A Multilab Replication of the Induced-Compliance Paradigm of Cognitive Dissonance

David C. Vaidis, Willem W.A. Sleegers, Florian van Leeuwen, Kenneth G. DeMarree, Bjørn Sætrevik, Robert M. Ross, Kathleen Schmidt, John Protzko, Coby Morvinski, Omid Ghasemi, Andrew J. Roberts, Jeff Stone, Alexandre Bran, Amélie Gourdon-Kanhukamwe, Ceren Gunsoy, Lisa S. Moussaoui, Andrew R. Smith, Armelle Nugier, Marie Pierre Fayant, Ali H. Al-HoorieObed K. Appiah, Spencer Arbige, Benjamin Aubert-Teillaud, Olga Bialobrzeska, Stéphanie Bordel, Valerian Boudjemadi, Hilmar Brohmer, Quinn Cabooter, Mehdi Chahir, Ianis Chassang, Armand Chatard, Yu Yang Chou, Sungeun Chung, Mioara Cristea, Joséphine Daga, Gregory J. Depow, Olivier Desrichard, Dmitrii Dubrov, Thomas R. Evans, Séverine Falkowicz, Sylvain Ferreira, Tim Figureau, Valérie Fointiat, Théo Friedrich, Anastasia Gashkova, Fabien Girandola, Marine Granjon, Dmitry Grigoryev, Gul Gunaydin, Şevval Güzel, Mahsa Hazrati, Mai Helmy, Ayumi Ikeda, Michael Inzlicht, Sara Jaubert, Dauren Kasanov, Mohammad Mohsen Khoddami, Taenyun Kim, Kiyoshi Kiyokawa, Rabia I. Kodapanakkal, Alexandra Kosachenko, Kortney Maedge, John H. Mahaney, Marie Amélie Martinie, Vitor N. Mascheretti, Yoriko Matsuda, Maxime Mauduy, Nicolas Mauny, Armand Metzen, Eva Moreno-Bella, Miguel Moya, Kévin Nadarajah, Pegah Nejat, Elisabeth Norman, Irmak Olcaysoy Okten, Asil A. Özdoğru, Ceyda Ozer, Elena Padial-Rojas, Yuri G. Pavlov, Monica Perusquia-Hernandez, Dora Proost, Aleksandra Rabinovitch, Odile Rohmer, Emre Selcuk, Cécile Sénémeaud, Yaniv Shani, Elena A. Shmeleva, Emmelie Simoens, Kaitlin A. Smith, Alain Somat, Hayeon Song, Fatih Sonmez, Lionel Souchet, John J. Taylor, Ilja van Beest, Nicolas Van der Linden, Steven Verheyen, Bruno Verschuere, Kevin Vezirian, Luc Vieira, Sera Wiechert, Guillermo B. Willis, Robin Wollast, Ji Xia, Yuki Yamada, Naoto Yoshimura, Daniel Priolo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

According to cognitive-dissonance theory, performing counterattitudinal behavior produces a state of dissonance that people are motivated to resolve, usually by changing their attitude to be in line with their behavior. One of the most popular experimental paradigms used to produce such attitude change is the induced-compliance paradigm. Despite its popularity, the replication crisis in social psychology and other fields, as well as methodological limitations associated with the paradigm, raise concerns about the robustness of classic studies in this literature. We therefore conducted a multilab constructive replication of the induced-compliance paradigm based on Croyle and Cooper (Experiment 1). In a total of 39 labs from 19 countries and 14 languages, participants (N = 4,898) were assigned to one of three conditions: writing a counterattitudinal essay under high choice, writing a counterattitudinal essay under low choice, or writing a neutral essay under high choice. The primary analyses failed to support the core hypothesis: No significant difference in attitude was observed after writing a counterattitudinal essay under high choice compared with low choice. However, we did observe a significant difference in attitude after writing a counterattitudinal essay compared with writing a neutral essay. Secondary analyses revealed the pattern of results to be robust to data exclusions, lab variability, and attitude assessment. Additional exploratory analyses were conducted to test predictions from cognitive-dissonance theory. Overall, the results call into question whether the induced-compliance paradigm provides robust evidence for cognitive dissonance.

Original languageEnglish
JournalAdvances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
Volume7
Issue number1
Early online date5 Feb 2024
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2024
Externally publishedYes

Cite this