psychology

http://spp.sagepub.com/ Social Psychological and Personality Science

http://spp.sagepub.com/content/2/1/21 The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1948550610379425

2011 2: 21 originally published online 11 August 2010Social Psychological and Personality Science Cindy Harmon-Jones, Brandon J. Schmeichel, Michael Inzlicht and Eddie Harmon-Jones

Trait Approach Motivation Relates to Dissonance Reduction

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for Personality and Social Psychology

Association for Research in Personality

European Association of Social Psychology

Society of Experimental and Social Psychology

can be found at:Social Psychological and Personality ScienceAdditional services and information for

http://spp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://spp.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://spp.sagepub.com/content/2/1/21.refs.htmlCitations:

at Society for Personality and Social Psychology on March 15, 2011spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Trait Approach Motivation Relates to Dissonance Reduction

Cindy Harmon-Jones1, Brandon J. Schmeichel1, Michael Inzlicht2, and Eddie Harmon-Jones1

Abstract Over 50 years of work on cognitive dissonance theory has suggested that dissonance reduction is a motivated process. However, no research has unambiguously demonstrated the direction of this motivation—whether it is approach or avoidance oriented. The action-based model of dissonance proposes that dissonance reduction is an approach-related process that assists in the implementation of decisions. It follows from the action-based model that approach-related personality traits should be related to greater dissonance reduction. The current research tested this idea. Study 1 found that trait behavioral approach sensitivity (BAS) related to more spreading of alternatives (more liking for the chosen over the rejected decision alternative) following a difficult decision. Study 2 found that BAS related to attitudes being more consistent with recent induced compliance behavior. This research therefore suggests that dissonance reduction is an approach-motivated process.

Keywords attitudes, affect-cognition interface, dissonance, individual differences, motivation/goals

Cognitive dissonance theory is concerned with how perception

and cognition influence and are influenced by motivation and

emotion (Festinger, 1957; Harmon-Jones & Mills, 1999). The

original theory of cognitive dissonance predicted that when

an individual holds two or more elements of knowledge that are

relevant to each other but inconsistent with one another, a state

of discomfort is created. The individual is motivated to engage

in psychological work to decrease the discrepancy between

cognitions. Although research on the theory, spanning more

than 50 years, has demonstrated that dissonance reduction is

a motivated process (for reviews, see Harmon-Jones, Amodio,

& Harmon-Jones, 2009; Wicklund & Brehm, 1976), no

research has unambiguously demonstrated the direction of this

motivation—whether it is approach or avoidance oriented.

Moreover, little theoretically driven research has investigated

the influence of broad personality traits on dissonance reduc-

tion (for review, see Frey, 1986).

The action-based model of dissonance begins by assuming

that many perceptions and cognitions activate action tenden-

cies. The action-based model further suggests that when cogni-

tions or perceptions with action implications come into

conflict, a negative affective state is aroused, because conflict-

ing action-based cognitions have the potential to interfere with

effective action (Harmon-Jones et al., 2009). This conflict

activates the anterior cingulate cortex, a region involved in

affective, defensive responses to the detection of basic

cognitive conflicts (Hajcak & Foti, 2008) and the conflict

aroused by typical dissonance manipulations (van Veen, Krug,

Schooler, & Carter, 2009). Once conflict is detected or

dissonance is aroused, dissonance reduction is likely to occur.

According to the model, the changing of cognitions to reduce

dissonance assists in behaving effectively, and this dissonance

reduction is often an approach-motivated process aimed at

translating a behavioral intention into effective action. The

action-based model proposes that dissonance reduction is an

adaptive, approach-related process (Harmon-Jones et al.,

2009) present in a number of species (Egan, Bloom, & Santos,

2010; Egan, Santos, & Bloom, 2007).

The action-based model proposes that discordant cognitions

can interfere with effective action if the cognitions have com-

peting action tendencies. According to the action-based model,

dissonance reduction serves the function of causing the individ-

ual to bring the cognitions in line with behavioral intentions,

which assists in goal-directed behavior (Harmon-Jones &

Harmon-Jones, 2002). For example, individuals who reduce

dissonance may perceive aversive environments to be less

aversive (Balcetis & Dunning, 2007) because doing so assists

in acting upon those environments.

