= 1.87, < .0001, = .93 CI.975[.74, 1.12]. The dissonance condition reported B p d significantly more interest in the paragraph 2.70, = 1.8, MCont = 2.28, = MDiss = SD SD 1.56; = .43, = .01, = .26 CI.975[.06, .45], supporting the original dissonance B p d reduction finding, even accounting for the methodological concern caused by asymmetric noncompliance (see Table 1). However, when was included as a moderating variable, there was a significant interaction for dissonance reduction between condition and willingness to comply, = 1.07, = .02. Amongst those who complied with B p instructions, we observed a classic dissonance effect, such that participants in the dissonance condition claimed that the passage was more interesting, = 3.14, = 1.81, M SD than those in the forced choice condition, = 2.31, = 1.56; = .86, < .0001, = M SD B p d .47 CI.975[.28, .66]. Those who did not comply showed no difference between conditions, = 1.74, = 1.3; = 2.0, = 1.60; = -.21 = .62, = .05 MDiss SD MCont SD B p d CI.975[-.15, .25]. We anticipated an effect, such that if a person affirmed an unrelated belief first, they would not feel as motivated to reduce dissonance and vice versa. compliers were included, but to prevent interpreting a 2X2X2 with some unstable cells, compliance was not added as a moderating term. Order did not moderate the effect of the manipulation on either dissonance reduction, = .47, = .16, or the prostitution bond, B p B = -43.92, = .43. Given the null interactions, the remaining analyses are collapsed across p order. In the context of successfully replicating dissonance reduction, we tested our main hypothesis of interest; that feeling dissonant would also lead to compensatory affirmation. A main effect emerged for affirmation, = 429.59, = 289.99, MDiss SD
B = 1.87, p < .0001, d = .93 CI.975[.74, 1.12]. The dissonance condition reported significantly more interest in the paragraph MDiss = 2.70, SD = 1.8, MCont = 2.28, SD = 1.56; B = .43, p = .01, d = .26 CI.975[.06, .45], supporting the original dissonance reduction finding, even accounting for the methodological concern caused by asymmetric noncompliance (see Table 1). However, when was included as a moderating variable, there was a significant interaction for dissonance reduction between condition and willingness to comply, B = 1.07, p = .02. Amongst those who complied with instructions, we observed a classic dissonance effect, such that participants in the dissonance condition claimed that the passage was more interesting, M = 3.14, SD = 1.81, than those in the forced choice condition, M = 2.31, SD = 1.56; B = .86, p < .0001, d = .47 CI.975[.28, .66]. Those who did not comply showed no difference between conditions, MDiss = 1.74, SD = 1.3; MCont = 2.0, SD = 1.60; B = -.21 p = .62, d = .05 CI.975[-.15, .25]. We anticipated an effect, such that if a person affirmed an unrelated belief first, they would not feel as motivated to reduce dissonance and vice versa. were included, but to prevent interpreting a 2X2X2 with some unstable cells, compliance was not added as a moderating term. Order did not moderate the effect of the manipulation on either dissonance reduction, B = .47, p = .16, or the prostitution bond, B = -43.92, p = .43. Given the null interactions, the remaining analyses are collapsed across order. In the context of successfully replicating dissonance reduction, we tested our main hypothesis of interest; that feeling dissonant would also lead to compensatory affirmation. A main effect emerged for affirmation, MDiss = 429.59, SD = 289.99, compliers
2015%20Dissonance%20and%20MMM.docx