PSYCHOLOG ICAL CONSISTENCYWe now turn our attention to another important aspect of attitudes and persuasion: ps) -

chological consistency. People like to be consistent. They like to avoid the appearance o:

being inconsistent. These simple principles form the basis Íbr a whole host of theories.

variously known as "attitude change" or "cognitive consistency" theories (Festin-eer.

1957; Heider, 1958; Newcomb, 1953; Osgood & Tannenbaum, 1955). Consistency nasoriginally conceived of as a "drive-reduction" theory. More current thinking suggests tha:

consistency is also socially motivated, and is as much an attempt to manage face and pro-;-

ect a favorable self-image as it is an internal drive (Greenwald & Ronis, 1978; Matz &Wood, 2005; Scher & Cooper, 1989). Individuals, therefore, differ in their need for con-

sistency and their tolerance for inconsistency. Recent research demonstrates that therrmay be a cultural component involved as well (Cialdini, Wosinska, Barrett, Butner. &Gornik-Durose, 1999; Kitayama, Snibbe, Markus, & Suzuki, 2004). Although the indi-vidual theories differ somewhat in their approaches, we've integrated the tenets of set'ete-

theories here in order to present a more coherent perspective. Though this principle rs

Íairly basic, the recognition that most people strive to remain consistent in their thoughl=.

words, and deeds reveals a good deal about processes of social influence.

The lnner Peace of ConsistencyWhen harmony exists among our attitudes. beliefs, values, and behavior, life is duckrWhen there are inconsistencies in what we think, say, or do, however, we tend to exper:-

ence psychological discomfort. A classic example is that, for smokers, the knowledge th::they smoke and that smoking causes cancer is psychologically uncomfortable. Anothe,example involves children whose parents are undergoing a divorce or separation. Th.children often experience psychological conflict because they can't understand why ni -people, whom they love, don't want to remain married.

55Attitudes and Consistency

The amount of psychological discomfort that results from holding incompatible atti-

tudes is not the same in all situations. The degree of discomfort depends on the centrality

of the attitudes involved. If the issue is relatively minor (for example, a person prefers plas-

tic grocery bags but knows paper bags are better for the environment), the amount of psy-

chological discomfort will be small. If the issue is major, as when attitudes involve core

beliefs or values, then the psychological consequences can be enormous (for example, the

mother of a teenage girl is fervently pro-life but learns that her daughter hasjust obtained

an abortion).To understand the nature and effects of psychological consistency, attitude theorists

have developed a means of graphically depicting compatible and incompatible attitude

states. For example, suppose that Muffin thinks of herself as a firm believer in animal

rights. However, while out shopping, she Íinds a leather jacket that looks "totally cool."

Her attitudes toward animal rights and owning the jacket are in conflict. Her psychological

dilemma is depicted in Figure 3.4.

According to consistency theory, Muffin will experience psychological stress no

matter what decision she makes. If she buys the jacket she'll sacrifice her principles; if she

doesn't buy the jacket she'll forgo an opportunity to look cool. Muffin's case is not unique.

Favorable l-Attitude I

Perceivedlncompatibility

FavorableAttitude

FIGURE 3.4 MufÍin's Dilemma: An lllustration of Consistency Theory.

56 CHAPTER 3

We are all confronted with dilemmas involving our attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors on a

daily basis. Because psychological inconsistency is unpleasant we are motivated to avoid

it, deny it, reduce it, or eliminate it when it occurs.

Methods of Maintaining ConsistencyHow do people go about reconciling incompatible attitudes when they occur? People don't

necessarily preserve or restore psychological consistency in logical ways. They do so in

psycho-logical ways, that is, ways they find psychologically satisfying or comfortable but

that may of may not be strictly logical. Using the example of MulÏn, scholars suggest a

number of possible routes for resolving inconsistency:

1. Denial: Denying or ignoring any inconsistency. "I really don't like that jacket

after all" or "I don't really need a jacket now."

2. Bolstering: Rationalizing or making excuses. "That cow is already dead, so

what difference can it make?" or "sooner or later someone will come along and buy that

jacket anyway."