The action-based model of dissonance predicts that the state

in which dissonance reduction occurs is conceptually similar to

1 Texas A&M University, College Station, USA

2 University of Toronto Scarborough, Ontario, Canada

Corresponding Author:

Cindy Harmon-Jones, Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, 4235

TAMU, College Station, TX 77843, USA

Email: cindyharmonjones@gmail.com

Social Psychological and Personality Science 2(1) 21-28 ª The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1948550610379425 http://spps.sagepub.com

21 at Society for Personality and Social Psychology on March 15, 2011spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Jones and Gerard’s (1967) concept of an unequivocal behavior

orientation. Dissonance reduction typically occurs following a

behavioral commitment (Beauvois & Joule, 1999; Brehm &

Cohen, 1962), when the individual is in an action-oriented state

(Beckman & Irle, 1985; Gollwitzer, 1990; Kuhl, 1984). An

action-oriented state, or implemental mindset, is a state in

which intentions are formed to execute behaviors associated

with a commitment (Gollwitzer & Bayer, 1999; Gollwitzer &

Sheeran, 2006). In this state, the individual is approach moti-

vated to behave effectively with regard to the commitment.

Evidence That Dissonance Reduction Is Associated With State Approach Motivation

In a test of the idea that state approach motivation would increase

dissonance reduction, Harmon-Jones and Harmon-Jones

(2002) manipulated the degree of action-orientation that partici-

pants experienced following a decision. First, participants made

an easy or a difficult decision regarding which of several physical

exercises they would perform during the experiment. Then, in the

action-oriented mindset condition, participants listed seven things

they could do to perform well on the exercise they had chosen. But

in the neutral mindset condition, participants listed seven things

they did in a typical day. Participants then evaluated the exercises.

Among participants who made a difficult decision, those in the

action-oriented condition demonstrated more spreading of alter-

natives (demonstrated by a greater increase in preference for the

chosen over the rejected exercise) than those in the neutral mind-

set condition. No spreading of alternatives occurred in either easy

decision condition.

Harmon-Jones, Harmon-Jones, Fearn, Sigelman, and Johnson

(2008) conceptually replicated the experiment described above,

with the addition of a more general action-oriented (implemental)

mindset condition (see Taylor & Gollwitzer, 1995) and a condi-

tion intended to evoke low-approach positive affect. In the

low-approach positive affect condition, participants described

a time when something had happened that made them feel

very good about themselves but was not caused by anything

they themselves had done. Electroencephalographic activity

was measured to assess approach motivation, as relative left

frontal cortical activity is associated with approach motivation

(Amodio, Master, Yee, & Taylor, 2008; Amodio, Shah, Sigel-

man, Brazy, & Harmon-Jones, 2004; Berkman & Lieberman,

2010; Harmon-Jones, 2003, 2004; Harmon-Jones & Allen,

1997, 1998; Robinson & Downhill, 1995). Consistent with

predictions, an action-oriented mindset increased both left

frontal cortical activity and spreading of alternatives, com-

pared to the low approach positive affect condition and the

neutral condition (for a conceptual replication in an induced

compliance experiment, see Harmon-Jones, Gerdjikov, &

Harmon-Jones, 2008).

The results above are consistent with the prediction, derived

from the action-based model, that dissonance reduction is

facilitated by state approach motivation. However, they are all

based on experiments in which action-orientation was manipu-

lated and/or asymmetric frontal cortical activity was assessed,

and one could question whether approach motivation was the

key construct manipulated or measured. The prediction of dis-

sonance reduction being facilitated by approach motivation

would be bolstered by more straightforward demonstrations

of the relationship between approach motivation and disso-

nance reduction. One way to do this would be to link a well-

established measure of trait approach motivation to dissonance

reduction. In addition, we sought to integrate dissonance theory

with another prominent motivational theory that assigns a pivo-

tal role to approach motivation—revised reinforcement sensi-

tivity theory (Corr, 2008).

Behavioral Approach Sensitivity

In revised reinforcement sensitivity theory, behavior is guided

by interaction of the behavioral approach system (BAS),

behavioral inhibition system (BIS), and the fight-flight-freeze

system (Corr, 2008; Gray & McNaughton, 2000). The BIS

serves to inhibit behavior in response to conflicts between

motivational impulses of the BAS and the fight-flight-freeze

system. This revised BIS differs from the originally proposed

BIS, which was posited to respond to conditioned punishment

cues. The revised BIS is compatible with the action-based mod-

el’s conception of a conflict detection process that produces

dissonance arousal.

