Abstract
From cognitive dissonance theory to the meaning maintenance model, most cognitive consistency models suggest that the detection of an inconsistency evokes negative affect. However, there is no consensus on the minimal conditions that are necessary for the occurrence of negative affect. In three studies, we tested whether exposure to minimal inconsistencies, that is, inconsistencies that involve very few cognitions, evokes negative affect. Negative affect was assessed by using an implicit method inspired by the Implicit Positive and Negative Attitude Test. Neither exposure to incorrect basic equations (Study 1, N = 91) nor exposure to Thatcher illusions (Study 2; N = 120) nor exposure to colour-reversed playing cards (Study 3, N = 94) resulted in increased negative affect. An internal meta-analysis of the three studies confirms a likely absence of negative affect (Cohen’s d = 0.05). This absence suggests that more than minimal inconsistency is needed for inconsistency to evoke negative affect. We discuss the likely requirements and the role of negative affect in the cognitive consistency process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and material
Data and materials can be freely accessed at: https://osf.io/ar97y/?view_only=97d7ed7532ce40448176030cfee86e04
Notes
We conducted a pretest to ensure the neutrality of the Cambodian words used in Study 3. In a pre-screening, we selected 36 neutral-looking words based on their appearance. Then, 102 participants (Mage = 26; SDage = 7; 79 women) were recruited in an online procedure to rate each word on a positive and a negative four-point scale. After this pretest, the 10 most neutral words, both in terms of valence means and variance, were selected for the study.
References
Beauvois, J.-L., & Joule, R.-V. (1996). A radical dissonance theory. London: Taylor and Francis.
Botvinick, M. M. (2007). Conflict monitoring and decision making: reconciling two perspectives on anterior cingulate function. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioural Neuroscience, 7(4), 356–366. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.7.4.356.
Brannon, S. M., & Gawronski, B. (2018). In search of a negativity bias in expectancy violation. Social Cognition, 36(2), 199–220.
Bruner, J. S., & Postman, L. (1949). On the perception of incongruity: a paradigm. Journal of Personality, 18, 206–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1949.tb01241.x.
Cooper, J. (2019). Cognitive dissonance: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. International Review of Social Psychology, 32(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.277
Dreisbach, G., & Fischer, R. (2012). Conflicts as aversive signals. Brain and Cognition, 78(2), 94–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2011.12.003.
Elliot, A. J., & Devine, P. G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,, 67(3), 382–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.382.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Fritz, J., & Dreisbach, G. (2013). Conflicts as aversive signals: conflict priming increases negative judgments for neutral stimuli. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioural Neurosciences, 13(2), 311–317. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-012-0147-1.
Goh, J. X., Hall, J. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(10), 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12267.
Harmon-Jones, C., Harmon-Jones, E. (2018). Toward an Increased Understanding of Dissonance Processes: A Response to the Target Article by Kruglanski et al. Psychological Inquiry, 29, 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2018.1480691.
Harmon-Jones, E., Harmon-Jones, C., & Levy, N. (2015). An action-based model of cognitive-dissonance processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(3), 184–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414566449.
Jonas, E., McGregor, I., Klackl, J., Agroskin, D., Fritsche, I., Holbrook, C., Nash, K., Proulx, T., & Quirin, M. (2014). Threat and defense: From anxiety to approach. Advances in experimental social psychology, 49, 219–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800052-6.00004-4.
Krosnick, J. A., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). Designing Rating Scales for Effective Measurement in Surveys. In Lyberg et al. (Eds.), Survey Measurement and Process Quality (pp. 141–164). Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118490013.ch6.
Kruglanski, A. W., Jasko, K., Milyavsky, M., Chernikova, M., Webber, D., Pierro, A., & di Santo, D. (2018a). All about cognitive consistency: A reply to commentaries. Psychological Inquiry, 29, 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2018.1480656.
Kruglanski, A. W., Jasko, K., Milyavsky, M., Chernikova, M., Webber, D., Pierro, A., & di Santo, D. (2018b). Cognitive consistency theory in social psychology: A paradigm reconsidered. Psychological Inquiry, 29, 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2018.1480619.
Levy, N., Harmon-Jones, C., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2018). Dissonance and discomfort: Does a simple cognitive inconsistency evoke a negative affective state? Motivation Science, 4(2), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000079.
Lewis, M. B., & Johnston, R. A. (1997). The Thatcher illusion as a test of configural disruption. Perception, 26(2), 225–227. https://doi.org/10.1068/p260225.
Ma, D. S., Correll, J., & Wittenbrink, B. (2015). The Chicago face database: A free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1122–1135.
Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (2004). Designing experiments and analyzing data: a model comparison perspective (2nd ed.). Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Morris, S. B., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 105–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.105.
Noordewier, M. K., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2013). On the valence of surprise. Cognition and Emotion, 27(7), 1326–1334. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.777660.
Payne, B. K., Cheng, C. M., Govorun, O., & Stewart, B. D. (2005). An inkblot for attitudes: Affect misattribution as implicit measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.277.
Proulx, T. (2018). Lumping the affective and behavioral responses to inconsistency: A lump too far? Psychological Inquiry, 29, 82–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2018.1480588.
Proulx, T., & Heine, S. J. (2008). The case of the transmogrifying experimenter: Affirmation of a moral schema following implicit change detection. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1294–1300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02238.x.
Proulx, T., & Heine, S. J. (2009). Connections from Kafka: Exposure to meaning threats improves implicit learning of an artificial grammar. Psychological Science, 20(9), 1125–1131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02414.x.
Proulx, T., Heine, S. J., & Vohs, K. (2010). When is the unfamiliar the uncanny? Meaning affirmation after exposure to Absurdist Literature, Humor, and Art. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 817–829. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210369896.
Proulx, T., & Major, B. (2013). A raw deal: Heightened liberalism following exposure to anomalous playing cards. Journal of Social Issues, 69(3), 455–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12024.
Proulx, T., Inzlicht, M., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2012). Understanding all inconsistency compensation as a palliative response to violated expectations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(5), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.04.002.
Proulx, T., Sleegers, W., & Tritt, S. M. (2017). The expectancy bias: Expectancy-violating faces evoke earlier pupillary dilation than neutral or negative faces. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.12.003.
Quirin, M., Kazén, M., & Kuhl, J. (2009). When nonsense sounds happy or helpless: The Implicit Positive and Negative Affect Test (IPANAT). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(3), 500–516. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016063.
Quirin, M., Wróbel, M., Norcini Pala, A., Stieger, S., Brosschot, J., Kazén, M., et al. (2018). A cross-cultural validation of the Implicit Positive and Negative Affect Test (IPANAT): Results from ten countries across three continents. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 34(1), 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000315.
Randles, D., Proulx, T., & Heine, S. J. (2011). Turn-frogs and careful-sweaters: Non-conscious perception of incongruous word pairings provokes fluid compensation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 246–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.020.
Renaud, P., & Blondin, J. P. (1997). The stress of Stroop performance: physiological and emotional responses to color-word interference, task pacing, and pacing speed. International Journal of Psychohysiology, 27(2), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8760(97)00049-4.
Simmons, J., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2013). Life After P-Hacking. In S. Botti & A. Labroo. (eds.) Advances in Consumer Research (vol. 41). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research. http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/v41/acr_v41_15833.pdf.
Sklar, A. Y., Levy, N., Goldstein, A., Mandel, R., Maril, A., & Hassin, R. R. (2012). Reading and doing arithmetic nonconsciously. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(48), 19614–19619. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211645109.
Sleegers, W. W. A., Proulx, T., & van Beest, I. (2015). Extremism reduces conflict arousal and increases values affirmation in response to meaning violations. Biological Psychology, 108, 126–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2015.03.012.
Tan, X., Van Prooijen, J.-W., Proulx, T., Wu, H., Van Beest, I., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2017). Reacting to unexpected losses in an uncertain world: High approach individuals become even more risk-seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 109, 117–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.051.
Vaidis, D. C., & Bran, A. (2018). Some prior considerations about dissonance to understand its reduction: Comment on McGrath (2017). Social and Personality Psychology Compass, e12411. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12411.
Vaidis, D. C., & Bran, A. (2019). Respectable challenges to respectable theory: Cognitive dissonance theory requires conceptualization clarification and operational tools. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01189.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.
Funding
Alexandre Bran is jointly supported by the Association Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique and PACIFICA through the CIFRE grant 2017/0145.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
Ethics approval
In accordance with French laws concerning research on human participants and with the Comité d’Ethique de la Recherche of University de Paris, no ethics approval was required for the studies presented in this manuscript. All studies have been performed in accordance with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.
Consent to participate
All participants provided written informed consent before participating in any of the presented studies.
Consent for publication
All participants provided written informed consent for the use of their data in scientific articles.
Code availability
Code for Study 3 can be obtained upon request to the corresponding author.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bran, A., Vaidis, D.C. Does Minimal Inconsistency Evoke Negative Affect? Report From Three Studies Using an Implicit Measure of Emotion. Psychol Stud 66, 105–112 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-020-00594-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-020-00594-4