3. Differentiation: Separating or distinguishing the attitudes that are in conflict."The jacket is cowhide. Cows aren't an endangered species. It's not as if I'm buying a

jacket made from a baby harp seal or a spotted owl."

4. Tianscendence: Focusing on a larger or higher level. "No one is perfect. We all

give in to temptation every once in a while."

5. Modifying one or both attitudes: Altering the attitudes themselves to become

more consistent. "I need to be more practical and keep my concern for animals' rights in

perspective."

6. Communicating: Trying to convince others to change or convince others one

did the right thing. "I'll just have to convince my friends that I'm not a hypocrite when they

see me in my new jacket."

Of course, these are only some of the ways people go about reducing cognitive dis-

sonance. In trying to gauge which approach a person will use, a good rule of thumb is that

a person tends to reduce dissonance in the most efficient way possible. That is, he or she

tends to follow the path of least resistance in finding a way to restore consistency.

Changing an inconsequential attitude to restore consistency, for example, is much more

likely than changing a core attitude.

Marketing Strategies: How to Have Your Cake and Eat lt Too!

Now that you understand the basic nature of consistency theories, let's look at how neatly

consistency theories apply to persuasion. Imagine that you are at the supermarket. You

have a craving for ice cream, but you're on a diet. No problem! You can buy a "low carb"

brand with reduced Íàt and f'ewer calories. In fact, thanks to modern technology you can

choose from a veritable array offrozen desserts including ice milk, frozen yogurt, diabetic

ice cream, fruit sorbet, or a non-fat, non-dairy product. Think how many other products at

the grocery store rely on the principle of "having your cake and eating it too." There are

"light," "fát free," "choleiterol free," "high fiber," "low sodium," "calcium enriched," and

"natural" food products on every shelf. The marketing strategy behind such products is to

allow consumers to make food purchases that are consistent with their beliefs regarding

health and nutrition.

Brand Loyalty: Accept No SubstituteThe concept of brand loyatty offers another useful illustration of psychological consis-

tency. Advertisers want us to experience psychological discomforl if we change brands' By

instilling brand loyalty in us, advertisers hope to discourage product switching. We are

trained by Madison Avenue to remain faithful to one motor oil, be true to one long-distance

provider, stay devoted to one pain reliever, or cherish a particular make of car' Consider the

following slogans:

"Don't leave home without it." (American Express)

"Like nothing else." (Hummer)"Only in a Jeep." (JeeP)

"When you care enough to send the very best." (Hallmark cards)

58 CHAPTER 3

All of these slogans are designed to fbster brand loyalty on the part of the consumer andfeelings ofpsychological inconsistency ifconsumers betray their usual brands.

Write and Tell Us Why You Love This Book in 24 Words or LessYet another means ofreinforcing brand loyalty is through active participation on the part ofthe consumer. Viewers can text in their vote on American ldol. Sometimes a prize isoffered for calling a radio station or writing an essay about a product. Win or lose, the mereact of calling, writing, or texting is bound to increase one's allegiance. Active participationincreases commitment.

Brand loyalty can also be encouraged through merchandising. People who wearbranded clothing (an L.A. Lakers jersey, a Porsche sport cap, a Fender guitar T-shirt)are paying for the right to serve as walking billboards-and engaging in self-persuasionto boot.

An example of how consumers succumb to merchandising pressure involves one ofthis book's ever-gullible authors. He liked the Indian maiden logo on Land O'Lakes butter.So when he learned he could order two Land o' Lakes mugs for only $7.95, plus threeproof-of-purchase seals from any Land O' Lakes product, he couldn't resist. He switchedfrom margarine to butter. He bought only Land O' Lakes butter for the next three months(the amount of time it took to accumulate three proof-of-purchase seals). When he foundhe'd lost one of the proof'-of-purchase seals he was despondent. Did he give up? of coursenot. He went out and bought another package of Land O'Lakes butter he didn't even need,just to complete the trio of proof-of-purchase seals! The author is now the proud owner of

Attitudes and Consistency

a pair of Land O' Lakes mugs, complete with Indian maiden logo, but let's examine whatcan be learned from this lesson:

The merchandising offer got the author actively involved in the process ofreinforcinghis own brand loyalty. Because the mugs themselves cost little to manufacture, theauthor was paying Land O' Lakes for the privilege of becoming a loyal consumer.