The BAS (Gray, 1990), behavioral activation system

(Fowles, 1988), and behavioral facilitation system (Depue &

Collins, 1999) are similar to conceptions of an approach or appe-

titive motivational system. According to revised reinforcement

sensitivity theory, the BAS causes reactions to appetitive stimuli

and is responsible for approach behavior. The BAS causes the

individual to begin movement toward goals. Greater BAS

sensitivity should be reflected in greater proneness to engage

in goal-directed effort. Individual differences in BAS are

associated with attentional and emotional responses to incen-

tives and incentive-related cues (Carver & White, 1994; Gable

& Harmon-Jones, 2008), physiological responses to appetitive

stimuli (Hawk & Kowmas, 2003; Peterson, Gable, & Harmon-

Jones, 2008), and aggressive responses at trait and state levels

(Harmon-Jones, 2003; Harmon-Jones & Peterson, 2008; Smits

& Kuppens, 2005). Trait BAS has also predicted greater condi-

tioning responses to rewards (Zinbarg & Mohlman, 1998), and

trait BAS has been found to relate to greater relative left frontal

cortical activity (Amodio et al., 2008; Harmon-Jones & Allen,

1997; Peterson et al., 2008).

Prior to the development of revised reinforcement sensitiv-

ity theory, Carver and White (1994) developed a self-report

instrument to measure individual differences in incentive sen-

sitivity and threat sensitivity, the BIS/BAS scale. This scale has

become widely accepted and used to measure approach and

avoidance motivation.

The Present Studies

If dissonance reduction is an approach-related process that

assists in effective behavior following a decision, as proposed

22 Social Psychological and Personality Science 2(1)

22 at Society for Personality and Social Psychology on March 15, 2011spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

by the action-based model, we would expect individuals

who are dispositionally high in BAS to engage in more disso-

nance reduction. The present research extends past research by

providing a demonstration of the relationship between trait

approach motivation and dissonance reduction. It accomplishes

this by linking a well-established measure of trait approach

motivation to dissonance reduction, essentially testing whether

BAS statistically moderates the effect of dissonance manipula-

tions on dissonance reduction. It also integrates dissonance the-

ory with another prominent motivational theory that assigns a

pivotal role to approach motivation—revised reinforcement

sensitivity theory (Corr, 2008). Study 1 was conducted as an

initial test of the idea that BAS is associated with dissonance

reduction.

Study 1

Brehm (1956) conducted the first examination of dissonance

reduction in a free-choice paradigm. In that study, participants

made either an easy or a difficult decision between two house-

hold items. The difficult decision was between items that were

close in attractiveness, and the easy decision was between

items that were very different in attractiveness. After a difficult

decision, participants changed their attitudes to be less favor-

able toward the rejected alternative and slightly more favorable

toward the chosen alternative. After an easy decision, partici-

pants did not change their attitudes toward the alternatives. In

Study 1, we predicted that BAS would relate to greater spread-

ing of alternatives following a difficult decision.

Method Participants. Participants were 68 undergraduate psychology

students (21 men, 47 women) who participated to partially ful-

fill a course requirement.

Procedure. Participants were run individually. The experi- menter brought each participant to the lab and obtained consent

to participate. Participants then read an introduction to the

experiment that stated the study was an examination of reac-

tions to cognitive experiments and personality.

The experimenter asked participants to carefully read

descriptions of cognitive experiments and rate how desirable

they found each one. Participants read seven descriptions of

tasks that were designed to sound like cognitive experiments.

Each description had unique appealing and unappealing char-

acteristics. Next, participants rated how desirable it would be

to perform each task on a 9-point scale, where 1 ¼ not at all desirable and 9 ¼ very desirable.

The experimenter left the room while participants completed

the BIS/BAS questionnaire. While participants completed this

questionnaire, the experimenter selected two tasks that the

participant had rated similarly and positively. The experimenter

returned to the room and handed the participant the descriptions

of the two highly rated tasks. She told the participant that he or

she would be performing one of the tasks and asked the partici-

pant to choose the one he or she preferred. Participants then

completed a filler questionnaire, which asked them to describe,

in detail, a typical day, in order to provide a delay and distraction

between the decision and rerating.

The experimenter then asked the participant to re-rate all

seven tasks. She said:

Past research has found that people’s evaluations of tasks some-

times change from one moment to the next, whereas at other

times, their evaluations do not. Therefore, it’s a good idea to

assess evaluations multiple times. So please report your current

preferences, that is, how you feel about the tasks right now,

without regard for your earlier evaluations.

After participants finished rerating the tasks, they performed a

Stroop task, for consistency with the cover story. Participants

were then debriefed, given course credit, and dismissed.

Questionnaires. The BAS scale is made up of three subscales, derived from factor analysis: BAS drive, BAS

fun-seeking, and BAS reward-responsiveness. BAS drive

measures the individual’s persistence in working for rewards.

