The following is an excerpt of the intervention methodology. For more information, please see the full text of the article on the publisher's website or through your institution's library.

Experiment 1

In our initial experiment, we varied choice and publicity. White students at a Northern university were asked to write an essay endorsing a substantial increase in scholarship funds for Black students at the expense of funds for White students. [...]

Method

Subjects and Design Sixty-five White female and male students at Adelphi University participated to partially fulfill an introductory psychology course requirement. [...]

Procedure

Cover story and choice manipulation. [...] The committee, in turn, was employing the psychology department to gather arguments, in the form of essays, on both sides of the issue that it would then consider in making "an educated decision" about the proposal. Subjects in this study were being asked to provide those essays. In the low-choice conditions, subjects then were told that they had been assigned to write an essay in favor of the policy of at least doubling scholarship funds for Black students (pro-increase essays). In the high-choice conditions, the experimenter explained that he had gathered enough anti-increase essays and was now gathering pro-increase essays. He hastened to add, however, that the side subjects wrote on was "completely voluntary," before stressing that he really needed "strong, forceful" pro essays. [...] The experimenter then told subjects they would have 5 min to write their essays and left the room. When 5 min had elapsed, the experimenter returned, secured the essay [...], announced that "now we would like to get your opinion on this issue," and asked subjects to check on a 31-point scale the extent to which they agreed with the statement "Of the total amount of scholarship money Adelphi University has, the percentage given to deserving Black students should be at least doubled." [...]

Publicity manipulation. [...] Subjects in the high-publicity conditions signed this form and also wrote their telephone and student identification numbers on it. Later, high-publicity subjects signed their essays in the presence of the experimenter and handed them to him unconcealed; they similarly completed the attitude scale in his presence. [...] Low-publicity subjects merely made a check mark on the release form. [...] The experimenter explained to low-publicity subjects that, when they completed their essay, they should fold and seal it in the small envelope and then place that envelope in the wall envelope [...]. He then handed subjects the attitude item and asked them to indicate their own attitude toward the scholarship issue [...].

Beliefs and values measures. [...] After this 5-min break, the experimenter returned, accompanied by a second male experimenter [...]. He announced that he would need a few more minutes with the other participant, asked subjects if they could help out Brian in the meantime (all agreed to), and departed. The second experimenter [...] indicated he was collecting data for his master's thesis and needed to have two questionnaires filled out. One of these was a 41-item values and racial beliefs questionnaire described below; the other was a conglomerate of items drawn from various personality scales. [...] The questionnaire consisted of 41 items in the form of statements to be responded to on a 6-point scale that ranged from —3 (disagree strongly) to 3 (agree strongly). [...] The Pro-Black Scale (10 items) measures sympathetic, positive beliefs about Blacks, especially those concerning the unfairness and disadvantages of past and present discrimination against Blacks. [...] The anti-Black Scale (10 items) measures antagonistic feelings about Blacks based mainly on the belief that they have not done enough to help themselves. [...] The remaining two embedded scales are measures of values, or generalized beliefs about what kinds of behaviors and goals in life are preferable or good. The Humanitarianism-Egalitarianism Scale consists of 10 statements [...]. [...] The Protestant Ethic Scale consists of 11 items taken from Mirels and Garrett's (1971) 19-item Protestant Ethic Scale. [...]

Postexperimental questions. [...] The first experimenter then returned and administered a final questionnaire. Subjects rated, on 31-point scales, their level of choice in deciding which side of the issue to endorse in the essay (1 = no choice at all and 31 = choice was totally mine) and the extent to which the experimenter could know the position they took in their essay and on the attitude scale (1 = definitely could not know and 31 = definitely knew). [...]

No-essay control condition. Subjects in the no-essay control condition received the same cover story regarding the university committee and the policy proposal regarding scholarships and deserving Black students. Instead of being instructed to write an essay, however, control subjects were told that "we simply would like to know your opinion on this issue." They then completed the 31-point attitude scale under high-publicity conditions. From that point, the procedure was identical to that in the essay-writing conditions.

Experiment 2

One goal of Experiment 2 was to replicate the results of Experiment 1. [...]

