Michael Diehl

Matching or Competition? Performance Comparison Processes in an Idea Generation Task

Performance matching due to social comparison has been proposed as one explanation for the observed productivity loss in group brainstorming (Brown & Paulus, 1996; Paulus & Dzindolet, 1993). According to Festinger (1954), however, social comparison should not lead to performance matching but rather to competition. In our first experiment, we tested this hypothesis for a coactive situation and found enhanced performance due to interpersonal competition but no performance matching. In the second experiment, we attempted to replicate this result with interactive dyads and introduced an outgroup in order to shift competition from the interpersonal to the intergroup level. Both the replication and the shift of competition were successful. The intergroup competition was not accompanied by performance matching within the dyads.

Multiple Source Characteristics and Persuasion: Source Inconsistency as a Determinant of Message Scrutiny

It is argued that previous persuasion research has been concerned predominantly with the role of single source characteristics (e.g., expertise) for attitude change and thus has failed to consider the role of multiple source characteristics. This was done in two experiments that tested the hypothesis that recipients would scrutinize a message more effortfully when the combination of two source characteristics is unexpected (source inconsistency) than when the combination is less surprising (source consistency). In Experiment 1, source likability, source expertise, and argument quality were manipulated. In Experiment 2, honesty instead of likability was manipulated. Results from both experiments provide evidence supporting the predicted effects of source (in)consistency on message scrutiny; that is, argument quality affected attitudes and favorability of message-related thoughts in the case of inconsistent source characteristics but not in the case of consistent source characteristics.

Source Consistency, Distinctiveness, and Consensus: The Three Dimensions of the Kelley ANOVA Model in Persuasion

Based on a conceptual analysis and existing research, the authors propose that the three source dimensions specified in the ANOVA model play similar roles in persuasion as other source characteristics (e.g., expertise). Two studies test assumptions derived from this approach regarding the effects of different combinations of consistency and consensus (Study 1) and distinctiveness and consensus (Study 2). Combinations resulting in contradictory (vs. similar) inferences regarding message validity should affect judgmental confidence and, consequently, affect message scrutiny. Study 1 shows that, as predicted, high consistency/low consensus and low consistency/high consensus (incongruent combinations) lead to higher desired confidence and more extensive message elaboration than high consistency/high consensus and low consistency/low consensus (congruent combinations). Similarly, Study 2 reveals heightened message scrutiny given incongruent (vs. congruent) combinations of distinctiveness and consensus. Results are discussed with respect to majority/minority influence processes and multiple source characteristics.

Experienced Ambivalence as a Moderator of the Consistency Between Attitudes and Behaviors

Summary: Two studies were conducted to test the hypothesis that stronger degrees of ambivalence attenuate the attitude-behavior correspondence. We also tested the hypothesis that the weaker attitude-behavior correspondence at higher levels of ambivalence may be due to the lower temporal stability of highly ambivalent attitudes. To ensure that these hypotheses be adequately tested, both studies had a prospective design. After assessing their attitudes toward certain behaviors and ambivalence, participants recorded how often they performed these behaviors during the subsequent 14-day period. The investigated behaviors included everyday behaviors such as consuming fast food, preparing classes, and watching entertaining programs on TV. To assess attitudinal stability, attitudes were measured again after the 14-day period. As the results show, the expected moderating effect of experienced ambivalence on the attitude-behavior correspondence was obtained, however, only for a minority of the investigated behavior...

What You Think is What You Get: Comparative Evaluations of Close Relationships

Three studies tested the hypothesis that focus of comparison moderates the influence of comparison standards on relationship satisfaction. Participants were asked to evaluate either their current relationships or their alternative relationships relative to an external comparison standard: a romantic stereotype (Study 1) or others’ relationships (Studies 2 and 3). Consistent with the focusing hypothesis, the results show that people are more satisfied when they assimilate their relationship outcomes to a high standard or when they contrast them away from a low standard. Satisfaction, however, also increases when alternative relation-ships are contrasted away from a high standard or when they are assimilated to a low standard of comparison. Perceived quality of alternatives partially mediated the impact of focus of comparison on satisfaction. This finding is consistent with interdependence theory’s distinction between a comparison level and a comparison level for alternative relationships, which are not completely independent from each other.