BAS fun-seeking measures the individual’s desire for new

rewards and spontaneity in reward seeking. BAS reward

responsiveness measures the individual’s positive responses

to rewarding events. The BIS scale has a single factor, and

it measures the individual’s punishment sensitivity or threat

sensitivity. As in much previous research (Amodio et al.,

2008; Harmon-Jones & Allen, 1997), we created a BAS total

score by averaging the BAS items. Results for the BAS sub-

scales are presented in a footnote.

Results and Discussion

We first assessed whether spreading of alternatives occurred by

performing a 2 (Time: Predecision vs. Postdecision) � 2 (Alter- native: Chosen vs. Rejected) within-participants ANOVA. Main

effects of time, F(1, 67) ¼ 18.92, p < .001, and alternative, F(1, 67)¼ 44.21, p < .001, emerged. A Time� Alternative inter- action emerged, F(1, 67)¼27.42, p < .001, demonstrating signif- icant spreading of alternatives, as predicted. The interaction

revealed that participants evaluated the chosen alternative more

favorably (M ¼ 6.85, SD ¼ 1.14) than the rejected alternative (M ¼ 5.74, SD¼ 1.47; p < .001) after the decision, whereas prior to the decision, the alternatives were evaluated similarly (chosen

M ¼ 6.81, SD ¼ 0.85; rejected M ¼ 6.62, SD ¼ 0.96; p > .10). Next, to test the relationship of BAS with spreading of alter-

natives, we computed an index of spreading of alternatives by

taking the difference between the predecision ratings of the

chosen and rejected alternatives and subtracting it from the dif-

ference between the postdecision ratings of the chosen and

rejected alternatives. As predicted, spreading of alternatives

was directly related to BAS (r ¼ .25, p ¼ .04; see Figure 1).1 BAS was inversely related to BIS (r ¼ –0.34, p ¼ .004).

Spreading of alternatives was also inversely related to BIS

(r ¼ –0.30, p ¼ .01). This result was not clearly predicted by the action-based model. In some past data sets, BAS has been

unrelated to BIS (Carver & White, 1994), while in other studies

Harmon-Jones et al. 23

23 at Society for Personality and Social Psychology on March 15, 2011spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

BAS has been negatively related to BIS (Smillie & Jackson,

2005). Because BIS was negatively correlated with BAS in our

sample, it is not surprising that BIS was also negatively corre-

lated with spreading of alternatives.

Study 2

Study 1 provided evidence consistent with the hypothesis that

trait approach motivation relates to dissonance reduction, as

measured by spreading of alternatives. Support for the hypoth-

esis would be bolstered if trait approach motivation were to

relate to dissonance reduction measured in another dissonance

paradigm. One of the most commonly used paradigms for test-

ing dissonance theory predictions is the induced compliance

paradigm. In this paradigm, individuals are subtly induced to

behave contrary to an attitude. This is referred to as a high-

choice condition, and it is compared to a low-choice condi-

tion, in which individuals are told they must behave contrary

to an attitude. Following this manipulation, attitudes are

assessed, and hundreds of experiments have revealed that

individuals given high choice to engage in counterattitudinal

behavior have attitudes more consistent with their recent coun-

terattitudinal behavior than do individuals given low choice (see

Harmon-Jones & Mills, 1999; Wicklund & Brehm, 1976).

In one version of the induced compliance paradigm,

individuals are exposed to an attitude object (e.g., boring pas-

sage to read), and then they are given low or high choice to

write a statement contrary to their attitude. Experiments have

revealed that participants given high choice to engage in this

counterattitudinal behavior felt more negative affect, evi-

denced greater skin conductance, and changed their attitudes

to be more consistent with their behavior than did individuals

given low choice to engage in the same behavior (Friedman

& Arndt, 2005; Harmon-Jones, 2000; Harmon-Jones, Brehm,

Greenberg, Simon, & Nelson, 1996). In the present study, we

used this same paradigm and predicted that BAS would relate

to attitudes following counterattitudinal behavior in the high-

choice but not low-choice condition.

Method

Participants. Forty-five introductory psychology students participated to partially fulfill a course requirement. They were

randomly assigned in a 2-to-1 ratio to either a high-choice or

low-choice condition, so that there would be sufficient number

of participants in the high-choice condition to permit tests of

the primary hypothesis. 2

Procedure Introduction and cover story. The written introduction exp-

lained that the study was interested in factors that affect the

recall of characteristics of stimuli and further that the research

would assess how writing sentences evaluating stimuli would

affect recall of the details of the stimuli. Participants were

informed they would read a passage (selected from a variety

of passages) and that they would be asked to recall informa-

tion from the passage. The introduction also informed partici-

pants that they would write a statement about a passage,

Figure 1. Scatterplot of relationship between spreading of alternatives and BAS, Study 1

24 Social Psychological and Personality Science 2(1)

24 at Society for Personality and Social Psychology on March 15, 2011spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

complete some other questionnaires, and then complete a

final questionnaire that would assess recall of the passage.

The introduction ended with instructions that informed parti-

cipants of their anonymity. After reading the introduction,

participants completed the BIS/BAS questionnaire used in

Study 1. The boring passage. Next, participants were presented a pas-

sage to read. Every participant received the same passage,

which was a boring description of a tachistoscope taken from

an equipment manual (see Harmon-Jones et al., 1996, for evi-

dence of the boring nature of this passage). Choice manipulation. Next, participants were presented with

written choice manipulation instructions. The instructions for

both low- and high-choice conditions began with a paragraph

that reiterated the purpose of the study—to examine how writ-

ing a statement evaluating a passage affected recall of the

details of the passage.

Participants assigned to the low-choice condition then read:

We are randomly assigning people to write either a sentence

that indicates they thought the passage they read was very inter-

esting or a sentence that indicates they thought the passage was

uninteresting. You have been randomly assigned to write that

the passage was very interesting. In the space below, you are

to write one sentence that firmly says that the passage you read

was very interesting. We need you to go through the process of

writing the sentences and thinking the thought.

Participants assigned to the high-choice condition read the

following:

In the space below, we would like you to write one sentence

either saying that the passage you read was very interesting—

OR—one sentence saying that the passage you read was not

at all interesting. The choice of which to do is up to you. We

need you to go through the process of writing the sentences and

thinking the thought.

For high-choice participants, additional instructions followed

under the heading ‘‘Notice to Research Participant.’’ The

instructions read:

We have finished having people write that they thought the

passage they read was not interesting. Thus, in order to finish

the study, we need people to write that they thought the pas-

sage was very interesting. Therefore, although it is your

choice, we would really appreciate it if you would write one

sentence that firmly says that the passage you read was very

interesting.

Following the writing, participants were presented a question

that assessed how interesting they found the passage. Instruc-

tions explained that this assessment was needed in order to see

how one’s opinion about the passage affected recall. Responses

to the question (‘‘How interesting is the passage you read?’’)

were made on a 7-point scale (1 ¼ not at all interesting, 7 ¼ extremely interesting).

The next questionnaire assessed how much choice the parti-

cipant had over the position taken in the sentence he or she had

written. Responses to this question were made on a 7-point

scale (1 ¼ no choice at all, 7 ¼ very much of a choice). Once participants completed this questionnaire, they read an expla-

nation of the study.

Results and Discussion

Consistent with the results of past experiments using this

dissonance paradigm, participants given high choice to write

the counterattitudinal statement rated the passage as more

interesting (M ¼ 2.70, SD ¼ 1.76) than did participants given low choice (M ¼ 1.60, SD ¼ 0.83), t(43) ¼ 2.28, p ¼ .03. High-choice participants also indicated that they perceived

more choice (M ¼ 3.73, SD ¼ 1.78) than low-choice partici- pants (M ¼ 2.73, SD ¼ 2.09), t(43) ¼ 1.68, p ¼ .10.

Central to the predictions of the current research, trait

approach motivation predicted more positive attitudes follow-

ing the arousal of dissonance but not within the control condi-

tion. This was supported by a regression analysis in which trait

BAS and condition interacted to predict attitude (interest in the

passage), F(1, 41) ¼ 4.16, p ¼ .05, b ¼ .50. Follow-up tests revealed that within the high-choice condition, higher BAS

scores related to more positive attitudes (r ¼ .45, p ¼ .01);3 a non-significant correlation of BAS and attitude was observed

within the low-choice condition (r ¼ –.20, p ¼ .47). BIS did not interact with choice condition to predict attitude,

F < 1.0. Moreover, BIS was not correlated with attitude within

high- (r ¼ –.08, p ¼ .68) or low-choice conditions (r ¼ –.18, p ¼ .53). In addition, BIS and BAS were not correlated (r ¼ –.06, p ¼ .71) (see Figure 2).

General Discussion

The current studies provide the first evidence that dissonance

reduction is related to trait approach motivation, particularly

trait BAS. These results provide support for the action-based

model of dissonance and empirically link dissonance theory

with revised reinforcement sensitivity theory. In Study 1, BAS

predicted greater spreading of alternatives in a free-choice dis-

sonance paradigm. In Study 2, BAS predicted more positive

attitudes following induced compliance.

In Study 1, BIS was negatively related to spreading of alter-

natives. Our original predictions did not include a prediction

for the relationship of BIS and spreading. However, if disso-

nance reduction were an avoidance-motivated process, a posi-

tive relationship between BIS (punishment sensitivity) and

dissonance reduction would be expected. In contrast, a negative

relationship occurred. In Study 1, BAS and BIS were

negatively correlated, suggesting that individuals who were

high in approach motivation were also low in avoidance moti-

vation. Such individuals should be particularly approach action

oriented and likely to spread alternatives following decisions.

Indeed, when a BAS–BIS difference score was created to cap-

ture this dimension, it correlated robustly with spreading of

Harmon-Jones et al. 25

25 at Society for Personality and Social Psychology on March 15, 2011spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

alternative (r ¼ .34, p ¼ .005). In Study 2, dissonance-related attitudes did not relate to BIS, and BIS did not relate to BAS.

Taken together, these results suggest that BIS only relates to

dissonance-related attitude change when BAS is negatively

correlated with BIS.

Given the importance and longevity of dissonance theory in

social psychology, it is surprising that so few studies have

examined the influence of broad personality dimensions on dis-

sonance reduction. Part of the reason for this may have had to

do with Wicklund and Brehm’s (1976) discussion of the diffi-

culty of conducting such research. As they noted, personality

could influence the perception of dissonant cognitions, the

negative arousal state produced by dissonant cognitions, the

tolerance for this state, and/or the way dissonance is reduced

(see also Harmon-Jones et al., 2009). These are all important

issues, but researchers have yet to develop ways of measuring

most of these constructs. The negative arousal state has been

successfully measured in some past dissonance studies, but

surprisingly, it has not been found to correlate with disso-

nance reduction (Harmon-Jones, 2000; Harmon-Jones et al.,

1996). Without waiting any longer for development of the

tools needed to measure all of these constructs, we moved for-

ward and tested our theoretically derived prediction that trait

approach motivation would relate to dissonance reduction.

Because the trait results converge with previous results

obtained with state manipulations of approach motivation,

we are confident that trait approach motivation affects disso-

nance reduction.

Future studies should explore the extent to which trait

approach motivation relates to discrepancy reduction in other

dissonance paradigms and with other dissonance outcome vari-

ables. The action-based model would predict that trait approach

motivation should be particularly likely to predict discrepancy

reduction when action is salient and/or pressing. A decrease

in the press for action may reduce the correlation of trait

approach motivation and discrepancy reduction. Moreover,

trait approach motivation should be particularly likely to pre-

dict discrepancy reduction variables that are associated with

bolstering the action commitment. Other dissonance reduction

techniques, such as trivializing the behavior or distracting one-

self from the dissonance, may be less likely among individuals

high in approach motivation.

The present results demonstrating a connection between

trait BAS and dissonance reduction are important because they

support the proposal, derived from the action-based model of

dissonance, that dissonance reduction is an approach-related

process. Furthermore, these results help to integrate dissonance

with theories of action-orientation and extend the reach of the

action-based model and of dissonance theory generally into

basic motivational theories concerned with approach

motivation.

Declaration of Conflict of Interest

The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interests with

respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.

Financial Disclosure/Funding

This research was funded in part by a grant from the National Science

Foundation (BCS 0921565) awarded to Eddie Harmon-Jones.

Notes

1. We used the guidelines suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001)

to test for outliers and found no univariate outliers (defined as cases

with z scores in excess of 3.29) or multivariate outliers (using

Mahalanobis distance set at p < .001 evaluated with w2 with df equal to the number of variables).

2. An additional 16 of the high-choice participants and 1 of the

low-choice participants did not comply with the request to write

a counterattitudinal statement. These results provide an additional

indication that participants perceived themselves to have choice.

This noncompliance rate (34.8%) is slightly higher than rates found

in past lab research (29.7% from Friedman & Arndt, 2005) and is

likely due to the fact that the current experiment was conducted

online. Importantly, compliers and noncompliers did not differ in

BAS (p ¼ .84) or BIS scores (p ¼ .27). 3. In Study 1, spreading of alternatives was positively correlated

with all BAS subscales, but not all correlations were significant:

BAS–Drive (r ¼ .14, p ¼ .24), BAS–Reward Responsiveness (r ¼ .12, p ¼ .35), and BAS–Fun-Seeking (r ¼ .25, p ¼ .04). In Study 2, within the high-choice condition, attitude was positively

correlated with all BAS subscales, but not all correlations were

significant: BAS–Drive (r ¼ .50, p ¼ .005), BAS–Reward Responsiveness (r ¼ .35, p ¼ .06), and BAS–Fun-Seeking (r ¼ .23, p ¼ .22).

