Cognitive Consequences of Forced Compliance PDF

COGNITIVE CONSEQUENCES OF FORCED COMPLIANCE LEON FESTINGER AND JAMES M. CARLSMITH1 Stanford University HAT happens to a person's private not conclusive. One of the major weaknesses of W opinion...

COGNITIVE CONSEQUENCES OF FORCED COMPLIANCE LEON FESTINGER AND JAMES M. CARLSMITH1 Stanford University HAT happens to a person's private not conclusive. One of the major weaknesses of W opinion if he is forced to do or say something contrary to that opin- ion? Only recently has there been, any experi- mental work related to this question. Two stud- the data is that not all subjects in the experi- ment made an overt statement contrary to their private opinion in order to obtain the offered reward. What is more, as one might ies reported by Janis and King (1954; 1956) expect, the percentage of subjects who com- clearly showed that, at least under some condi- plied increased as the size of the offered reward tions, the private opinion changes so as to bring increased. Thus, with self-selection of who it into closer correspondence with the overt did and who did not make the required overt behavior the person was forced to perform. statement and with varying percentages of Specifically, they showed that if a person is subjects in the different conditions who did forced to improvise a speech supporting a point make the required statement, no interpreta- of view with which he disagrees, his private tion of the data can be unequivocal. opinion moves toward the position advocated Recently, Festinger (1957) proposed a theory in the speech. The observed opinion change is concerning cognitive dissonance from which greater than for persons who only hear the come a number of derivations about opinion speech or for persons who read a prepared change following forced compliance. Since speech with emphasis solely on elocution and these derivations are stated in detail by Fest- manner of delivery. The authors of these two inger (1957, Ch. 4), we will here give only a studies explain their results mainly in terms of brief outline of the reasoning. mental rehearsal and thinking up new argu- Let us consider a person who privately holds ments. Inthisway, they propose, theperson who opinion "X" but has, as a result of pressure is forced to improvise a speech convinces brought to bear on him, publicly stated that himself. They present some evidence, which is he believes "not X." not altogether conclusive, in support of this 1. This person has two cognitions which, explanation. We will have more to say con- psychologically, do not fit together: one of cerning this explanation in discussing the these is the knowledge that he believes "X," results of our experiment. the other the knowledge that he has publicly Kelrnan (1953) tried to pursue the matter stated that he believes "not X." If no factors further. He reasoned that if the person is other than his private opinion are considered, it induced to make an overt statement contrary would follow, at least in our culture, that if to his private opinion by the offer of some he believes "X" he would publicly state "X." reward, then the greater the reward offered, Hence, his cognition of his private belief is the greater should be the subsequent opinion dissonant with his cognition concerning his change. His data, however, did not support actual public statement. this idea. He found, rather, that a large reward 2. Similarly, the knowledge that he has said produced less subsequent opinion change than "not X" is consonant with (does fit together did a smaller reward. Actually, this finding by with) those cognitive elements corresponding Kelman is consistent with the theory we will to the reasons, pressures, promises of rewards outline below but, for a number of reasons, is and/or threats of punishment which induced 1 him to say "not X." The experiment reported here was done as part of a program of research supported by a grant from the 3. In evaluating the total magnitude of National Science Foundation to the senior author. We dissonance, one must take account of both wish to thank Leonard Hommel, Judson Mills, and dissonances and consonances. Let us think of Robert Tenvilliger for their help in designing and the sum of all the dissonances involving some carrying out the experiment. We would also like to acknowledge the help of Ruth Smith and Marilyn M. particular cognition as "D" and the sum of Miller. all the consonances as "C." Then we might 203 204 LEON FESTINGER AND JAMES M. CARLSMITH think of the total magnitude of dissonance as as a two-hour experiment dealing with " Meas- being a function of "D" divided by "D" plus ures of Performance." "C." During the first week of the course, when the Let us then see what can be said about the requirement of serving in experiments was total magnitude of dissonance in a person announced and explained to the students, the created by the knowledge that he said "not X" instructor also told them about a study that and really believes "X." With everything else the psychology department was conducting. held constant, this total magnitude of disso- He explained that, since they were required to nance would decrease as the number and serve in experiments, the department was con- importance of the pressures which induced ducting a study to evaluate these experiments him to say "not X" increased. in order to be able to improve them in the Thus, if the overt behavior was brought future. They were told that a sample of about by, say, offers of reward or threats of