To cooperate or to look good?: The subjects' and experimenters' perceptions of each others' intentions

Abstract The crucial Decreased-Output condition, upon which Sigall, Aronson and Van Hoose (1970) based their conclusion that subjects were motivated by evaluation apprehension (looking good) rather than by cooperation, was reexamined. The explicitness of the hypothesis that was given to the subjects and whether or not the lowered illumination was pointed out were varied in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Seventy-two subjects were equally distributed among the four treatment groups. The results indicated that subjects tended to confirm the hypothesis they perceived as correct. When the hypothesis was stated in the manner employed by Sigall et al. subjects felt that it was less obvious, tended to perceive it as opposite to that intended by the experimenter, and thus generally showed hypothesis-disconfirming behavior. By making the hypothesis more explicit it was more clearly and accurately perceived and thus led to greater hypothesis-confirming behavior. Although it was also proposed that pointing out the lowered illumination to certain subjects would communicate a hypothesis of increase by challenging them to excel, this prediction was not supported. It was concluded that the disconfirming response of the subject given the implicit hypothesis, rather than reflecting his desire to look good may merely have indicated the direction of the hypothesis as perceived by the subject. An inquiry regarding subjects' intentions in the experiment suggested that the motives underlying their behavior were confounded and diverse and that it was not possible to specify whether they were motivated by cooperation or evaluation apprehension. Alternative interpretations of the data were considered and suggestions for further research presented.