References

Amodio, D. M., Master, S. L., Yee, C. M., & Taylor, S. E. (2008).

Neurocognitive components of behavioral inhibition and activa-

tion systems: Implications for theories of self-regulation.

Psychophysiology, 45, 11-19.

Amodio, D. M., Shah, J. Y., Sigelman, J. D., Brazy, P. C., & Harmon-

Jones, E. (2004). Implicit regulatory focus associated with resting

Figure 2. Scatterplot of relationship between attitude and BAS within choice conditions, Study 2

26 Social Psychological and Personality Science 2(1)

26 at Society for Personality and Social Psychology on March 15, 2011spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

frontal cortical asymmetry. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-

chology, 40, 225-232.

Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2007). Cognitive dissonance and the

perception of natural environments. Psychological Science, 18,

917-921.

Beauvois, J.- L., & Joule, R.- V. (1999). A radical point of view on

dissonance theory. In E. Harmon-Jones & J. Mills (Eds.), Cognitive

dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp.

43-70). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Beckmann, J., & Irle, M. (1985). Dissonance and action control. In J.

Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to

behavior (pp. 129-150). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Berkman, E. T., & Lieberman, M. D. (2010). Approaching the good

and avoiding the bad: Separating action and valence using

dorsolateral prefrontal cortical asymmetry. Journal of Cognitive

Neuroscience, 22(9), 1970-1979.

Brehm, J. W. (1956). Postdecision changes in the desirability of

alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52,

384-389.

Brehm, J. W., & Cohen, A. R. (1962). Explorations in cognitive dis-

sonance. New York: Wiley.

Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral

activation, and affective responses to impending reward and pun-

ishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 67, 319-333.

Corr, P. J. (2008). Reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST): Introduc-

tion. In P. J. Corr (Ed.), The reinforcement sensitivity theory of

personality (pp. 1-44). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of

personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and

extraversion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 491-569.

Egan, L. C., Bloom, P., & Santos, L. R. (2010). Choice-induced pre-

ferences in the absence of choice: Evidence from a blind two

choice paradigm with young children and capuchin monkeys.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 204-207.

Egan, L. C., Santos, L. R., & Bloom, P. (2007). The origins of cogni-

tive dissonance: Evidence from children and monkeys. Psycholo-

gical Science, 18, 978-983.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL:

Row, Peterson, & Co.

Fowles, D. C. (1988). Psychophysiology and psychopathology: A

motivational approach. Psychophysiology, 25, 373-391.

Frey, D. (1986). Recent research on selective exposure to information.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 41-81.

Friedman, R. S., & Arndt, J. (2005). Reexploring the connection

between terror management theory and dissonance theory. Person-

ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1217-1225.

Gable, P. A., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2008). Approach-motivated posi-

tive affect reduces breadth of attention. Psychological Science, 19,

476-482.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E. T. Higgins

& R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition:

Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 53-92). New York: Guil-

ford Press.

Gollwitzer, P. M., & Bayer, U. (1999). Deliberative versus implemen-

tal mindsets in the control of action. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope

(Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 403-422).

New York: Guilford.

Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions

and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes.

In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology,

Vol. 38. (pp. 69-119). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.

Gray, J. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and

cognition. Cognition and Emotion, 4, 269-288.

Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). The neuropsychology of

anxiety. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hajcak, G., & Foti, D. (2008). Errors are aversive: Defensive motiva-

tion and the error-related negativity. Psychological Science, 19(2),

103-108.

Harmon-Jones, E. (2000). Cognitive dissonance and experienced neg-

ative affect: Evidence that dissonance increases experienced nega-

tive affect even in the absence of aversive consequences.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1490-1501.

Harmon-Jones, E. (2003). Clarifying the emotive functions of asym-

metrical frontal cortical activity. Psychophysiology, 40, 838-848.

Harmon-Jones, E. (2004). Contributions from research on anger and

cognitive dissonance to understanding the motivational functions

of asymmetrical frontal brain activity. Biological Psychology,

67, 51-76.

