No evidence for ideological asymmetry in dissonance avoidance

Unsuccessful close and conceptual replications of Nam, Jost, and van Bavel (2013)

Timothy P. Collins*, Jarret T. Crawford, M.J. Brandt

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Nam, Jost, and van Bavel (2013) found that conservatives were more likely than liberals to avoid dissonance-arousing situations (viz., writing counter-attitudinal essays in a high-choice situation). A close replication of this original research was unsuccessful, as both liberals and conservatives avoided writing counter-attitudinal essays to similar degrees. We conducted an additional experiment that aimed to conceptually replicate Nam et al. (2013), and to examine whether people whose ideology is threatened might be more likely to avoid dissonance-arousing situations. Again, liberals and conservatives were equally likely to avoid writing counter-attitudinal essays. Threat had no effect on these decisions. A meta-analysis of Nam et al.'s (2013) two studies, the two studies presently reported, and a third supplemental study provide no evidence for asymmetry in dissonance avoidance.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)123-134
JournalSocial Psychology
Volume48
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2017

Keywords

  • political ideology
  • cognitive dissonance
  • worldview threat
  • induced compliance
  • dissonance avoidance
  • SELECTIVE EXPOSURE
  • POLITICAL-IDEOLOGY
  • COGNITIVE CLOSURE
  • DOGMATISM SCALE
  • NEGATIVITY BIAS
  • PERSONALITY
  • NEED
  • CONSERVATIVES
  • AUTHORITARIANISM
  • COMMUNICATION

Cite this

@article{a74762f5799540019ec0e643f07bf03b,
title = "No evidence for ideological asymmetry in dissonance avoidance: Unsuccessful close and conceptual replications of Nam, Jost, and van Bavel (2013)",
abstract = "Nam, Jost, and van Bavel (2013) found that conservatives were more likely than liberals to avoid dissonance-arousing situations (viz., writing counter-attitudinal essays in a high-choice situation). A close replication of this original research was unsuccessful, as both liberals and conservatives avoided writing counter-attitudinal essays to similar degrees. We conducted an additional experiment that aimed to conceptually replicate Nam et al. (2013), and to examine whether people whose ideology is threatened might be more likely to avoid dissonance-arousing situations. Again, liberals and conservatives were equally likely to avoid writing counter-attitudinal essays. Threat had no effect on these decisions. A meta-analysis of Nam et al.'s (2013) two studies, the two studies presently reported, and a third supplemental study provide no evidence for asymmetry in dissonance avoidance.",
keywords = "political ideology, cognitive dissonance, worldview threat, induced compliance, dissonance avoidance, SELECTIVE EXPOSURE, POLITICAL-IDEOLOGY, COGNITIVE CLOSURE, DOGMATISM SCALE, NEGATIVITY BIAS, PERSONALITY, NEED, CONSERVATIVES, AUTHORITARIANISM, COMMUNICATION",
author = "Collins, {Timothy P.} and Crawford, {Jarret T.} and M.J. Brandt",
year = "2017",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1027/1864-9335/a000300",
language = "English",
volume = "48",
pages = "123--134",
journal = "Social Psychology",
issn = "1864-9335",
publisher = "Hogrefe & Huber Publishers",
number = "3",

}

No evidence for ideological asymmetry in dissonance avoidance : Unsuccessful close and conceptual replications of Nam, Jost, and van Bavel (2013). / Collins, Timothy P.; Crawford, Jarret T.; Brandt, M.J.

In: Social Psychology, Vol. 48, No. 3, 07.2017, p. 123-134.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - No evidence for ideological asymmetry in dissonance avoidance

T2 - Unsuccessful close and conceptual replications of Nam, Jost, and van Bavel (2013)

AU - Collins, Timothy P.

AU - Crawford, Jarret T.

AU - Brandt, M.J.

PY - 2017/7

Y1 - 2017/7

N2 - Nam, Jost, and van Bavel (2013) found that conservatives were more likely than liberals to avoid dissonance-arousing situations (viz., writing counter-attitudinal essays in a high-choice situation). A close replication of this original research was unsuccessful, as both liberals and conservatives avoided writing counter-attitudinal essays to similar degrees. We conducted an additional experiment that aimed to conceptually replicate Nam et al. (2013), and to examine whether people whose ideology is threatened might be more likely to avoid dissonance-arousing situations. Again, liberals and conservatives were equally likely to avoid writing counter-attitudinal essays. Threat had no effect on these decisions. A meta-analysis of Nam et al.'s (2013) two studies, the two studies presently reported, and a third supplemental study provide no evidence for asymmetry in dissonance avoidance.

AB - Nam, Jost, and van Bavel (2013) found that conservatives were more likely than liberals to avoid dissonance-arousing situations (viz., writing counter-attitudinal essays in a high-choice situation). A close replication of this original research was unsuccessful, as both liberals and conservatives avoided writing counter-attitudinal essays to similar degrees. We conducted an additional experiment that aimed to conceptually replicate Nam et al. (2013), and to examine whether people whose ideology is threatened might be more likely to avoid dissonance-arousing situations. Again, liberals and conservatives were equally likely to avoid writing counter-attitudinal essays. Threat had no effect on these decisions. A meta-analysis of Nam et al.'s (2013) two studies, the two studies presently reported, and a third supplemental study provide no evidence for asymmetry in dissonance avoidance.

KW - political ideology

KW - cognitive dissonance

KW - worldview threat

KW - induced compliance

KW - dissonance avoidance

KW - SELECTIVE EXPOSURE

KW - POLITICAL-IDEOLOGY

KW - COGNITIVE CLOSURE

KW - DOGMATISM SCALE

KW - NEGATIVITY BIAS

KW - PERSONALITY

KW - NEED

KW - CONSERVATIVES

KW - AUTHORITARIANISM

KW - COMMUNICATION

U2 - 10.1027/1864-9335/a000300

DO - 10.1027/1864-9335/a000300

M3 - Article

VL - 48

SP - 123

EP - 134

JO - Social Psychology

JF - Social Psychology

SN - 1864-9335

IS - 3

ER -