students would be interviewed after having punishment, the magnitude of dissonance is served as 5s. They were urged to cooperate in maximal if these promised rewards or threat- these interviews by being completely frank ened punishments were just barely sufficient and honest. The importance of this announce- to induce the person to say "not X." From ment will become clear shortly. It enabled us to this point on, as the promised rewards or measure the opinions of our 5s in a context not threatened punishment become larger, the directly connected with our experiment and in magnitude of dissonance becomes smaller. which we could reasonably expect frank and 4. One way in which the dissonance can be honest expressions of opinion. reduced is for the person to change his private When the S arrived for the experiment on opinion so as to bring it into correspondence "Measures of Performance" he had to wait for with what he has said. One would conse- a few minutes in the secretary's office. The quently expect to observe such opinion change experimenter (E) then came in, introduced after a person has been forced or induced to say himself to the 5 and, together, they walked something contrary to his private opinion. into the laboratory room where the E said: Furthermore, since the pressure to reduce This experiment usually takes a little over an hour dissonance will be a function of the magnitude but, of course, we had to schedule it for two hours. of the dissonance, the observed opinion change Since we have that extra time, the introductory psy- should be greatest when the pressure used to chology people asked if they could interview some of elicit the overt behavior is just sufficient to our subjects. [Offhand and conversationally.] Did they announce that in class? I gather that they're interview- doit. ing some people who have been In experiments. I don't The present experiment was designed to know much about it. Anyhow, they may want to inter- test this derivation under controlled, labora- view you when you're through here. tory conditions. In the experiment we varied With no further introduction or explanation the amount of reward used to force persons to the S was shown the first task, which involved make a statement contrary to their private putting 12 spools onto a tray, emptying the views. The prediction [from 3 and 4 above] is tray, refilling it with spools, and so on. He was that the larger the reward given to the subject, told to use one hand and to work at his own the smaller will be the subsequent opinion speed. He did this for one-half hour. The E change, then removed the tray and spools and placed PROCEDURE in front of the S a board containing 48 square Seventy-one male students in the introduc- pegs. His task was to turn each peg a quarter tory psychology course at Stanford University turn clockwise, then another quarter turn, and were used in the experiment. In this course, so on. He was told again to use one hand and students are required to spend a certain num- to work at his own speed. The 5 worked at this ber of hours as subjects (Ss) in experiments. task for another half hour. They choose among the available experiments While the 5 was working on these tasks, the by signing their names on a sheet posted on the E sat, with a stop watch in his hand, busily bulletin board which states the nature of the making notations on a sheet of paper. He did experiment. The present experiment was listed so in order to make it convincing that this was  COGNITIVE CONSFCQUJCNCES 01:' FORCED CoMl'JJANCK 205 what the E was interested in and that these the other room to wait? [The E left the 5 in the secre- tasks, and how the S worked on them, was the tary's office for four minutes. He then returned and said:] O.K. Let's check and see if he does want to talk total experiment. From our point of view the to you. experiment had hardly started. The hour which the S spent working on the repetitive, monot- One and Twenty Dollar Conditions onous tasks was intended to provide, for each The E continued: S uniformly, an experience about which he Is that fairly clear how it is set up and what we're would have a somewhat negative opinion. trying to do? [Pause.] Now, I also have a sort of strange After the half hour on the second task was thing to ask you. The thing is this. [Long pause, some over, the E conspicuously set the stop watch confusion and uncertainty in the following, with a de- back to zero, put it away, pushed his chair gree of embarrassment on the part of the E. The back, lit a cigarette, and said: manner of the E contrasted strongly with the preceding unhesitant and assured false explanation of the experi- O.K. Well, that's all we have in the experiment ment. The point was to make it seem to the S that this itself. I'd like to explain what this has been all about was the first time the E had done this and that he felt so you'll have some idea of why you were doing this. unsure of himself.] The fellow who normally does this [E pauses.] Well, the way the experiment is set up is this. for us couldn't do it today—he just phoned in, and There are actually two groups in the experiment. In something or other came up for him—so we've been one, the group you were in, we bring the subject in looking around for someone that we could hire to do it and give him essentially no introduction to the experi- for us. You see, we've got another subject waiting ment. That is, all we tell him is what he needs to know [looks at watch] who is supposed to be in that other in order to do