The Midpoint as an Anchor: Another Look at Discrepancy of Position and Attitude Change.

Both Festinger's (1957) dissonance theory and Sherif and Hovland's (1961) social judgment theory predict a curvilinear relationship between discrepancy of position and attitude change under some circumstances. Mixed results in the literature seem to be due to variations in the range of discrepancy tested, confounds of initial position and discrepancy and confounds between side of issue and discrepancy. Studies vary with regard to the presence or absence of a psychological midpoint, a position which separates the judgments into two basic orientations. Assuming that the midpoint operates as an anchor, much as the subject's own position, it was hypothesized the subjects would use the anchor of the scale midpoint as well as the anchor of their own position in judging the position of the communicator and in responding to it. It was predicted that the motivational consideration of same side vs. opposite side of the issue would be particularly operative when the discrepancies were large-namely, when the communicator's position was far from an anchor. Thus, at small discrepancies, subjects should respond with approximately equal attitude change regardless of the side of the issue. At large discrepancies, subjects should be more likely to respond with attitude change when the communication is on the same side of the issue than when the communication is on the opposite side of the issue. These predictions were supported.