Compara mètodes

	Confederate Paradigm	Induced Compliance Paradigm
Camp	Psicologia social	Psicologia social
Família	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Any d'origen	1956	1959
Autor original	Classic social psychology (Asch, Milgram, Latane and others)	Leon Festinger & James Carlsmith
Tipus	Methodological design using trained accomplices	Experimental paradigm for cognitive dissonance
Font seminal	Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1-70.	Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203-210.
Àlies	Experimental Accomplice Method, Stooge Paradigm, Trained Confederate Design	Forced Compliance Paradigm, Counter-attitudinal Advocacy Paradigm, Festinger-Carlsmith Paradigm
Relacionats	3	3
Resum	The confederate paradigm is a foundational methodological design in social psychology in which trained accomplices -- people who appear to be ordinary participants or bystanders but are actually part of the research team -- enact scripted behavior to create controlled social situations. By standardizing what confederates do, researchers can manipulate the social environment with precision while keeping the naive participant convinced the situation is real. Confederates have been the linchpin of many landmark studies: the unanimous wrong majority in Asch's conformity work, the passive bystanders in Latane and Darley's helping experiments, the learner in Milgram's obedience studies, and partners in countless interaction studies. The paradigm allows experimental control over otherwise uncontrollable social stimuli, making it possible to draw causal conclusions about how others' behavior shapes our own.	The induced (forced) compliance paradigm, introduced by Festinger and Carlsmith in 1959, is the classic experimental test of cognitive dissonance theory. Participants are led to perform a counter-attitudinal act -- typically telling another person that a boring task was enjoyable -- under either low or high justification (in the original, paid one dollar versus twenty dollars). Dissonance theory predicts the counterintuitive result that those paid less change their private attitudes more, coming to actually believe the task was enjoyable, because a small incentive provides insufficient external justification for the lie, leaving them to reduce the resulting discomfort by aligning their attitude with their behavior. Festinger and Carlsmith found exactly this inverse relationship between incentive and attitude change, providing striking support for dissonance theory and overturning reinforcement-based predictions that larger rewards produce more attitude change.