Opinion conformity as an impression management tactic following performance of an unpleasant task

Bulletin of the Psychanomic Society 1977, Vol. 9 (3), 21J.213 Opinion conformity as an impression management tactic following performance of an unpleasant task MARC RIESS, DONELSON R. FORSYTH, BARRY R. SCHLENKER, and SUSAN FREED University o/Florida, GainesviUe, Florida 32611 Ninety-six subjects were induced to taste unpleasant liquids under conditions of either high or low external justification. In the context of a subsequent interview, subjects rated the task, themselves, and the experimenter for an interviewer who purportedly made positive, negative, or no comments about the task. Subjects rated the liquids as tastier under low- rather than high-justification conditions, thus rationalizing their decision. Also, female subjects under low-justification conditions conformed to the positive comment made by the interviewer by rating the task and the experimenter more favorably. The results support the contention that the social context of dissonance-type experiments is important in understanding attitude change. Attitude change following perfonnance of unpleasant actions has been of considerable interest to social psychologists. Freedman (1963) found that subjects evaluate an unpleasant task more favorably if they are given low rather than high justification for agreeing to perform it. Similarly, Aronson and Mills (I959) found that subjects express greater liking for a boring group if they agree to undergo a severe rather than mild initiation to gain entrance. These studies were initially interpreted from a dissonance perspective. Presumably, subjects change their attitudes to reduce the dissonance generated by faulty decisions made under minimal external justification. More recent work has focused on the social context of such unpleasant situations (e.g., Alexander & Knight, 1971; Alexander & Sagatun, 1973; Forsyth, Riess, & Schlenker, in press; Schlenker, 1975). These analyses propose that subjects manage the impression they create for the experimenter by attempting to look rational, consistent, and attractive when situational factors might otherwise contradict these images (Tedeschi, Schlenker, & Bonoma, 1971). Thus, after agreeing to perform a questionable act under conditions where it seems necessary to justify the act (because external justification is minimal), subjects account for the behavior by showing that they liked the task and therefore made a reasonable decision. Such rationalization tactics are also influenced by any statements made by the experimenter concerning the situation, particularly when such statements assist the subject in rationalizing the action. For example, it The present study was facilitated by the support of the Organizational Effectiveness Research Program, Office of Naval Research (Code 452). under Contract N00014-75-0901; NR 170-797, to the third author. Reprint requests should be sent to Barry Schlenker, Department of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville. Florida 32611. Marvin E. Shaw sponsors this paper and takes full editorial responsibility for its content. has been found that subjects display opinion conformity in such situations, agreeing with the opinions of the task stated by an attractive experimenter (Forsyth, et al., in press; Schlenker, 1975). To further explore the effects of such social context variables, subjects performed an unpleasant task under conditions of high or low justification. Mter the task, they expected an interview with a psychologist who supposedly had made either favorable, unfavorable, or no comments about the task. Based on an impression management analysis, it was predicted that subjects' ratings of the task would conform to the opinion of the interviewer, but particularly when justification for the behavior was low and the comment was favorable. A favorable comment about the task would allow subjects to voice similar views, thereby making their decision to perform it appear "wise." Under low justification, subjects would have to rationalize the behavior and would be most guided by the comments. When justification was high, there would be little or no reason to rationalize the behavior since it already seemed "wise" given the external justification. METHOD Subjects Ninety-six introductory psychology students served as subjects and were run by a female experimenter. Eight subjects participated in each cell of the 2 (high or low justification) by 3 (positive, negative, or no evaluation from the interviewer) by 2 (male or female subject) completely randomized factorial design. The data from five additional subjects were eliminated prior to the analyses, two for experimenter error and three for suspicion. Procedure Upon arrival at the laboratory, subjects were told that the study was investigating "taste sensitivity" and that their physiological reactions to unfamiliar substances would be measured. It was explained that to insure that the substances used would be unfamiliar to the participants, "Liquids that don't taste very good" would be employed. Subjects were therefore given the 211 212 RIESS, FORSYTH. SCHLENKER, AND FREED option of not participating. In the high-justification conditions, subjects were told that they would not receive any experimental participation credit if they did not taste the liquids, but could withdraw without prejudice. Subjects in low-:iustification conditions were told that they would get their full credit (to be applied toward meeting an introductory psychology requirement) regardless of their decision. All subjects in both conditions agreed to participate. The experimenter attached an electrode to the subject's arm, adjusted the measurement instruments, and blindfolded the subject. He or she then drank the contents of three glasses containing the unpleasant liquids. Pretests had shown that mixtures of (1) Kaopectate and water, (2) castor oil and water, and (3) quinine water were rated negatively by students, and these were employed as the three liquids. After consuming the liquids, the experimenter explained that the study was completed. However, since it had taken so little time, subjects were asked if they would agree to participate in a second short study that was being conducted by a clinical psychologist. Supposedly, the clinician was developing a new interview technique and needed people to participate in a brief validating procedure. To insure that all interviews were comparable, he had asked the experimenter's permission to interview people concerning their reactions to the taste study, and the experimenter had agreed. Thus, although the interviewer was ostensibly unrelated to the taste study, he was somewhat familiar with its procedures, since he had interviewed other subjects. In the positive-evaluation conditions, subjects were off-handedly told that the interviewer thought "you're getting a pretty good deal in this taste study" since he considered the credit earned quite valuable. In the negativeevaluation conditions, the interviewer supposed (...truncated)