Defending a practice

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Research by Bem on Cog-D: People forced to write essays on subjects they disagree with (i.e., ask college girls who oppose abortion to write essays on why it should remain legal) change their mind to be consistent with their behavior. Switch perspectives from pre-essay anti-AB status, to being proAB after essay completion. One of the reasons why my McDojo is better than yours? Hmmm.

 

[Black Bear]

I believe that Bem advocated an alternative to cog-d which was called "self-perception theory". Very similar idea, just different mechanism. But your example is very valid I think.

I didn't have 34 rep points before, but now I'm at -20!

 

[Brother John]

I think you meant to say innovation would be a way to decrease cognitive diossonance. CD might be characterized in this context as the ambilalence one experiences when some part of their system lets them down.

No not really. Maybe I didn't explain myself very well. To my understanding (I also majored in psych) cognitive dissonance occurs when you are forced into experiencing something new or some thing familiar delt with in new ways. Basically being forced to deal with something new and unfamiliar.

I'm not sure what ambilalence is. Could be part of the .50cent wording that's been bandied about recently... or maybe just a typo. I'm one to talk...I do that all the time. IF you meant 'ambivalence' and are refering to me or what Iv'e said ...I don't have any. I also don't understand the part about a "system" letting anyone down and the cross training part.
If you are talking about me and my sideline pursuit of Jujutsu...
Sure; I'll experience some CD if I begin to cross train.
The only "IF" is IF I can find a dojo in my area.
Currently
No


Your Brother (Whos not Ambivalent...I just have gas)
John

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

It was a typo, it was meant to be ambivalence (sp?), and it was not referring to you, but to the idea of a state of anxiety (psychodynamic word) experienced whil in a state of cognitive dissonance (cog-B word).

Bear...right about BEM; it's been years, but I remember digging up his other published research in prep for an experiemnt we were going to conduct and submit to JPSP, and getting the impression that he was a Cog-psych proponent looking for a way to be different, so renamed it. (kinda fitting for an MA forum in a way). But as I said, it's been a long time, and have since checked out fo the behavioral sciences and into physical med.

Tchuss!

D.

 

[Black Bear]

Wie gehts?

I think the idea of self-perception theory is that that bothersome state of cog-d does not occur, but the person observes their own behaviour and makes an inference from it ("Hmm, I guess I support abortion" or "Hmm, I got pistacchio ice cream. I guess I like pistacchio ice cream.") the same way they'd make an inference about someone else from observing THEIR behaviour.

Bem's good. He's not a mooch.

Some research suggests s-p theory holds for things that the person doesn't attach a lot of importance to, whereas cog-d theory holds for things that the person really feels matters a lot. Either way, we see beliefs change to fit behaviour.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Wie gehts?

I think the idea of self-perception theory is that that bothersome state of cog-d does not occur, but the person observes their own behaviour and makes an inference from it ("Hmm, I guess I support abortion" or "Hmm, I got pistacchio ice cream. I guess I like pistacchio ice cream.") the same way they'd make an inference about someone else from observing THEIR behaviour.

Bem's good. He's not a mooch.

Some research suggests s-p theory holds for things that the person doesn't attach a lot of importance to, whereas cog-d theory holds for things that the person really feels matters a lot. Either way, we see beliefs change to fit behaviour.

My exposure to Bem was in the context of exploring Counter-Attitudinal Advocacy as one of several possible compliance gaining tools for application in a social persuasion campaign involving confederates and an unsuspecting public. For our purposes, his theory was lumped in with Cog-D in the context of re-packaging dystonic information regarding self-concept in order to decrease anxiety produced by apparent discrepencies between self-concept and behaviour. Other models being employed in the experiment included some components of the Elaboration Likelihood Model, Locus of Control, and some others, to see if correlations could be made between how certain personality profiles would respond to persuasive campaigns based on multiple layer interactions between these variables. (i.e, if we get Hi-dog, externally referenced S's to engage in counter-attitudinal advocacy, but manipulate the anxiety levels associated with potential outcomes of changes in perspectives (via positive or negative alter-casting), will that yield different, predictable results than with a different constellation of applied influences? There were multiple variables to control for among the different groups (i.e., lo-dog, internal or external, etc.), with a lot of different stages (One supposedly unrelated experiement involving taking Rotter and CPI, another taking various other inventories, blah, blah, blah)...just grew to be too complex for the time and funding we had. But the mish-mosh of ideas made for an intriguing pie in the sky.

I know it's sloppy and vague, but I haven't thought about it since 88. Just been rolling around in the back of my mind since this thread went into the direction of cog psych. theory.

I got out of psych because the idea of objectively evaluating subjective experience struck me as an odd & oxymoronic obsession for so many to invest in -- including myself. But I remain an avid reader of the field. Once in psych (seriously), always in psych. The influence and persuasion stuff came in real handy in sales, but I'm sure that wouldn't have pleased my old profs and mentors.

D.

