東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Individual differences in conscious ...

Cole, Jack Anthony.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Individual differences in conscious and unconscious processes in cognitive dissonance.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Individual differences in conscious and unconscious processes in cognitive dissonance./
Author:	Cole, Jack Anthony.
Description:	127 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 65-10, Section: B, page: 5392.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International65-10B.
Subject:	Psychology, Clinical. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3149902
ISBN:	0496091964

Individual differences in conscious and unconscious processes in cognitive dissonance.
Cole, Jack Anthony.

Individual differences in conscious and unconscious processes in cognitive dissonance. - 127 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 65-10, Section: B, page: 5392.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Southern Mississippi, 2004.

Although previous research has shown that cognitive dissonance produces negative emotional states, researchers have yet to explore individual differences in affective experiences that result from cognitive dissonance (Harmon-Jones, 2001). In this study, it was expected that repressors, sensitizers, and truly low-anxious individuals, would differ in their affective experiences that resulted from dissonance. Additionally, several researchers have suggested that cognitive dissonance is reduced by unconscious defensive processes, rather than by conscious processes, as implied by Festinger (1957). Two opposing models for cognitive dissonance were formulated in this study, and were tested empirically. The Defense-mechanism model claims that dissonance-related attitude change occurs as a result of unconsciously motivated processes, whereas the Coping-model claims that the attitude change occurs as a result of consciously-reasoned processes. The results for repressors and sensitizers were expected to be consistent with the Defense-mechanism model of dissonance, whereas the results for truly low-anxious individuals were expected to be consistent with the Coping-model. This study employed two separate experiments. The Individual Differences in Affect Experiment was a 3 (Coping style: repressor, sensitizers, or truly low-anxious) x 2 (Choice: high or low) x 2 (Order: affect-before or affect-after) design. The Affect-Attribution Experiment employed a 3 (Coping style: repressor, sensitizers, or truly low-anxious) x 2 (Choice: high or low) design, but used modified instructions on the affect measure, to determine the extent to which the participants attributed their affective state to the writing of the counterattitudinal statement. The expected individual differences in affective experience were not supported; however, the overall results were consistent with the Defense-mechanism model, and raise a serious challenge to traditional conceptualizations of cognitive dissonance.

ISBN: 0496091964Subjects--Topical Terms:

524864
Psychology, Clinical.

Individual differences in conscious and unconscious processes in cognitive dissonance.
LDR:02954nmm 2200301 4500 001 1813808
005 20060503081252.5
008 130610s2004 eng d
020 $a 0496091964
035 $a (UnM)AAI3149902
035 $a AAI3149902
040 $a UnM $c UnM
100 1 $a Cole, Jack Anthony. $3 1903298
245 1 0 $a Individual differences in conscious and unconscious processes in cognitive dissonance.
300 $a 127 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 65-10, Section: B, page: 5392.
500 $a Director: William C. Goggin.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Southern Mississippi, 2004.
520 $a Although previous research has shown that cognitive dissonance produces negative emotional states, researchers have yet to explore individual differences in affective experiences that result from cognitive dissonance (Harmon-Jones, 2001). In this study, it was expected that repressors, sensitizers, and truly low-anxious individuals, would differ in their affective experiences that resulted from dissonance. Additionally, several researchers have suggested that cognitive dissonance is reduced by unconscious defensive processes, rather than by conscious processes, as implied by Festinger (1957). Two opposing models for cognitive dissonance were formulated in this study, and were tested empirically. The Defense-mechanism model claims that dissonance-related attitude change occurs as a result of unconsciously motivated processes, whereas the Coping-model claims that the attitude change occurs as a result of consciously-reasoned processes. The results for repressors and sensitizers were expected to be consistent with the Defense-mechanism model of dissonance, whereas the results for truly low-anxious individuals were expected to be consistent with the Coping-model. This study employed two separate experiments. The Individual Differences in Affect Experiment was a 3 (Coping style: repressor, sensitizers, or truly low-anxious) x 2 (Choice: high or low) x 2 (Order: affect-before or affect-after) design. The Affect-Attribution Experiment employed a 3 (Coping style: repressor, sensitizers, or truly low-anxious) x 2 (Choice: high or low) design, but used modified instructions on the affect measure, to determine the extent to which the participants attributed their affective state to the writing of the counterattitudinal statement. The expected individual differences in affective experience were not supported; however, the overall results were consistent with the Defense-mechanism model, and raise a serious challenge to traditional conceptualizations of cognitive dissonance.
590 $a School code: 0211.
650 4 $a Psychology, Clinical. $3 524864
650 4 $a Psychology, Social. $3 529430
650 4 $a Psychology, Personality. $3 1017585
650 4 $a Psychology, Cognitive. $3 1017810
690 $a 0622
690 $a 0451
690 $a 0625
690 $a 0633
710 2 0 $a The University of Southern Mississippi. $3 1018511
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 65-10B.
790 1 0 $a Goggin, William C., $e advisor
790 $a 0211
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2004
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3149902