Michael Britt wrote: > If I may follow-up on this (because something more just occurred to > me): if Brehm had not eliminated the subjects who chose the > less-desired object, then on the second rating of the objects the > lower rated objects would have been rated higher and no "spread" would > have occurred and so no support for "post decisional dissonance"? Do > I have that right? > Michael,
I too have had difficulty applying Chen's reanalysis of the monkey-candy experiment to the "classic" cognitive dissonance findings: peg turning and car buying. I can find no obvious occurrence of odds-changing in those scenarios. I think that Chen has probably correctly reinterpreted the monkey-candy finding, but I have yet to see how it applies across the board to cognitive dissonance findings generally. See my blog entry on it here: http://ahp.yorku.ca/?p=413 Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ "Part of respecting another person is taking the time to criticise his or her views." - Melissa Lane, in a /Guardian/ obituary for philosopher Peter Lipton ================================= --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