The merchandising offer secured the author's brand loyalty for a period of 3 to 4months. Although the author has subsequently switched back to margarine, he stillbuys the Land O'Lakes brand whenever he purchases butter (after all, he has themugs to remind him where his loyalty lies).The author bought and used far more butter than he otherwise would have withoutthe mug offer. In fact, as he was closing in on that elusive third proof-of-purchaseseal, he was searching high and low for ways to use butter!

Admittedly, the author got a little carried away, but that's the beauty of brand loyalty. We

don't necessarily think or act rationally when our allegiance to a particular brand takes over.

Marketing I nconsistencyOf course, other adveÍising campaigns,typically those for newer products or products witha smaller market share, use just the opposite strategy. These ads encourage us to switchbrands. They realize consumers can be set in their ways. These advertisers try to createpsychological imbalance. They want us to have second thoughts about the products and

services on which we've been relying unquestioningly year after year. Consider the follow-ing advertising slogans:

"Think different." (Macintosh computers)"Think outside the bun." (Taco Bell)"It's waaay better than fast food" (Wendy's)"I could have had aV8!" (V8 vegetable juice)

Such slogans are based on the recognition that consumers can be set in their ways and seek

to overcome this inertia by encouraging brand switching. Many other types of advertisingcampaigns are based on creating a state ofpsychological inconsistency.

Capitalizing on lnconsistencyThe use of consistency theory isn't only for advertisers, marketers, and other "profes-sional" persuaders. You, too, can incorporate the principles of consistency theory in yourown persuasive messages. One way you can accomplish this is to align your message withyour audience's frame of reference. It is much easier to tailor a suit to fit a person than it isto change a person's figure to fit a suit. Similarly, successful persuasion isn't so much a

matter of shifting receivers' attitudes over to your position as it is a matter of adapting yourmessage to the attitudes of your audience. A child who suggests to her mother, "Let's playhooky and go to the Zoo today. Zoos are very educational ! " is adapting her message to the

59

60 CHAPTER 3

mother's value system. Such adaptation is key to persuasion, which is why we discuss thisstrategy in more detail in Chapter 5.

Another way you can apply principles of consistency theory is to highlight potentialinconsistencies in receivers' attitudes. If you can demonstrate that some of the attitudesheld by your receivers are incompatible, you may motivate them to change their attitudesin the direction you are advocating. Be cautious, however, when employing this strategy. Ifyou attempt to drive too big a psychological wedge between your receivers' attitudes, theymay simply change their attitudes and come to dislike you.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE THEORYIn January, 20O1, Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy for the presidency of theUnited States. At the time, most media pundits considered her a shoe-in for her party'snomination. Flash forward to June 2008, when she conceded to Barack Obama after a bit-ter primary battle. Many Clinton loyalists could not accept her defeat. They blamed thesexist media. They fumed about shenanigans in counting delegates. They were, accordingto some commentators, "sore losers" (Merida, 2008).

One might think that once Obama had clinched the nomination, Hillary supporterswould have fallen in line behind their party's nominee. Not so. Many Clinton loyalistswere so committed to her candidacy that they ignored her own calls for party unity. Thename the die-hards gave themselves was "PUMAS," an acronym for "party unity, my ass."

Some vowed to keep campaigning. Others declared they would sit out the election. Someannounced they would cast their votes for John McCain. Why were Clinton's supporters so

begrudging? We think cognitive dissonance theory does a good job of explaining why(Cooper,2007; Festinger, 1957,1964; Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959; Festinger &Carlsmith, 2007; Harmon-Jones & Harmon-Jones, 2008; Mills, 1999).

