Interpersonal simulation of an attribution experiment.

Abstract

Bem ( 1 ) demonstrated interpersonal observers could replicate the results of cognitive dissonance experiments. Each of his Ss heard a tape recording of a single S participate in a dissonance experiment and was asked to predict S's response. If the observer could predict S's responses from external cues, S's response could also have been determined by external cues. Bem thought dissonance results were not due to the reduction of a negative drive state but to Ss' responses to perception of their own behavior. This reasoning has been extended by Weiner ( 4 ) to work on cognitive attribution. Schachter ( 3 ) theorized that an emotional response is dependent upon arousal of the autonomic nervous system and a cognitive label for that arousal. Nisbett and Schachter ( 2 ) have demonstrated that could be reduced by manipulating the cognitive label. Ss in a low or high fear condition given a placebo which they were told would cause either the physiological concomitants of pain (pill-relevant) or symptoms totally irrelevant to pain (pill-irrelevant). Those in the low fear condition with pill-relevant instructions took more shocks to reach tolerance threshold. Under high fear Ss did not attribute thcir arousal to the placebo and a reduction of tolerance was not obtained. These authors did not control for contiguity of administration of the placebo and onset of arousal; fear was aroused prior to S's taking the placebo. The present work attempted interpersonal simulation of the high fear condition with contiguity controlled. If the placebo was administered prior to induction of fear, interpersonal observers would indicate that pain was reduced for Ss. Naive college students were randomly assigned to the pill-relevant or pill-irrelevant condition. All 30 Ss heard a tape recording of a participant under the high fear ( 2 ) , but induction of fear now followed administration of the placebo. Also, from prior to the administration of the placebo to after the induction of fear observers heard S report an increase in palpitations (from 30 to 80 on a 100-point scale), tremor (20 to 75) , and increase over usual rate of breathing (25 to 70). The irrelevant symptoms remained the same. Observers were asked to predict the number of the shock upon which S first reported that it was painful and the number of shocks tolerated by S. Observer was asked to check those symptoms caused by the placebo. The check on the manipulation indicated that those Ss in the pill-relevant condition attributed the physiological concomitants of pain to the placebo more so than did the pillirrelevant group ( X Z = 5.28, # < .07). Observers predicted that Ss in the pill-relevant condition would take fewer shocks prior to reporting (5.99) than those in the pillirrelevant condition (8.51; t = 2.00, $ < .06), exactly opposite results of Nisbett and Schachter ( 2 ) . Observers also predicted Ss in the pill-relevant condition would take fewer shocks prior to reaching their tolerance threshold (11.29 vs 13.94) although this difference did not approach significance ( t = 1.39) . These results suggest external cues were not sufficient to explain the prior data ( 2 ) .