Method

Subjects and Design One hundred eighteen White male and female students at St. Mary's College of Maryland participated to earn extra credit in their psychology courses. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the conditions of a 2 (high or low choice) X 2 (immediate or delayed attitude assessment) + 1 (no-essay control condition) design. [...]

Timing of attitude assessment. After the experimenter had collected their essays, subjects in the immediate-assessment conditions were administered the attitude scale. Subjects in the delayed-assessment conditions were administered the attitude scale following a 15-min delay, during which they sat alone in the room while the experimenter "took care of another subject."

Administration of the racial beliefs and values scales. The procedure for obtaining subjects' responses to the Pro- and Anti-Black Scales, the Humanitarianism-Egalitarianism Scale, and the Protestant Ethic Scale differed somewhat from the "second experimenter" procedure used in Experiment 1. In the present case, once the experimenter received the attitude response, she explained to subjects that the first study was over and that they now would participate in a second, unrelated study. She explained that this second study was a survey that she was conducting for her senior project and handed them the 41-item questionnaire. She waited outside the room while subjects completed the questionnaire.

No-essay control condition. On arrival, subjects in the no-essay control condition were asked to wait while the experimenter took care of another subject. Fifteen minutes later, the experimenter returned and delivered the same cover story that was given to experimental subjects except that, in this case, subjects were told only that the college administration required their scaled opinion. Control subjects then completed the dependent measures.

Experiment 3

[...] Experiment 3 sought to rule out certain methodology-based alternative explanations of these findings. [...]

Genuine Change Versus Pure Impression Management One possibility we addressed is that the observed effects reflect purely disingenuous impression management rather than real shifts in attitudes and beliefs. So far, effects on attitudes and beliefs have been observed primarily in high-publicity conditions. [...]

Attitude Change Versus Subject Self-Selection in the High-Choice Conditions In addition to submitting the findings of the prior experiments to a "privacy test" of pure impression management, Experiment 3 addressed the possible problem of self-selection in the high-choice conditions. [...]

What (About the Person) Determines Compliance? If prior attitudes do not influence level of compliance with high-choice dissonance induction, what other subject variables might have such an influence? Our suspicion was that subjects' beliefs about Blacks coming into the induced-compliance situation have much to do with how they respond to the situation. [...]

Method

Subjects and Design Subjects were 135 female and male students at Adelphi University who participated for credit toward a psychology course requirement. They were assigned randomly to the conditions of a 2 (high or low choice) X 2 (immediate or delayed attitude assessment) factorial design.

Procedure [...] It was explained that several faculty members in the department had developed a total of 30 questionnaires they hoped would help them get ideas for future research. These questionnaires had been sorted randomly into 15 pairs and placed into 15 envelopes that were now taped to the wall of the experimental room. [...] Before leaving the room, the experimenter explained that subjects should place their questionnaires back in the envelope, seal it, place it in a box marked "Psychology Department Questionnaires," and knock on the door when they were finished. In actuality, all of the envelopes contained the same two questionnaires. One was titled "Campus Issues Survey" and consisted of policy statements on 20 campus issues for which subjects expressed their attitudes by checking one hash mark on 31-point scales with endpoints labeled disagree and agree. Embedded among these items was the increased-scholarships-for-Blacks-only policy, worded as in the previous experiments. Responses to this question constituted the preessay attitude measure. The second questionnaire was the racial-beliefs-and-values measure. When subjects had knocked on the door to indicate they had completed the questionnaires, the experimenter re-entered and delivered the instructions for the "second study." This was the induced-compliance portion of the study, and it included the same cover story, high-publicity trappings, manipulations, and instructions as did Experiment 2. The only departure from Experiment 2 was in the manner in which postessay attitudes were collected. Immediately or 15 min after subjects had completed and signed their essays and handed them to the experimenter, the experimenter explained that the second study was finished and that the "third study" would soon begin. The experimenter indicated that, first, however, she would like to get students' opinions about the essay they had just written. The experimenter handed subjects the 31-point essay attitude item and instructed them to mark off their opinion while she waited outside, seal their response in an envelope, place that envelope in a folder on the wall marked "Opinion Item 1," and knock on the door when finished. [...]