This experiment resulted in various links in the chain of reasoning: (a) when a person's freedom is threatened, his motivational state will move toward restoration of the threatened freedom (b) the greater the implied threatened freedoms, the greater the tendency to restore the threatened freedom will be (c) the reestablishment of freedom may take the form of moving one's attitudinal position away from the position forced by others. Therefore, the people who had the impression that their preference was taken into account in the decision regarding which side they would support on the 1st issue showed attitude change in favor of the preferred position, while others who are concerned with their freedom lost move toward the intended position held by the communicator. He told college students to write an essay supporting one side of five issues and led some of them believe that their persuasive essays might influence the decision on those issues. They argued that when a person thinks that his freedom to support a position on attitude issue is eliminated, the psychological reactance will be aroused and then he consequently moves his attitudinal position in a way so as to restore the lost freedom. Sensenig & Brehm applied Brehm's reactance theory to explain the boomerang effect. In a follow up, Sensenig and Brehm focused on the boomerang effect in experiments and applied Brehm's psychological reactance theory to explain the unintended attitudinal change. However, they argued that in this experiment, the pressure to reduce dissonance increased more rapidly with increasing discrepancy than did the resistance against change, which verified Festinger's cognitive dissonance theory. There was also larger resistance to change the attitude when the initial attitude was more extreme. In Jack Brehm's experiment it shows how even at a young age we are greatly impacted by the boomerang effect and it can have positive or negative outcomes that come with it.
They thereby concluded that the greater was the individual's initial dislike, the greater was the pressure produced by the experiment to increase his liking. The results show that for kids who indicated little or no discrepancy between serving and actually eating the disliked vegetable at home, they should experience little or no dissonance in liking the vegetable from the low to the high consequence condition. Then liking the vegetable was measured before and after the procedure. About half of them were told that their parents would be informed on the vegetable they ate. He conducted an experiment to examine the behaviors of eighth graders eating a disliked vegetable. Jack Brehm first raised attention to the phenomenon a fait accompli that might conceivably create dissonance if an event has led to the opposite behavior predicted at a prior point. Jack Brehm and Arthur Cohen were among the first to provide theoretical explanations. Later in 1957, Hovland, Sherif and Harvey further discussed the necessity of understanding these unintended attitude changes in persuasion communication and suggested possible approaches for analysis via underlying motivational processes, psychophysical stimuli, as well as ego-involving verbal material. When the communicator's position is too far from the recipient's position and thus produces a "contrast" effect and thus enhances their original attitudes.When non-conformity to their own group results in feelings of guilt or social punishment.When the communication adds to the recipient's knowledge of the norms and increases their conformity.When the persuasion triggers aggression or unalleviated emotional arousal.When weak or unclear persuasion leads the recipient to believe the communicator is trying to convince them of a different position than what the communicator intends.When weak arguments are paired with a negative source.Hovland, Janis and Kelly first recorded and named the boomerang effect in 1953, noting that it is more likely under certain conditions: 1.3 Cognitive dissonance theory analysisĬonditions and explanations Early recognition.1.2 Psychological reactance theory analysis.
0 kommentar(er)
