Submitted by Tracy Liu on Thu, 01/31/2008 - 23:25.
0
points
1. Festinger proposed dissonance theory (1957)
2. Aversive consequence: the first step toward dissonance arousal
3. Perceived Freedom+ Foreseeability= Necessary link from aversive consequences to dissonance arousal
4. Dissonance manipulation: properties, measurement, interpretation
5. Dissonance theory V.S Self-perception/Impression Management : induced compliance.
6. Dissonance arousal: Positive emotion or Negative emotion.
7. Dissonance motivation： negative emotion
To be frank, this reading is too abstract for me to read and it is hard for me to connect this theory with the study of online communities, one idea about the function of this theory on online communities is that it might have some implication to investigate people’s decision/behaviors on participation/cooperation, but what’s the next? I guess I need to dig more about this reading and hope get some hints from other students.
Tracy: I, too, had a difficult time connecting this reading to the other things we read this week. I suppose we can examine it from the perceptions people have of themselves and others around them (intergroup relations). It was interesting reading, despite the fact that I didn't understand everything (This social psychology stuff is fairly new to me!).
Submitted by Daniel Zhou on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 00:23.
0
points
This artical mainly talks about the "dissonance theory". It starts by criticizing Festinger's 1957 theory that "cognitive dissonance occurs when one cognition that a person holds follows from the obverse of another". Then, by drawing results from many other experiments and papers, the author gradually summarize the new "dissonance theory", which basically says that dissonance arousal can only be caused by the responsibility for an aversive consequence without attribution to external sources such as environment constraints or unforseeability.
The author also discusses two alternative theories that might weaken the theory above: 1) self-perception and 2)impression management. The auther then discusses the distinction between dissonance arousal and dissonance motivation can says "Dissonance motivation only occurs when the individual labels his stae of arousal negatively and attributes that arousal to his having freely produced an aversive consequence. It is in this case that dissonance motivation occurs."
In terms of the question "how it relate to our research", I'd like to make two points here. First, it is a good example to see how to do good experiments -- if you are not careful enough, your work might be criticized like poor Festinger (1957). Second, the "dissonance theory" might be used to design better online communities that will not produce dissonance arousals.
Submitted by Sean Munson on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 13:41.
0
points
I think it may be worth discussing under what circumstances dissonance arousal is or is not a desirable outcome. If participants in a site are supposed to engage and persuade / be persuaded, it seems not so bad to have them consider or even try taking others' perspectives in discussion. On the other hand, this reading makes that process seem perhaps a bit like a dirty trick. I don't know that I have strong opinions on this yet.
Submitted by Sean Munson on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 13:34.
0
points
I enjoyed this intro to dissonance theory (and now feel that I have a decent shot at understanding when someone uses it to frame or otherwise describe their work).
On the first read, I struggled with how to link it to designing online communities. A few ideas come to mind, though I'm still not sure how well they connect to the reading:
Lessons for appropriate incentive size (either in designing the community, or for giving research participants)?
Design so that people can foresee potential advserse consequences of behavior (though I think the more general case of design so people can foresee consequences of behavior applies for many reasons.)
Could a community designer use push polling, or surveys that force a user to choose among positions with which they do not agree, to change users' minds about an issue? (In what situation would that be desirable?)
A brief summary and how to apply this theory to our study?
1. Festinger proposed dissonance theory (1957)
2. Aversive consequence: the first step toward dissonance arousal
3. Perceived Freedom+ Foreseeability= Necessary link from aversive consequences to dissonance arousal
4. Dissonance manipulation: properties, measurement, interpretation
5. Dissonance theory V.S Self-perception/Impression Management : induced compliance.
6. Dissonance arousal: Positive emotion or Negative emotion.
7. Dissonance motivation： negative emotion
To be frank, this reading is too abstract for me to read and it is hard for me to connect this theory with the study of online communities, one idea about the function of this theory on online communities is that it might have some implication to investigate people’s decision/behaviors on participation/cooperation, but what’s the next? I guess I need to dig more about this reading and hope get some hints from other students.
Connecting to communities
Tracy: I, too, had a difficult time connecting this reading to the other things we read this week. I suppose we can examine it from the perceptions people have of themselves and others around them (intergroup relations). It was interesting reading, despite the fact that I didn't understand everything (This social psychology stuff is fairly new to me!).
;)
tracy, you are using my favorite "a brief summary" format. haha :)
a brief summary
This artical mainly talks about the "dissonance theory". It starts by criticizing Festinger's 1957 theory that "cognitive dissonance occurs when one cognition that a person holds follows from the obverse of another". Then, by drawing results from many other experiments and papers, the author gradually summarize the new "dissonance theory", which basically says that dissonance arousal can only be caused by the responsibility for an aversive consequence without attribution to external sources such as environment constraints or unforseeability.
The author also discusses two alternative theories that might weaken the theory above: 1) self-perception and 2)impression management. The auther then discusses the distinction between dissonance arousal and dissonance motivation can says "Dissonance motivation only occurs when the individual labels his stae of arousal negatively and attributes that arousal to his having freely produced an aversive consequence. It is in this case that dissonance motivation occurs."
In terms of the question "how it relate to our research", I'd like to make two points here. First, it is a good example to see how to do good experiments -- if you are not careful enough, your work might be criticized like poor Festinger (1957). Second, the "dissonance theory" might be used to design better online communities that will not produce dissonance arousals.
dissonance arousal: to be avoided or not?
I think it may be worth discussing under what circumstances dissonance arousal is or is not a desirable outcome. If participants in a site are supposed to engage and persuade / be persuaded, it seems not so bad to have them consider or even try taking others' perspectives in discussion. On the other hand, this reading makes that process seem perhaps a bit like a dirty trick. I don't know that I have strong opinions on this yet.
how to apply these results -- or evaluate their role -- online?
I enjoyed this intro to dissonance theory (and now feel that I have a decent shot at understanding when someone uses it to frame or otherwise describe their work).
On the first read, I struggled with how to link it to designing online communities. A few ideas come to mind, though I'm still not sure how well they connect to the reading: