Cooper J, Zanna M P, Taves P A
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1978 Oct;36(10):1101-6. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.36.10.1101.
This study examined whether arousal is or is not a necessary condition for attitude change in the induced compliance paradigm. In a 2 times 3 design, experimental subjects were induced to write counterattitudinal essays under either high- or low-choice conditions. All subjects were led to believe that a pill, which they had just taken in the context of a separate experiment, was a placebo. In reality, subjects were given a pill that contained either phenobarbital (tranquilizer condition), amphetamine (amphetamine condition), or milk powder (placebo condition). In this last condition, the results yielded the usual dissonance effect: High choice produced more attitude change in the direction of the essay than low choice. When subjects were given a tranquilizer, this effect was virtually eliminated; when subjects were given amphetamine, attitude change increased under high choice and was exhibited for the first time under low choice. These results are consistent with the notion that attitude change is in the service of reducing arousal and with the idea that arousal from other sources can be misattributed to attitude-discrepant behavior.
本研究考察了在诱导依从范式中，唤起是否是态度改变的必要条件。在一个2×3设计中，实验对象被诱导在高选择或低选择条件下撰写与自己态度相悖的文章。所有受试者都被引导相信，他们在另一个单独实验中刚刚服用的药丸是安慰剂。实际上，给受试者服用的药丸含有苯巴比妥（镇静剂条件）、安非他命（安非他命条件）或奶粉（安慰剂条件）。在最后一种条件下，结果产生了通常的失调效应：高选择比低选择在文章方向上产生了更多的态度改变。当给受试者服用镇静剂时，这种效应几乎消除；当给受试者服用安非他命时，高选择下的态度改变增加，并且在低选择下首次出现。这些结果与态度改变是为了减少唤起的观点一致，也与来自其他来源的唤起可能被错误归因于与态度不符的行为的观点一致。