Originated by Leon Festinger (1951), cognitive dissonance theory (CDT) focuseson decisions people make or behaviors in which they engage and how they rationalizethose decisions and behaviors. The basic idea is that after making a decision or perform-ing a behavior, a person worries about whether she or he made the right decision or didthe right thing. The person is therefore motivated to reduce the resulting dissonance. Forthis reason, CDT is often referred to as a "post-decision theory." According to the theory,Clinton supporters backed a losing candidate, so they were motivated to reduce theirangst. What is intriguing is how they went about doing this: They didn't give in nicely, butthrew a political tantrum.

CDT is quite useful. It has been used to explain willingness to exercise(Chatzisarantis, Hagger, & Wang, 2008), the timing of marriage decisions (Balestrino &Ciardi, 2008), willingness to eat fried grasshoppers (Zimbardo, Weisenberg, Firestone, &Levy, 1965), and high-altitude climbers' rationalizations for turning back (Burke,Sparkes, & Allen-Collinson, 2008).

Cognitive Dissonance and Buyer's RemorseThe theory of cognitive dissonance is closely connected to the phenomenon known as

buyer's remorse. Imagine that a consumer shelled out a lot of money for a big-screen

plasma TV, only to find out a few weeks later that a newer, better model was available forless money. To assuage their lingering doubts, buyers engage in dissonance-reduction strate-

gies. One method, known as selective exposure,involves seeking out consonant informationand avoiding dissonant information. The TV buyer might reread ads and articles recom-mending the brand he or she purchased and avoid ads and articles Íbr other brands.

Cognitive dissonance isn't an all-or-nothing phenomenon. It occurs in varying degrees. The

amount ofdissonance one experiences is known asthe magnitude ofdissonance. Spending

$8,000 on a plasma TV that wasn't very reliable would produce more dissonance than

spending $8 on a movie that wasn't very good.

Polarization of AlternativesWhen a person has to make a tough decision, he or she tends to polarize the attractivenessof the alternatives once the decision is made. Suppose Lola has to decide between an

iPhone and a Blackberry. It is a close call: Each model has its pros and cons. Once Lolamakes her choice she will tend to disparage the unchosen brand and value the chosen brand

even more. What was formerly a tough choice becomes a "no brainer." The tendency tospread the alternatives is a form of self-justification (Tavris & Aronson, 2007).It is easier

to see choices in terms of "black and white," rather than shades of gray. This explains whyvoters who were initially torn between Clinton and Obama might adore one and disdain the

other, once they cast their ballot in a primary election.

62 CHAPÏER 3

Cognitive Dissonance, Self-lmage, and CultureCognitive dissonance can be largely internal in nature, such as when a person is confrontedwith a moral dilemma. Dissonance can also arise when one's self-image is inconsistent withone's beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors. For instance, a person who thinks of himself or herselfas unprejudiced but who laughs at a racist, sexist, or homophobic joke might experience

cognitive dissonance. There is a cultural component to dissonance as well. For Americans

and others Íiom individualistic cultures, dissonance tends to be more internally motivated,

while for Asians and others from more collectivistic cultures, dissonance tends to be more

socially motivated (Hoshino-Browne, Zanna, Spencer, Zanna, Kitayama, & Lackenbauer,

2005; Kitayama et al., 2004). While some studies suggest that Asians have a greater toler-ance for inconsistency (Aaker & Sengupta, 2000; Nisbett, 2003), others suggest just the

opposite (Xie, Jang, & Cai,2O07). There is also evidence that dissonance is a culturally uni-versal phenomenon (Egan, Santos, & Bloom, 2007).

