Impression management in the forced compliance situation: Two studies using the bogus pipeline

Abstract Two studies were performed to assess the interpersonal concerns of subjects in the forced compliance paradigm. The first study counterposed dissonance and impression management theory predictions in a 2 × 2 design by varying the public versus private nature of the counterattitudinal behavior and by assessing attitudes with the usual pencil-and-paper method or with a bogus pipeline technique designed to create strong pressures toward sincere reporting. Attitude change occurred only in the Public/Pencil-and-Paper condition and thus supported an interpersonal or impression management interpretation. The second study examined the effect of measuring the critical attitude a second time in the mode not experienced in the first assessment. This three-group design (Pencil-and-Paper/Bogus Pipeline, Bogus Pipeline/Pencil-and-Paper, Control) demonstrated that attitude change occurred only in the Pencil-and-Paper/Bogus Pipeline condition and was maintained on the second assessment when measured by the bogus pipeline. A common-factor analysis of the secondary measures in the second study demonstrated that the Pencil-and-Paper/Bogus Pipeline subjects reported a great deal of negative arousal such as embarrassment and guilt, while the subjects in the Bogus Pipeline/Pencil-and-Paper condition reported feeling manipulated and constrained. The findings of both studies were interpreted as consistent with impression management theory.

[1]  J. Tedeschi,et al.  Public versus private reactions to positive inequity. , 1976 .

[2]  Harold Sigall,et al.  Current Stereotypes: A Little Fading, a Little Faking. , 1971 .

[3]  D. Byrne,et al.  Clogs in the bogus pipeline: Demand characteristics and social desirability , 1976 .

[4]  J. Cooper,et al.  When dissonance is reduced: The timing of self-justificatory attitude change. , 1975 .

[5]  R. Helmreich,et al.  Studies in forced compliance: commitment and magnitude of inducement to comply as determinants of opinion change. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[6]  Robert B. Cialdini,et al.  Attitudinal politics: The strategy of moderation. , 1973 .

[7]  J Cooper,et al.  Dissonance and the pill: an attribution approach to studying the arousal properties of dissonance. , 1974, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  B. Collins,et al.  Personal responsibility-for-consequences: An integration and extension of the “forced compliance” literature , 1972 .

[9]  B. Collins,et al.  Studies in forced compliance: Confluence of choice and consequence on attitude change. , 1972 .

[10]  Thomas V. Bonoma,et al.  Cognitive dissonance: Private ratiocination or public spectacle? , 1971 .

[11]  R. Page,et al.  Attitude similarity and attraction: The effects of the bogus pipeline , 1975 .

[12]  A. Greenwald.  On the inconclusiveness of “crucial” cognitive tests of dissonance versus self-perception theories , 1975 .

[13]  F. Hornbeck.  Studies in Forced Compliance: IX. The Effects of Deception, Commitment, and Incentive on Attitude Change Produced by the Writing of a Counterattitudinal Essay , 1971 .

[14]  B. R. Schlenker,et al.  Attitude change and responsibility avoidance as modes of dilemma resolution in forced-compliance situations. , 1977 .

[15]  Thomas Ostrom.  The bogus pipeline: A new ignis fatuus? , 1973 .

[16]  R. Ashmore,et al.  Studies in Forced Compliance: X. Attitude Change and Commitment to Maintain Publicly a Counterattitudinal Position , 1968, Psychological reports.

[17]  J. Tedeschi,et al.  Unclogging the bogus pipeline: A critical reanalysis of the Cherry, Byrne, and Mitchell study , 1978 .

[18]  L. Festinger,et al.  A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance , 2017 .

[19]  R. Mann,et al.  Anticipatory belief change: Persuasion or impression management? , 1976 .

[20]  D. Bem.  Self-Perception Theory , 1972 .

[21]  Harold Sigall,et al.  The bogus pipeline: A new paradigm for measuring affect and attitude. , 1971 .