Mood and Multiple Source Characteristics: Mood Congruency of Source Consensus Status and Source Trustworthiness as Determinants of Message Scrutiny:

This research deals with the interplay of mood and multiple source characteristics in regard to persuasion processes and attitudes. In a four-factorial experiment, mood (positive vs. negative), source consensus status (majority vs. minority), source trustworthiness (high vs. low), and message strength (strong vs. weak) were manipulated. Results were in line with predictions of a mood-congruent expectancies perspective rather than competing predictions of a mood-as-information perspective. Specifically, individuals in both moods evinced higher message scrutiny given mood-incongruent (vs. mood-congruent) source characteristics. That is, across source trustworthiness, positive (negative) mood led to higher message scrutiny given a minority (majority) versus a majority (minority) source. Furthermore, across source consensus, positive (negative) mood led to higher message scrutiny given an untrustworthy (trustworthy) versus a trustworthy (untrustworthy) source. Additional analyses revealed that processing effort increased from doubly mood-congruent source combinations (low effort) over mixed-source combinations (intermediate effort) to doubly mood-incongruent combinations (high effort). Implications are discussed.

When Social Support Fails Supporter Characteristics in Compliance-Induced Attitude Change

An extension of the motivational assumptions of the heuristic model and the elaboration likelihood model of attitude change to counter attitudinal advocacy was tested. In a series of studies on the role of social support in attitude change following counter attitudinal advocacy, Stroebe and Diehl (1981) demonstrated that social support reduced attitude change only under conditions favorable to the arousal of dissonance. Under low choice or minimal consequences, social support was associated with an increase in attitude change. The present article suggests an interpretation of these findings in terms of motivational influences on levels of processing: Subjects engage in the cognitive effort of self-justification only when motivated to do so because of responsibility for a negative act. In the absence of such responsibility, subjects use the behavior of others (i.e., social support) merely as a cue for their opinion judgment. This was tested in an experiment that manipulated attitude similarity between subject and confederate in addition to social support and severity of consequences. A three-factor interaction on attitude change was obtained that was consistent with the differential processing hypothesis. Whereas under severe consequences attitude change was in line with dissonance predictions, a pattern of change consistent with balance theory was observed under minimal consequences. Implications of these findings for dissonance and conformity research are discussed.

Does Matching Versus Mismatching Message Content to Attitude Functions Lead to Biased Processing? The Role of Message Ambiguity

Previous research on the question of whether matching message content to the functional basis of peoples attitudes may lead to biased message processing has been inconclusive. In particular, existing evidence is open to reinterpretation such that matched strong arguments led to more attitudinal agreement because they were scrutinized more effortfully than mismatched strong arguments. The present study was conducted to examine the hypothesis that matching the message to attitude functions may lead to biased processing only given an ambiguous (vs. an unambiguous strong or weak) message. High and low self-monitors were presented with a matched message (i.e., a quality appeal for low self-monitors and an image appeal for high self-monitors) or a mismatched message (opposite combinations). The message content was strong, weak, or ambiguous. As predicted, only given an ambiguous message did biased processing lead to more agreement when the appeal matched (versus mismatched) attitude functions. In contrast, a strong message led to more agreement than a weak message regardless of functional matching (unbiased processing).

Motivation Losses in Teamwork: The Effects of Team Diversity and Equity Sensitivity on Reactions to Free-riding

Team diversity may lead to a categorization of teammates as ingroup versus outgroup members. Therefore, the question arises whether there would be more permissiveness in reaction to ingroup free-riders than outgroup free-riders. To test this hypothesis, subjects were randomly assigned to one of two reward conditions (equity versus equality) and had to work with a partner who obviously underachieved and supposedly belonged to the same or a different group with regard to cognitive style. In addition, we assessed subjects’ individual sensitivity to equity norms, assuming that this would be a further moderator of the sucker effect. As expected, significant interaction effects on individual performance occurred for both variables.

The effect of multiple source information on message scrutiny: The case of source expertise and likability

To test for the effect of multiple source information on message scrutiny, in a three-factorial experiment source likability, source expertise, and argument quality were manipulated independently. In line with predictions, results indicated heightened message scrutiny in the case of inconsistent as compared to consistent source information. Thus, argument quality affected attitudes and perceived argument strength only when the message was presented by a dislikable expert and a likable non-expert (inconsistent source information). Both measures were unaffected by argument quality when the message was presented by a likable expert and a dislikable non-expert (consistent source information). The role of multiple source information in persuasion is discussed.