Double forced compliance situations are studied to analyse how attitudes change after the performance of two behaviours, rather than just one as in standard forced (or induced) compliance situations. In the present experiment, subjects were asked to execute two successive counterattitudinal behaviours: writing an essay in favour of selective admission to the third year of university (first behaviour) and giving a convincing speech in favour of selective admission (second behaviour). The first behaviour was always performed in a high-commitment context (free choice, publicness, and consequences), whereas the second was performed in a high-commitment context as well as in a lowcommitment context (free choice, anonymity, and no consequences). The following hypotheses were tested. (1) If the second behaviour is performed in a high-commitment context, it will increase the dissonance induced by the first. (2) If the second behaviour is performed in a low-commitment context, it will decrease the dissonance induced by the first. The results confirmed both hypotheses, which comply with the radical version of dissonance theory (Beauvois & Joule, 1996, 1999. As a whole, these results are incompatible with competing theories of Festinger's theory of dissonance (1957), and in particular with self-perception and impression-management theories. Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.The double forced (or induced) compliance paradigm is the most famous paradigm in Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance (1957). Research on forced compliance focuses on the attitude change that follows the execution of one behaviour (such as writing a counterattitudinal essay), whereas research on double forced compliance (for a summary, see Beauvois & Joule, 1996, 1999 focuses on the attitude change that follows the execution of two behaviours. Consider a subject who executes two behaviours: the first one is labelled B1 (writing an essay in favour of selective admission to the third year of study), and the second one is labelled B2 (recording a speech in favour of selective admission). Both are in contradiction with private attitude A (I am against selective admission). One might think that a subject who executed both counterattitudinal behaviours B1 and B2 would have more dissonance to reduce than one who executed only one behaviour. The dissonance aroused by the first and second behaviours should add up and thereby increase the attitude change.