the tasks, and he has no idea of what the condition. Now Professor -, who is in charge of experiment is all about, or what it's going to be like, this experiment, suggested that perhaps we could take or anything like that. But in the other group, we have a chance on your doing it for us. I'll tell you what we a student that we've hired that works for us regularly, had in mind: the thing is, if you could do it for us now, and what I do is take him into the next room where the then of course you would know how to do it, and if subject is waiting—the same room you were waiting in something like this should ever come up again, that is, before—and I introduce him as if he had just finished the regular fellow couldn't make it, and we had a sub- being a subject in the experiment. That is, I say: "This ject scheduled, it would be very reassuring to us to is so-and-so, who's just finished the experiment, and know that we had somebody else we could call on who I've asked him to tell you a little of what it's about knew how to do it. So, if you would be willing to do before you start." The fellow who works for us then, this for us, we'd like to hire you to do it now and then in conversation with the next subject, makes these be on call in the future, if something like this should points: [The E then produced a sheet headed "For ever happen again. We can pay you a dollar (twenty Group B" which had written on it: It was very enjoy- dollars) for doing this for us, that is, for doing it now able, I had a lot of fun, I enjoyed myself, it was very and then being on call. Do you think you could do that interesting, it was intriguing, it was exciting. The E for us? showed this to the S and then proceeded with his false explanation of the purpose of the experiment.] Now, of If the 5 hesitated, the E said things like, "It course, we have this student do this, because if the will only take a few minutes," "The regular experimenter does it, it doesn't look as realistic, and person is pretty reliable; this is the first time what we're interested in doing is comparing how these he has missed," or "If we needed you we could two groups do on the experiment—the one with this previous expectation about the experiment, and the phone you a day or two in advance; if you other, like yourself, with essentially none. couldn't make it, of course, we wouldn't expect you to come." After the S agreed to do it, the Up to this point the procedure was identical E gave him the previously mentioned sheet for 5s in all conditions. From this point on they of paper headed "For Group B" and asked diverged somewhat. Three conditions were him to read it through again. The E then paid run, Control, One Dollar, and Twenty Dollars, the S one dollar (twenty dollars), made out a as follows: hand-written receipt form, and asked the 5 Control Condition to sign it. He then said: The E continued: O.K., the way we'll do it is this. As I said, the next subject should be here by now. I think the next one is Is that fairly clear? [Pause.] Look, that fellow [looks a girl. I'll take you into the next room and introduce at watch] I was telling you about from the introductory you to her, saying that you've just finished the experi- psychology class said he would get here a couple of ment and that we've asked you to tell her a little minutes from now. Would you mind waiting to see if about it. And what we want you to do is just sit down he wants to talk to you? Fine. Why don't we go into and get into a conversation with her and try to get 206 LEON FJCSTINGER AND JAMKS M. CARLSMITH across the points on that sheet of paper. I'll leave you consisted of four questions, on each of which alone and come back after a couple of minutes. O.K.? the 5 was first encouraged to talk about the The E then took the S into the secretary's matter and was then asked to rate his opinion office where he had previously waited and or reaction on an 11-point scale. The questions where the next S was waiting. (The secretary are as follows: had left the office.) He introduced the girl and 1. Were the tasks interesting and enjoyable? In what the S to one another saying that the S had way? In what way were they not? Would you rate how just finished the experiment and would tell her you feel about them on a scale from — S to +5 where something about it. He then left saying he — 5 means they were extremely dull and boring, +5 would return in a couple of minutes. The girl, means they were extremely interesting and enjoyable, an undergraduate hired for this role, said little and zero means they were neutral, neither interesting nor uninteresting. until the S made some positive remarks about 2. Did the experiment give you an opportunity to the experiment and then said that she was learn about your own ability to perform these tasks? surprised because a friend of hers had taken In what way? In what way not? Would you rate how the experiment the week before and had told you feel about this on a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means you learned nothing and 10 means you learned a her that it was boring and that she ought to great deal. try to get out of it. Most 5s responded by 3. From what you know about the experiment and saying something like "Oh, no, it's really very the tasks involved in it, would you say the experiment interesting. I'm sure you'll enjoy it." The girl, was measuring anything important? That is, do you think the results may have scientific value? In what after this listened quietly, accepting and way? In what way not? Would you rate your opinion agreeing to everything the S told her. The on this matter on a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means discussion between the J? and the girl was re- the results have no scientific value or importance and corded on a hidden tape recorder. 