ScholarGate
Asisten

Bandingkan metode

Tinjau metode pilihan Anda berdampingan; baris yang berbeda akan disorot.

Cover Story Deception×False Consensus Paradigm×Induced Compliance Paradigm×
BidangPsikologi SosialPsikologi SosialPsikologi Sosial
KeluargaProcess / pipelineProcess / pipelineProcess / pipeline
Tahun asal195919771959
PencetusClassic experimental social psychologyLee Ross, David Greene & Pamela HouseLeon Festinger & James Carlsmith
TipeMethodological design controlling participant expectationsExperimental paradigm for social-perception biasExperimental paradigm for cognitive dissonance
Sumber perintisFestinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203-210. DOI ↗Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The 'false consensus effect': An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(3), 279-301. DOI ↗Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203-210. DOI ↗
AliasDeception Design, Cover Story Method, Experimental DeceptionFalse Consensus Effect, Egocentric Projection Paradigm, Consensus Estimation TaskForced Compliance Paradigm, Counter-attitudinal Advocacy Paradigm, Festinger-Carlsmith Paradigm
Terkait333
RingkasanCover story and deception design is the methodological practice of concealing a study's true purpose behind a plausible false rationale so that participants behave spontaneously rather than in line with what they think the experimenter wants. Because people who guess a study's hypothesis may consciously or unconsciously alter their behavior -- the problem of demand characteristics -- social psychologists often present a cover story that misdirects attention, embed the real dependent measure within an apparently unrelated task, and, when necessary, use additional deceptions such as confederates or false feedback. This approach made possible many of the field's classic findings on conformity, obedience, helping, and dissonance, where awareness of the true question would have destroyed the phenomenon. Deception carries serious ethical obligations, requiring justification, minimization of harm, suspicion probing, and thorough debriefing, which contemporary practice and ethics codes strictly govern.The false consensus paradigm, established by Ross, Greene, and House in 1977, demonstrates a pervasive bias in social perception: people overestimate the extent to which others share their own choices, beliefs, and behaviors. In the canonical procedure, participants indicate their own position on some issue or choice -- famously, whether they would walk around campus wearing a sandwich-board sign -- and then estimate what proportion of their peers would do the same. The signature finding is that those who choose a given option estimate that option to be more common than do those who reject it, so each group projects its own response onto others. Ross and colleagues also showed that people view their own responses as relatively common and unrevealing of personality while seeing differing responses as uncommon and diagnostic of others' traits. The paradigm became a foundational demonstration of egocentric bias in social judgment and attribution.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.
ScholarGateSet data
  1. v1
  2. 2 Sumber
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 1 Sumber
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 Sumber
  3. PUBLISHED

Ke halaman pencarian Unduh salindia

ScholarGateBandingkan metode: Cover Story Deception · False Consensus Paradigm · Induced Compliance Paradigm. Diakses 2026-06-25 dari https://scholargate.app/id/compare