Harmon-Jones, E., & Allen, J. J. B. (1997). Behavioral activation sen-

sitivity and resting frontal EEG asymmetry: Covariation of puta-

tive indicators related to risk for mood disorders. Journal of

Abnormal Psychology, 106, 159-163.

Harmon-Jones, E., & Allen, J. J. B. (1998). Anger and prefrontal brain

activity: EEG asymmetry consistent with approach motivation

despite negative affective valence. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 74, 1310-1316.

Harmon-Jones, E., Amodio, D., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2009). Action-

based model of dissonance: A review, integration, and expansion

of conceptions of cognitive conflict. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),

Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 41, pp. 119-

166). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Harmon-Jones, E., Brehm, J. W., Greenberg, J., Simon, L., &

Nelson, D. E. (1996). Evidence that the production of aversive con-

sequences is not necessary to create cognitive dissonance. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 5-16.

Harmon-Jones, E., Gerdjikov, T., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2008). The

effect of induced compliance on relative left frontal cortical activ-

ity: A test of the action-based model of dissonance. European

Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 35-45.

Harmon-Jones, E., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2002). Testing the action-

based model of cognitive dissonance: The effect of action-

orientation on post-decisional attitudes. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 28, 711-723.

Harmon-Jones, E., Harmon-Jones, C., Fearn, M., Sigelman, J. D., &

Johnson, P. (2008). Action orientation, relative left frontal cortical

activation, and spreading of alternatives: A test of the action-based

model of dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 94, 1-15.

Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (1999). Cognitive dissonance: Perspec-

tives on a pivotal theory in social psychology. Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Harmon-Jones et al. 27

27 at Society for Personality and Social Psychology on March 15, 2011spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Harmon-Jones, E., & Peterson, C. K. (2008). Effect of trait and state

approach motivation on aggressive inclinations. Journal of

Research in Personality, 42, 1381-1385.

Hawk, L. W., Jr., & Kowmas, A. D. (2003). Affective modulation and

prepulse inhibition of startle among undergraduates high and low in

behavioral inhibition and approach. Psychophysiology, 40, 131-138.

Jones, E. E., & Gerard, H. B. (1967). Foundations of social psychology.

New York: Wiley.

Kuhl, J. (1984). Volitional aspects of achievement motivation and

learned helplessness: Toward a comprehensive theory of action-

control. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality

research (Vol. 13, pp. 99-171). New York: Academic Press.

Peterson, C. K., Gable, P., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2008). Asymmetrical

frontal ERPs, emotion, and behavioral approach/inhibition sensi-

tivity. Social Neuroscience, 3, 113-124.

Robinson, R. G., & Downhill, J. E. (1995). Lateralization of psycho-

pathology in response to focal brain injury. In R. J. Davidson & K.

Hugdahl (Eds.), Brain asymmetry (pp. 693-711). Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

Smillie, L. D., & Jackson, C. J. (2005). The appetitive motivation scale

and other BAS measures in the prediction of approach and active

avoidance. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 981-994.

Smits, D. J. M., & Kuppens, P. (2005). The relations between anger,

coping with anger, and aggression, and the BIS/BAS system. Per-

sonality and Individual Differences, 39, 783-793.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics.

(4th ed). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Taylor, S. E., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1995). Effects of mindset on pos-

itive illusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,

213-226.

Van Veen, V., Krug, M. K., Schooler, J. W., & Carter, C. S. (2009).

Neural activity predicts attitude change in cognitive dissonance.

Nature Neuroscience, 12, 1469-1474.

Wicklund, R. A., & Brehm, J. W. (1976). Perspectives on cognitive

dissonance. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zinbarg, R. E., & Mohlman, J. (1998). Individual differences in

the acquisition of affectively valenced associations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1024-1040.

Bios

Cindy Harmon-Jones is a doctoral candidate in psychology at Texas

A&M University. Her research examines displays of emotions,

synchrony, and symbols, and how these relate to person perception,

personality traits, and affiliation.

Brandon J. Schmeichel is an associate professor of psychology at

Texas A&M University. He studies self-control, choice, memory, and

emotion regulation.

Michael Inzlicht is an assistant professor in the Department of

Psychology at the University of Toronto. His research centers on

self-regulation, examining how it is affected by stigma, implemented

neurally, and bolstered by belief.

Eddie Harmon-Jones is professor of psychology and faculty of

neuroscience at Texas A&M University. His research focuses on emo-

tions and motivations, their implications for cognitive and social pro-

cesses and behaviors, and their underlying neural circuits.

28 Social Psychological and Personality Science 2(1)

28 at Society for Personality and Social Psychology on March 15, 2011spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from