10 means they have a great deal of value and im- After two minutes the E returned, asked the portance. 4. Would you have any desire to participate in girl to go into the experimental room, thanked another similar experiment? Why? Why not? Would the 5 for talking to the girl, wrote down his you rate your desire to participate in a similar experi- phone number to continue the fiction that we ment again on a scale from — S to +5, where — S means might call on him again in the future and then you would definitely dislike to participate, +5 means said: "Look, could we check and see if that you would definitely like to participate, and 0 means you have no particular feeling about it one way or the fellow from introductory psychology wants to other. talk to you?" From this point on, the procedure for all As may be seen, the questions varied in how three conditions was once more identical. As directly relevant they were to what the 5 had the E and the S started to walk to the office told the girl. This point will be discussed further where the interviewer was, the E said: "Thanks in connection with the results. very much for working on those tasks for us. At the close of the interview the 5 was asked I hope you did enjoy it. Most of our subjects what he thought the experiment was about and, tell us afterward that they found it quite following this, was asked directly whether or interesting. You get a chance to see how you not he was suspicious of anything and, if so, react to the tasks and so forth." This short what he was suspicious of. When the interview persuasive communication was made in all was over, the interviewer brought the S back conditions in exactly the same way. The reason to the experimental room where the E was for doing it, theoretically, was to make it waiting together with the girl who had posed easier for anyone who wanted to persuade him- as the waiting £. (In the control condition, of self that the tasks had been, indeed, enjoyable. course, the girl was not there.) The true pur- When they arrived at the interviewer's pose of the experiment was then explained to office, the E asked the interviewer whether or the 5 in detail, and the reasons for each of the not he wanted to talk to the S. The interviewer various steps in the experiment were explained said yes, the E shook hands with the S, said carefully in relation to the true purpose. All good-bye, and left. The interviewer, of course, experimental Sk in both One Dollar and Twen- was always kept in complete ignorance of ty Dollar conditions were asked, after this which condition the S was in. The interview explanation, to return the money they had  COGNITIVE CONSEQUENCES OF FORCED COMPLIANCE 207 been given. All Ss, without exception, were TABLE 1 quite willing to return the money. AVERAGE RATINGS ON INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR EACH CONDITION The data from 11 of the 71 Ss in the experi- ment had to be discarded for the following Experimental Condition reasons: Question on Interview Control One Twenty 1. Five 5s (three in the One Dollar and two in the (,V = Dollar Dollars 20) (N = 20) (N20)= Twenty Dollar condition) indicated in the interview that they were suspicious about having been paid to How enjoyable tasks were -.45 + 1.35 -.05 tell the girl the experiment was fun and suspected that (rated from -5 to +5) that was the real purpose of the experiment, How much they learned 3.08 2.80 3.15 2. Two 5s (both in the One Dollar condition) told (rated from 0 to 10) the girl that they had been hired, that the experiment Scientific importance (rated S.60 6.45 S.18 was really boring but they were supposed to say it from 0 to 10) was fun. Participate in similar exp. -.62 + 1.20 -.25 3. Three 5s (one in the One Dollar and two in the (rated from —5 to +5) Twenty Dollar condition) refused to take the money and refused to be hired. 4. One S (in the One Dollar condition), immediately regarded as a baseline from which to evaluate after having talked to the girl, demanded her phone the results in the other two conditions. The number saying he would call her and explain things, Control condition gives us, essentially, the and also told the E he wanted to wait until she was reactions of 5s to the tasks and their opinions finished so he could tell her about it. about the experiment as falsely explained to These 11 5s were, of course, run through the them, without the experimental introduction total experiment anyhow and the experiment of dissonance. The data from the other condi- was explained to them afterwards. Their data, tions may be viewed, in a sense, as changes however, are not included in the analysis. from this baseline. Summary of Design How Enjoyable the Tasks Were There remain, for analysis, 20 5s in each of The average ratings on this question, pre- the three conditions. Let us review these sented in the first row of figures in Table 1, briefly: 1. Control condition. These 5s were are the results most important to the experi- treated identically in all respects to the 5s ment. These results are the ones most directly in the experimental conditions, except that relevant to the specific dissonance which was they were never asked to, and never did, tell experimentally created. It will be recalled