User Tools

Site Tools


cognitive_consequences_of_forced_compliance

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
cognitive_consequences_of_forced_compliance [2015/04/06 10:30]
hkimscil
cognitive_consequences_of_forced_compliance [2015/04/06 10:32] (current)
hkimscil
Line 125: Line 125:
 Specifically,​ as applied to our results, this a1ternative explanation would maintain that perhaps, for some reason, the Ss in the One Dollar condition worked harder at telling the waiting girl that the tasks were fun and enjoyable. That is, in the One Dollar condition they may have rehearsed it more mentally, thought up more ways of saying it, may have said it more convincingly,​ and so on. Why this might have been the case is, of course, not immediately apparent. One might expect: that, in the Twenty Dollar condition, having been paid more, they would try to do a better job of it than in the One Dollar condition. But nevertheless,​ the possibility exists that the Ss n the One Dollar condition may have improvised more. Specifically,​ as applied to our results, this a1ternative explanation would maintain that perhaps, for some reason, the Ss in the One Dollar condition worked harder at telling the waiting girl that the tasks were fun and enjoyable. That is, in the One Dollar condition they may have rehearsed it more mentally, thought up more ways of saying it, may have said it more convincingly,​ and so on. Why this might have been the case is, of course, not immediately apparent. One might expect: that, in the Twenty Dollar condition, having been paid more, they would try to do a better job of it than in the One Dollar condition. But nevertheless,​ the possibility exists that the Ss n the One Dollar condition may have improvised more.
  
-Because of the desirability of investigating this possible alternative explanation,​ we recorded on a tape recorder the conversation between each S and the girl. These recordings were transcribed and then rated, by two independent raters, on five dimensions. The ratings were of course done in ignorance of which condition each S was in. The reliabilities of these ratings, that is, the correlations between the two independent raters, ranged from .61 to .88, with an average reliability of .71. The five ratings were:+{{:​table2.gif |}}Because of the desirability of investigating this possible alternative explanation,​ we recorded on a tape recorder the conversation between each S and the girl. These recordings were transcribed and then rated, by two independent raters, on five dimensions. The ratings were of course done in ignorance of which condition each S was in. The reliabilities of these ratings, that is, the correlations between the two independent raters, ranged from .61 to .88, with an average reliability of .71. The five ratings were:
  
-1. The content of what the S said before the girl made the remark that her friend told her it was boring. The stronger the S's positive statements about the tasks, and the more ways in which he said they were interesting and enjoyable, the higher the rating+  - The content of what the S said before the girl made the remark that her friend told her it was boring. The stronger the S's positive statements about the tasks, and the more ways in which he said they were interesting and enjoyable, the higher the rating 
 +  - The content of what the S said after the girl made the above-mentioned remark. This was rated in the same way as for the content before the remark. 
 +  - A similar rating of the over-all content of what the S said. 
 +  - A rating of how persuasive and convincing the S was in what he said and the way in which he said it. 
 +  - A rating of the amount of time in the discussion that the S spent discussing the tasks as opposed to going off into irrelevant things.
  
-2. The content of what the S said after the girl made the above-mentioned remark. This was rated in the same way as for the content before the remark. +The mean ratings for the One Dollar and Twenty Dollar conditions, averaging the ratings of the two independent raters, are presented in Table 2. It is clear from examining the table that, in all cases, the Twenty Dollar condition is slightly higher The differences are small, however, and only on the rating of "​amount of time" does the difference between the two conditions even approach significance. We are certainly justified in concluding that the Ss in the One Dollar condition did not improvise more nor act more convincingly. Hence, the alternative explanation discussed above cannot account for the findings.
- +
-3. A similar rating of the over-all content of what the S said. +
- +
-4. A rating of how persuasive and convincing the S was in what he said and the way in which he said it. +
- +
-5. A rating of the amount of time in the discussion that the S spent discussing the tasks as opposed to going off into irrelevant things. +
- +
-{{:​table2.gif |}}The mean ratings for the One Dollar and Twenty Dollar conditions, averaging the ratings of the two independent raters, are presented in Table 2. It is clear from examining the table that, in all cases, the Twenty Dollar condition is slightly higher The differences are small, however, and only on the rating of "​amount of time" does the difference between the two conditions even approach significance. We are certainly justified in concluding that the Ss in the One Dollar condition did not improvise more nor act more convincingly. Hence, the alternative explanation discussed above cannot account for the findings.+
  
  
cognitive_consequences_of_forced_compliance.txt · Last modified: 2015/04/06 10:32 by hkimscil