Factors That Affect the Magnitude of DissonanceFour paradigms that moderate cognitive dissonance have been studied by researchers(Beauvois & Joule, 1999; Harmon-Jones & Mills, 1999). One of these, known as the freechoice paradlgm, states that the more Íiee choice one has in making a decision, the more

dissonance one will suffer. Cooper (2007) emphasizes that dissonance occurs only if the neg-

ative outcome of a freely chosen decision was foreseeable at the time the person made his orher choice. Otherwise the person can say "How was I to know?" A second paradigm, knownas belieÍ'disconfirmation, argues that dissonance is aroused when a person encounters infor-mation contrary to his or her beliefs. A person will tend to engage in selective exposure ordistort inÍbrmation that contradicts his or her belief system. A third paradigm for dissonance

research is called induced compliance.When a person is forced to do something, little disso-

nance is aroused because the person can rationalize the action by saying "l had no choice."

The fburth paradigm, called the eJJbrt justification paradigm, centers on the amount of effortor sacrifice required: the greater the effoft, the greater the dissonance.

Dissonance and Persuasion: Putting lt All TogetherPersuasive messages can be tailored to either increase or decrease dissonance in receivers.

A persuader might want to arouse dissonance in a target audience to get them to rethinktheir position on an issue. Or', conversely, a persuader might seek to allay an audience's

doubts by reassuring them that their decision or action was justiÍied. In this case, the per-

suader would want to convince receivers that they did the right thing and they had no other

realistic alternative. Recent research shows that attitude change brought about by CDT can

have lasting eÍïects (Sénémeaud & Somat, 2009).

FORBIDDEN FRUIT: PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE

ln 2003, Barbra Streisand filed a lawsuit against a photographer Íbr taking aerial photos

along California's coastline, including her Malibu home, and posting them on the Web.

Prior to the lawsuit, Í'ew people had bothered to look at the photos. After the publicitysurrounding the lawsuit, however, people flocked to the Website in droves (Arthur,

Attitudes and Consistency

2009). Half a million viewers logged on to see what the fuss was about. A judge subse-

quently dismissed the suit. Similarly, when the MPAA filed a lawsuit against The PirateBay for facilitating illegal downloading of movies, the Website became more popularthan ever (Sullivan, 2009). Attempts to muzzle information on the Web often backfire, aphenomenon Mike Masnick termed "the Streisand effect" (2005).

When people believe that their freedom is being threatened, they tend to rebel. Tell a

little kid not to play with a particular toy and the kid won't be able to keep his grubby littlehands off it. Tell your teenage daughter that you disapprove of her new boyfriend and

she'll like him even more. The tendency to react defensively to perceived encroachments

on our freedom is calledpsychological reactance (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981).

You may also know of it as "reverse psychology."Psychological reactance can help or hinder persuasion. Suppose a mother wants to

get her picky 3-year-old to eat her broccoli. The mother could use a controlling message

such as, "You are going to sit there until you finish your broccoli." This approach mightbackfire, however, if the daughter is willing to sit and pout fbr an hour. Instead, the mothercould use psychological reactance to her advantage by saying, "Mabel, there is no way youcan eat that broccoli in less than a minute. No way." Now the daughter may want to proveshe's up to the challenge.

A wealth of studies on littering behavior reveal that a negative or punitive message ("Nolittering!" or "Don't you dare litter.") actually increases littering compared to a polite message

("Please pitch in.") (Hansmann & Sholz, 2003; Horsley, 1988; Huffman, Grossnickle, Cope, &Huffman, 1995). Stated simply, asking is a more effective strategy than ordering. Psychological

reactance also has been examined on a variety ofother topics, including alcohol consumption(Dillard & Shen,2005), condom use (Quick & Stephenson,200l), drug use (Burgoon et al.,

2002), promotional health messages (Miller, Lane, Deatrick, Young, & Potts, 2007), and smok-

ing (Miller, Burgoon, Grandpre, & Alvaro, 2fi)6). The tendency to react negatively to perceived

threats varies from person to person. These individual differences can be measured with the

Psychologicctl Reactance Scale (Hong, 1992;Hong& Faedda, 1996).

To avoid a boomerang effect, a persuader should be cautious about using controllinglanguage. A politician who says "You must vote for this proposition. It is the only way" ispractically daring voters to reject the measure. To use psychological reactance to his or her

advantage, a persuader should acknowledge listeners'personal autonomy. A politician whosays "I personally favor this measure, but you are free to vote anyway you want on it" is less

likely to invoke resistance. A persuader also can use psychological reactance against an

opponent. For example, a candidate might argue "My opponent wants to limit your health

care options, but I want you to be able to choose your own health care provider." We retum to

the subject of psychological reactance in Chapter 8 when we discuss the scarciry principle.

