No abstract

We conducted two experiments to examine the influence on attitudes of an oversufficient payment for belief-consistent actions. In Experiment 1, subjects recorded a proattitudinal statement. Then the effects of attitudinal extremity, payment, and provision of a countercommunication were investigated. Dependent measures tapped attitude, assumed consensus, recall, and information processing efficiency. Attitude change was most evident among paid subjects exposed to the countercommunication. These subjects' estimates of consensus were also diminished. Covariation of the attitude and consensus measures was significant. Auxiliary analyses suggested that overpayment attenuated consensus, which heightened susceptibility to attitude change. Experiment 2 considered the effects of payment and timing of measures on attitudes, assumed consensus, and recall. Results disclosed that payment for proattitudinal advocacy attenuated consensus even before such advocacy was undertaken. Attitudes were not influenced in this condition. Consensus and attitude were diminished among paid subjects exposed to a countercommunication. Implications of these findings for the incentive-aroused ambivalence hypothesis (Crano & Sivacek, 1984) are discussed.Providing a person with an extrinsic reward to engage in an intrinsically motivated action can diminish his or her subsequent interest in the activity. Pioneering studies by Lepper, Deci, and their colleagues have established the robustness of the overjustiflcation effect, as this phenomenon has come to be called, and have demonstrated its generality in samples of both adults and children (

The study examined how group structure affects group process and performance in stressful and nonstressful environments. Research suggests that clear structure should facilitate group process and performance, but reactance theory suggests that prearranged group structure may reduce individual freedom, thereby reducing group satisfaction and performance. A 2 x 4 factorial design involved groups that were either given structure or left unstructured before working on a task. Groups worked in either positive, crowded, or noisy environmental conditions. A perceived negative environment condition in which subjects were informed that the environment would inhibit performance was also included. The results indicated that the predetermined structure facilitated interpersonal relations and performance in the positive environment and the perceived negative environment. However, the predetermined structure had a negative effect when the groups faced a stressful environment (crowded or noisy). The results suggest that the environmental setting influences the type of group structure that will be most effective in promoting process and performance.

No abstract

No abstract