitude if other ways of reducing dissonance are not available. Thus a person who has been induced to behave in a counterattitudinal fashion will change his private attitude more the less he has been rewarded for complying. Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) found support for this proposition in a study in which subjects were persuaded (for $1 or $20) to extol the attractiveness of a dull and tedious task for the benefit of the next subject. Also, Cohen (1962) found that Yale students who were induced to write essays in favor of the New Haven police later showed more positive attitudes the smaller the incentive they had been offered to write the essay. Rosenberg (196S) has recently questioned the generality of this proposed relationship and has suggested that subjects in the

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/h0021220

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Linder, D. E., Cooper, J., & Jones, E. E.
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
1967-07
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
245-254
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2121077653
Cited by
370
References
1
FWCI
82.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.