that the waiting girl that the experimental tasks the tasks were purposely arranged to be were enjoyable and lots of fun. 2. One Dollar rather boring and monotonous. And, indeed, condition. These 5s were hired for one dollar to in the Control condition the average rating tell a waiting 5 that tasks, which were really was —.45, somewhat on the negative side of rather dull and boring, were interesting, en- the neutral point. joyable, and lots of fun, 3. Twenty Dollar cottdi- In the other two conditions, however, the tion. These 5s were hired for twenty dollars to 5s told someone that these tasks were interest- do the same thing. ing and enjoyable. The resulting dissonance could, of course, most directly be reduced by RESULTS persuading themselves that the tasks were, The major results of the experiment are indeed, interesting and enjoyable. In the One summarized in Table 1 which lists, separately Dollar condition, since the magnitude of for each of the three experimental conditions, dissonance was high, the pressure to reduce the average rating which the 5s gave at the this dissonance would also be high. In this end of each question on the interview. We will condition, the average rating was +1.35, discuss each of the questions on the interview considerably on the positive side and signifi- separately, because they were intended to cantly different from the Control condition at measure different things. One other point be- the.02 level2 (t = 2,48). fore we proceed to examine the data. In all the 2 All statistical tests referred to in this paper are comparisons, the Control condition should be two-tailed. 208 LEON FESTINGER AND JAMES M. CARLSMITH In the Twenty Dollar condition, where less likely in this experiment because money was dissonance was created experimentally because used for the reward and it is undoubtedly of the greater importance of the consonant difficult to convince oneself that one dollar is relations, there is correspondingly less evidence more than it really is. There is another pos- of dissonance reduction. The average rating in sible way, however. The 5s were given a very this condition is only —.05, slightly and not good reason, in addition to being paid, for significantly higher than the Control condition. saying what they did to the waiting girl. The The difference between the One Dollar and 5s were told it was necessary for the experi- Twenty Dollar conditions is significant at the ment. The dissonance could, consequently, be.03 level (t = 2,22). In short, when an S was reduced by magnifying the importance of this induced, by offer of reward, to say something cognition. The more scientifically important contrary to his private opinion, this private they considered the experiment to be, the less opinion tended to change so as to correspond was the total magnitude of dissonance. It is more closely with what he had said. The greater possible, then, that the results on this ques- the reward offered (beyond what was necessary tion, shown in the third row of figures in Table to elicit the behavior) the smaller was the 1, might reflect dissonance reduction. effect. The results are weakly in line with what one would expect if the dissonance were somewhat Desire to Participate in a Similar Experiment reduced in this manner. The One Dollar condi- The results from this question are shown in tion is higher than the other two. The differ- the last row of Table 1. This question is less ence between the One and Twenty Dollar directly related to the dissonance that was conditions reaches the.08 level of significance experimentally created for the 5s. Certainly, on a two-tailed test (t = 1.79). The difference the more interesting and enjoyable they felt between the One Dollar and Control conditions the tasks were, the greater would be their de- is not impressive at all (t = 1.21). The result sire to participate in a similar experiment. But that the Twenty Dollar condition is actually other factors would enter also. Hence, one lower than the Control condition is un- would expect the results on this question to doubtedly a matter of chance (t = 0.58). be very similar to the results on "how enjoy- able the tasks were" but weaker. Actually, the How Much They Learned From the Experiment result, as may be seen in the table, are in The results on this question are shown in the exactly the same direction, and the magnitude second row of figures in Table 1. The question of the mean differences is fully as large as on was included because, as far as we could see, it the first question. The variability is greater, had nothing to do with the dissonance that however, and the differences do not yield high was experimentally created and could not be levels of statistical significance. The difference used for dissonance reduction. One would then between the One Dollar condition (+1.20) expect no differences at all among the three and the Control condition (—.62) is significant conditions. We felt it was important to show at the.08 level (t = 1.78). The difference that the effect was not a completely general between the One Dollar condition and the one but was specific to the content of the dis- Twenty Dollar condition (—.25) reaches only sonance which was created. As can be readily the.15 level of significance (t = 1.46). seen in Table 1, there are only negligible differ- ences among conditions. The highest t value for The Scientific Importance of the Experiment any of these differences is only 0.48. This question was included because there was a chance that differences