CO U NTE RATTITU D I NAL ADVOCACY:PLAYING DEVITS ADVOCATEAn even better approach to changing another's attitudes is to get the person to persuade

himself or herself. This can be accomplished by having the person engage in what is calledcounterattitudinal advocacy (CAA). CAA involves having a person create and present(orally or in writing) a message that is at odds with his or her existing attitudes, for example,

63

64 CHAPTER 3

claiming you favor capital punishment when, in fact, you oppose it. Research demonstrates

that after engaging in CAA, the person's attitudes will tend to shift in the direction of the

position advocated (Festinger, 1957; Kelman, 1953; Preiss & Allen, 1998; Sénémeaud &Somat, 2009). Mind you, the person's attitudes don't undergo a complete reversal. Some

degree of attitude change takes place, such that the initially counterattitudinal position

becomes somewhat more favorable in the person's mind.

The explanation offered by cognitive dissonance theory for this phenomenon is that

CAA causes psychological conflict within the individual. He or she is aware of the incon-

sistency between his or her privately held beliefs and attitudes and his or her public behav-

ior. One means of resolving the conflict is to make one's private beliefs and attitudes more

consistent with one's public behavior, hence, the resultant shift in attitudes. This suggests

an effective way of getting another person to persuade himself or herself. Simply try to get

the person to speak or act in a manner that is contrary to his or her attitudes. This can be

accomplished by asking the other to role-play for a few minutes, or to play devil's advocate

for a while. The research demonstrates that attitude change should follow in the direction

of the counterattitudinal position. When using this technique, howeveq it is important that

the other person choose to engage in CAA, as opposed to being forced to do so. A meta-

analysis by Preiss and Allen ( 1998) revealed that voluntarily engaging in CAA was the key

to this strategy's effectiveness.

l'M ALL lN: INCREASING COMMITMENTCommitment goes hand in hand with persuasion. When people become committed to

ideas, groups, causes, or decisions they find it diffrcult to change their minds. By way ofexample, did you know that once horse racing fans have bet on a horse, they become even

more convinced their horse will win (Knox & Inkster, 1968X Individuals who volunteer

their time to work for political campaigns tend to overestimate the prospects of their can-

didate winning. The more public the nature of the commitment, the more psychologically

entrenched people become.Many social customs and rituals are designed to increase a person's sense of psy-

chological commitment to an idea, group, cause, or decision. Wedding engagements do

so. Fraternity initiation rituals do so as well. Boot camp in the military serves this pur-

pose. Baptism achieves this goal. This also explains why people often announce their

New Year's resolutions publicly. Doing so binds them all the more to their commitments.

Political rallies, protest marches, and demonstrations accomplish this function for the

participants. Whenever we make public statements or engage in public actions, we tend to

become bound by our words or deeds. Yes, we can renege on what we've said or done, but

we will pay a psychological price for doing so. The greater the public commitment, the

greater the toll paid.

Commitments Can "Grow Legs"Robert Cialdini (1993) makes the interesting point that commitments sometimes "grow

legs." By this he means that once we become committed to a given course of action, we

Attitudes and Consistency

tend to remain steadfast in our determination, even if the original reason for selecting that

course of action is diminished, altered, or eliminated. A story involving one of the authors

illustrates this phenomenon. The author wanted to build a retaining wall in his backyard.

He was planning to spend $1,000 for a wall. Once he got several bids for the job, he dis-

covered it would cost $3,000 to $4,000 for a stone wall, rather than a block wall. He con-

sidered "fake" rock (cast cement in a pattern), a cheaper option, but by then he had his

heart set on the real thing. He signed a contract with the lowest bidder for a $3,000 retain-

ing wall made of genuine river rock. A tèw days before the contractor was to begin work,

the author had another idea. As long as he was going to all the trouble and expense, why

not build in a recessed bench for reading? And, his wife added, why not add some steps, so

it would be easy to get up and down the wall? The $3,000 wall soon became a $4,000 wall.

