Hmm.. great replies, thanks everyone!
I guess, in my example, at least, the effort and trials I went through in order to view the movie ASAP were not enough to overcome the actual lousiness of it. Related to that, is the reaction a person has based on their closeness to overcoming the cognitive dissonance through a sort of.. positive-valuation?
If they were very nearly about to adopt a favorable attitude but stopped short, would that be the apex of their feelings of hostility towards the goal and process? I haven't yet seen any studies dealing with this, seems like everyone always bends the way the study wants, and never says "Screw This!"
For example, in the studies we researched in class about cognitive dissonance (Festinger stuff), there was a study wherein a person was give either $1 or $20 to lie to a third person about how great a bad/boring experience they had just had was. The $1 group changed their attitude regarding the event as questioned later to be remembered as more in line with their lie (vs $20 people). The $20 person was presumably more able to accept that the prior experience sucked, and they lied for the money or due to the importance of the study, not because they enjoyed it. They basically extrapolated that however much past a certain fixed amount of money/reward produced no further effects, but they didn't deal with the flip-side; how do different levels of persuasion insufficient to produce the dissonant effect (I lied: why?) impact their perceptions of the event?
Anyway, I'm tired, I'm sure I explained it poorly. Basically, I'm still just trying to figure out what causes such uniformity in studies such as this and in hazing. It seems like there should be more backlash. If anyone has seen other studies I could read about, I'd appreciate people pointing me to them. Probably a lack of serious self-investment or caring in the event in question flaws studies or questions like the $1/$20 and my movie situation, so something with more intensity would probably be much better.
-ciao, off to class
|