Dissonance and Prejudice: Personal Costs, Choice, and Change in Attitudes and Racial Beliefs Following Counterattitudinal Advocacy That Benefits a Minority

Abstract

In 2 experiments employing 2 different compliance inductions, White college students were asked to advocate a counterattitudinal scholarship policy that would benefit Blacks at some costs to the advocate. In Experiment 1, all participants made their advocacy under high-choice conditions. Increasing cost was associated with less advocacy-specific attitude change, but similar positive change in related beliefs about Blacks-a "generalization" of dissonance-driven change-occurred regardless of the costliness of the policy. In Experiment 2, related beliefs about Blacks also became more favorable (relative to no-advocacy controls) only when choice to make the advocacy was high. Generalization of change was mediated by increased favorability of thoughts about the policy that resulted from advocacy. Whether or not high cost makes the advocacy-specific attitude too important to change, dissonance involving favorable pro-Black thoughts and more conflicted sentiments in the larger attitude system may be reduced by changing beliefs within the larger system.