 

[loki09789]

My exposure to Bem was in the context of exploring Counter-Attitudinal Advocacy as one of several possible compliance gaining tools for application in a social persuasion campaign involving confederates and an unsuspecting public. For our purposes, his theory was lumped in with Cog-D in the context of re-packaging dystonic information regarding self-concept in order to decrease anxiety produced by apparent discrepencies between self-concept and behaviour. Other models being employed in the experiment included some components of the Elaboration Likelihood Model, Locus of Control, and some others, to see if correlations could be made between how certain personality profiles would respond to persuasive campaigns based on multiple layer interactions between these variables. (i.e, if we get Hi-dog, externally referenced S's to engage in counter-attitudinal advocacy, but manipulate the anxiety levels associated with potential outcomes of changes in perspectives (via positive or negative alter-casting), will that yield different, predictable results than with a different constellation of applied influences? There were multiple variables to control for among the different groups (i.e., lo-dog, internal or external, etc.), with a lot of different stages (One supposedly unrelated experiement involving taking Rotter and CPI, another taking various other inventories, blah, blah, blah)...just grew to be too complex for the time and funding we had. But the mish-mosh of ideas made for an intriguing pie in the sky.

I know it's sloppy and vague, but I haven't thought about it since 88. Just been rolling around in the back of my mind since this thread went into the direction of cog psych. theory.

I got out of psych because the idea of objectively evaluating subjective experience struck me as an odd & oxymoronic obsession for so many to invest in -- including myself. But I remain an avid reader of the field. Once in psych (seriously), always in psych. The influence and persuasion stuff came in real handy in sales, but I'm sure that wouldn't have pleased my old profs and mentors.

D.

I am distantly following your posting KK..., could you dumbie it down some, or give an layman's example of what you are describing for me. It sounds like it relates to class management and dealing with students in productive ways..... but with more possible insight.

I have to agree with your oxymoronic ref. between objective/subjective. I think this could be useful understanding when dealing with people in general. Has it helped with your bedside manner at all/or as an instructor?

 

[loki09789]

"One of the things I learned with my psychology and through the people I work with, if you wish to discuss topics, know your "audience". "

For some reason, I was thinking about this "know thy audience" axium that has come up on MT in the past many times. CeCei, not picking on you specificially by any means, just using the quote to illustrate my point.

In English Language Arts (no longer just called "English" like when I was in school) there is the idea of weakening your stance by constantly dumbing it down, over explaining with phrases that could be expressed more simply with one or two words.... State it simply, directly. The audience in this forum is far too broad to 'know' it or to be able to effectively explain things consisely and clearly everytime. In a one way communication process, like speeches/essays..., the lack of interaction makes tone VERY significant because there is no way to further explain anything. It is as it is. In an interactive medium like this the 'know thy audience' comment is less critical, in comparison (PLEASE don't think this means that I am for disregarding audience awareness), since anyone of us can write back and say "huh?" whenever we want clarification.

On the same point, I have noticed that I, personally, don't really use the IMHO/IMO comments too often based on the same training of communication. I am the one making the statement/presenting the point. My name, as author, is right there with the statement, so it should be safely assumed that it is an IMO statement - unless I make some kind of referance or quote use. I have noticed the IMO/IMHO functioning more as a demonstration of humility (sometimes false) than as a citation of you as author of the idea.

I am of the opinion (oops, there's my IMO/IMHO quota for the month) that my fellow posters are confident persons in their own right and don't require pro forma demonstrations of humility in order to feel that they are not being lorded over. There have been many an inflammatory/bold statements that were made confidently but with the IMHO/IMO humility demonstration as an attempt to soften the blow. In that capacity, it doesn't work.

Sorry for being off topic, but I wanted to get that off my chest and it wasn't deep enough to warrant a thread of its own.

 

[Ceicei]

Loki,

You've made several excellent points. Thank you.

Even with a very broad variety of people on a board like this, it would make sense to express as clearly so to be understood by as many people as possible. To have a person answer with "huh?" too many times diminishes the message somewhat and often serves to highlight the "intelligent factor" more than is necessary on both sides. Focus should be on the subject matter more than on the exercise of trying to understand what is said and hoping to form an "intelligent enough" response. To do so reminds me vaguely of the olden "chest thumping" rituals of proving "who's better".

Granted, this inherit need among certain individuals cannot be suppressed. In fact, to do so may then lose the opportunity of viewing with a different fresh perspective, even though it may take extra effort for some.

- Ceicei

 

[Black Bear]

KKK, wow, that's pretty ambitious, kind of a comprehensive approach to counterattitudinal persuasion. But you're darn right it'd take money. I personally found that research wasn't that gratifying. It had its moments, but it could be tedious, and I'd be just as happy being spoon-fed the findings from a journal, and just spending my life helping people.

Your point is taken about the paradox of objectively studying subjective phenomena. But of course, we have to do it still.

Regards,
BB

 

[Black Bear]

loki, you are correct, yet these silly hedges, "IMO", etc. are necessary because the internet is full of easily offended idiots. They're social lubricants.

You post good information loki, and it's nice too that you don't grease it up the way some people do. Very matter-of-fact.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

I second that motion...even though it will undoubtedly cost me brownie points.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Loki,

You've made several excellent points. Thank you.

Even with a very broad variety of people on a board like this, it would make sense to express as clearly so to be understood by as many people as possible. To have a person answer with "huh?" too many times diminishes the message somewhat and often serves to highlight the "intelligent factor" more than is necessary on both sides. Focus should be on the subject matter more than on the exercise of trying to understand what is said and hoping to form an "intelligent enough" response. To do so reminds me vaguely of the olden "chest thumping" rituals of proving "who's better".

Granted, this inherit need among certain individuals cannot be suppressed. In fact, to do so may then lose the opportunity of viewing with a different fresh perspective, even though it may take extra effort for some.

- Ceicei

*thumping chest mindlessly* What are you trying to say?