But it didn't end there. Once the wall was completed, the author sprang for sprinklers and

Iandscaping. After all, the wall looked so good, it was worth a little extra to make it a focal

point of the backyard. In the end, the $1,000 wall became a $4,500 wall. Once the author

got started, his commitment to build the rock wall of his dreams grew legs. He loves the

wall, of course. He has to. It cost him a bundle.

We all engage in similar behavior fiom time to time. The owner of an unreliable car

keeps spending money on repairs, hoping this brake job or that muffler repair will finallybe the last. The repair bills keep mounting, until they may eventually exceed the car's

resale value. Does the owner throw in the towel? Nope. The owner becomes even more res-

olute the next time something breaks. "I've already poured two grand into that car. I can't

give up now." A gambler bets on a football team that loses. The next week, he doubles the

bet, feeling confident that he will win the next time around. He loses again. Does he wise

up and cut his losses? No way. He becomes more determined than ever that the team willwin. His commitment actually increases with each loss.

Once we've invested our time and energy or poured our heafts and souls into a cause,

a person, an idea, a project, or a group we find it difficult to let go. We may have second

thoughts, but we repress them. We build up layers of rationalizations for remaining true to

our original convictions.Keep in mind that a large initial commitment isn't required in order Íbr persuaders

to take advantage of us. Even relatively simple acts, such as raising your hand, signing a

petition, or Íilling out a form, can be enough. The fact that commitments can grow legs

means that we are vulnerable to self-persuasion as well. Remember, we manufacture the

additional reasons for bolstering our commitment ourselves. Once we become commit-

ted, we may become blind to alternative ways of seeing, thinking, or acting. Thus, we

need to remain on guard, not only from others seeking to extract commitments from us

but also from ourselves.Before concluding this section, we wish to note that several worthwhile lessons can

be learned from our discussion of commitment and consistency. First, don't allow per-

suaders to "box you in" by getting you to commit to something when you really don't want

to. Feel free to say, "l want to think it over" or "I want to consider some other options first"

or "You're not trying to rush me into a hasty decision are you?" Second, don't paint your-

self into a corner by making public commitments you really don't want, or intend, to keep'

Be willing to say, "Sorry, I'd rather not" or "I have to say 'No' this time." Third, if you do

happen to make an ill-advised commitment, admit it and see what you can do to correct it.

65

66 CHAPTER 3

Don't be so preoccupied with saving face that you follow through on a really dumb deci-

sion. Vy'hen buying anything, ask about a return or refund policy in advance.

SUMMARYThe concept of attitude is central to the study of persuasion. Attitudes can't be directlyobserved. They can, however, be infèrred and measured through a variety of indirectmeans, most commonly via standardized scales, such as Likert or semantic differentialscales. The theory of reasoned action, and its companion theory of planned behavior, pro-

vide useful, rational models of how attitudes and intentions guide behavior. People's atti-

tudes tend to correlate with their behavior, but only if and when a number of important

conditions are satisfied. Attitudes formed via central processing are more predictive ofbehavior than attitudes Íbrmed via peripheral processing. Attitudes formed via central pro-

cessing are also more persistent and resistant to change. We discussed the fact that attitudes

exist in associative networks, and that advertisers use these connections to foster favorable

images and associations with their products and services. People have a tendency to strive

for consistency among their attitudes, belieÍ's, and behaviors. Persuaders can adapt theirmessages either to reinforce consistency or to attempt to create inconsistency. Cognitive

dissonance, a specialized form of consistency theory, explains how people go about ration-

alizing decisions after they have made them. The phenomenon of psychological reactance

can be used to a persuader's advantage. Engaging in counterattitudinal advocacy or making

commitments, especially public commitments, are two important means of facilitatinginfluence, based on the theory of cognitive dissonance.