might emerge. DISCUSSION OF A POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE There are, after all, other ways in which the EXPLANATION experimentally created dissonance could be We mentioned in the introduction that reduced. For example, one way would be for Janis and King (1954; 1956) in explaining their the S to magnify for himself the value of the findings, proposed an explanation in terms of reward he obtained. This, however, was un- the self-convincing effect of mental rehearsal  COGNITIVE CONSEQUENCES OF FORCED COMPLIANCE 209 and thinking up new arguments by the person 3. A similar rating of the over-all content of who had to improvise a speech. Kelman (1953), what the S said. in the previously mentioned study, in at- 4. A rating of how persuasive and convincing tempting to explain the unexpected finding the S was in what he said and the way in which that the persons who complied in the moderate he said it. reward condition changed their opinion more 5. A rating of the amount of time in the dis- than in the high reward condition, also pro- cussion that the 5 spent discussing the tasks posed the same kind of explanation. If the as opposed to going off into irrelevant things. results of our experiment are to be taken as The mean ratings for the One Dollar and strong corroboration of the theory of cogni- Twenty Dollar conditions, averaging the rat- tive dissonance, this possible alternative ings of the two independent raters, are pre- explanation must be dealt with. sented in Table 2. It is clear from examing the Specifically, as applied to our results, this table that, in all cases, the Twenty Dollar alternative explanation would maintain that condition is slightly higher. The differences perhaps, for some reason, the 5s in the One are small, however, and only on the rating of Dollar condition worked harder at telling the "amount of time" does the difference between waiting girl that the tasks were fun and en- the two conditions even approach significance. joyable. That is, in the One Dollar condition We are certainly justified in concluding that they may have rehearsed it more mentally, the Ss in the One Dollar condition did not thought up more ways of saying it, may have improvise more nor act more convincingly. said it more convincingly, and so on. Why this Hence, the alternative explanation discussed might have been the case is, of course, not above cannot account for the findings. immediately apparent. One might expect that, in the Twenty Dollar condition, having been SUMMARY paid more, they would try to do a better job Recently, Festinger (1957) has proposed a of it than in the One Dollar condition. But theory concerning cognitive dissonance. Two nevertheless, the possibility exists that the 5s derivations from this theory are tested here. in the One Dollar condition may have impro- These are: vised more. 1. If a person is induced to do or say some- Because of the desirability of investigating this possible alternative explanation, we thing which is contrary to his private opinion, recorded on a tape recorder the conversation there will be a tendency for him to change his between each S and the girl. These recordings opinion so as to bring it into correspondence were transcribed and then rated, by two with what he has done or said. independent raters, on five dimensions. The 2. The larger the pressure used to elicit the ratings were, of course done in ignorance of TABLE 2 which condition each S was in, The relia- AVERAGE RATINGS or DISCUSSION BETWEEN SUBJECT bilities of these ratings, that is, the correlations AND GIRL between the two independent raters, ranged from.61 to.88, with an average reliability of.71. The five ratings were: Condition Dimension Rated 1. The content of what the 5 said before One Twenty Value the girl made the remark that her friend told Dollar Dollars of/ her it was boring. The stronger the S's positive Content before remark by girl 2.26 2.62 1.08 statements about the tasks, and the more ways (rated from 0 to 5) Content after remark by girl 1.63 1.75 0.11 in which he said they were interesting and (rated from 0 to 5) enjoyable, the higher the rating. Over-all content (rated from 0 1.89 2.19 1.08 2. The content of what the S said after the to 5) Persuasiveness and conviction 4.79 5.50 0.99 girl made the above-mentioned remark. This (rated from 0 to 10) was rated in the same way as for the content Time spent on topic (rated from 6.74 8.19 1.80 0 to 10) before the remark. 210 LEON FESTINGER AND JAMES M. CAELSMITH overt behavior (beyond the minimum needed REFERENCES to elicit it) the weaker will be the above- FESTINGER, L. A theory of cognitive d-issonattce. Evans- mentioned tendency. ton, 111: Row Peterson, 19S7. A laboratory experiment was designed to JANIS, I. L., & KING, B. T. The influence of role-playing test these derivations. Subjects were subjected on opinion change. /. dbnorm. sac. Psychol., 1954, to a boring experience and then paid to tell 49, 211-218. someone that the experience had been interest- KELITAN, H. Attitude change as a function of response ing and enjoyable. The amount of money paid restriction. Hum. Relal., 1953, 6, 185-214. the subject was varied. The private opinions KING, B. T., & JANIS, I. L. Comparison of the effective- ness of improvised versus non-improvised role- of the subjects concerning the experiences playing in producing opinion changes. Hum. were then determined. Relat., 1956, 9, 177-186. The results strongly corroborate the theory that was tested. Received November 18, 1957.