- Email: [email protected]
Personality variables and cognitive inconsistency
Prrwrr. Printed
III~II%/. Din: Vol. in Grear Britain.
3, pp. 333 to 334. 1982 All rights reserved
0191-8869i82/030333-02SO3.00 Copyright
0
1982 Pergamon
0
Press Ltd
Personality variables and cognitive inconsistency* THALMA Psycholoy~
Department,
E.
LOBEL
Tel Auic Unioersir~,
(Rrcrired
1 Septrmher
Ramat Avic 69978. Israel
1981)
Summary-The present research studied the relationships between personality variables and cognitive inconsistency. Cognitive inconsistency was defined on the basis of the cognitive orientation theory of Kreitler and Kreitler (1972. 1976) as inconsistency between four types of beliefs. Positive correlations were found, as predicted. between cognitive inconsistency and three personality variables: Extraversion. Cattell’s factor ‘Independence’ and Cattell’s factor ‘RadicalismConservatism.’ The implications of these results to Eysenck’s and Cattell’s theories were discussed. IYTRODUCTION
The relationship between personality variables and cognitive consistency has been investigated by several studies (e.g. Abelson rt a/., 1968; Norman and Watson. 1976; Shaffer and Hendrick. 1974; Zajonc. 1960). Cognitive consistency has been differently defined by various researchers. Some (e.g. Gutman and Knox, 1972) have defined cognitive consistency on the basis of the Heider balance theory (Heider. 1946. 1958). while others (e.g. ShalTer el al.. 1973; Shaffer and Hendrick. 1974) have used the Festinger dissonance theory (Festinger. 1957) as the basis for similar research. The current study is introducing another way of defining cognitive consistency by applying the cognitive orientation theory developed by Kreitler and Kreitler (1972. 1976). Kreitler and Kreitler (1972. 1976) have suggested that behaviors are predicted from four types of beliefs: (a) beliefs about self (BS); (b) beliefs about norms and rules (NO); (c) general beliefs (GB) which express information about people, objects and situations; and (d) beliefs about goals (GO). According to Kreitler and Kreitler (1976). in a process called the clustering process, the four belief types are matched and the result which is called a cognitive orientation (CO) cluster reflects the common meaning values of these four types of beliefs. The product of the CO cluster is the behavioral intent. Kreitler and Kreitler maintain that a certain degree of consistency between the four types of beliefs is needed in order to reach a CO cluster. The current study investigates whether there are individual differences in the consistency between the four types of beliefs. In other words. whether some people believe in norms for example which contradict their beliefs about self, or their goals or their general beliefs. while others have greater consistency between their beliefs. Three personality variables were hypothesized to be related to the consistency between the four belief types: ExtraversionIntroversion. Cattell’s factor Independence and Cattell’s factor Radicalism-Conservatism. It is hypothesized that extraverts will evidence a lower degree of consistency between the four belief types as compared to introverts. According to Eysenck (1967; Eysenck and Eysenck. 1964) the difference between extraverts and introverts is a result of a difference in their levels of arousal. Introverts have higher levels of arousal and as a result try to avoid stimulation and behave in a more inhibited way. Extraverts. on the other hand, are cortically inhibited and hence they look for stimulation in order to maintain an optimal level of arousal. Several studies have found a positive relationship between extraversion and stimulation seeking (e.g. Lynn and Butler, 1962; Farley and Farley. 1967). Norman and Watson (1976) have shown that introverts changed their attitudes more often in order to avoid cognitive dissonance. These findings lead to the hypothesis that the degree of extraversion will be positively related to the degree of inconsistency between the four belief types. The other two personality variables that were hypothesized to be related to cognitive consistency were Cattell’s factors ‘Independence’ and ‘Radicalism-Conservatism.’ Cattell describes the independent person as unconventional. In addition he describes this person as assertive, active, alert and cheerful. characteristics which are similar to those of extraverts. This factor was also found to be related to mental flexibility and to inconsistency of attitudes (Hundleby rt al.. 1965). Therefore it is predicted that the higher people score on ‘Independence’ the greater inconsistency they will demonstrate between the four belief types. As for the factor ‘Radicalism-Conservatism’. Cattell (1973) describes those who score low on this factor as conservative and respecting conventional ideas, while those who score high on this factor are experimenting, liberal and free thinkers. Therefore it is predicted that those who score low on this factor will demonstrate greater consistency between the four belief types as compared to those who score high on this factor. METHOD
Sample Fifty-nine
subjects.
undergraduates
in psychology
at Tel Aviv University,
44 females and 15 males,
Method
It was decided to construct three CO questionnaires. one dealing with assertive behavior. one dealing punctuality and a third dealing with orderliness. The questionnaires were constructed in a similar way scribed by Kreitler and Kreitler (1976). Each questionnaire consisted of beliefs which were constructed formulated in terms of the four belief types so that each questionnaire had four parts. each representing * This study is based on a dissertation at Tel-Aviv University.
submitted
in partial
fulfillment
of the requirements
with deand one
for a Ph.D. degree
334
NOTES AND SHORTLK COMMUNICATIONS
type of belief and each had its own instructions. For example. one of the beliefs about self in the assertiveness questionnaire was: “If someone cuts in line I usually tell him/her to go to the end of the line and wait for his/her turn.” A similar norm belief was: “If someone cu!s in line. he/she should be told to go to the end of the line and wait for his/her turn.” An item analysis was performed on each part of each questionnaire and as a result certain items were discarded. The z reliability coefficients of the final versions of these questionnaires ranged from 0.62 to 0.88. In addition each subject completed the extraversion scale of the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) and Cattell’s CAQ Part One which is a short version of the 16 PF. The CO questionnaires and the personality scales were administered in three separate meetings whereby subjects were given questionnaires in random order. Each subject received an inconsistency score which was the mean of three inconsistency scores calculated for each behavior. The inconsistency score for each behavior was calculated by combining all the possible absolute differences between the mean scores of the six possible pairs of the belief types. RESLLTS
All the three hypotheses were confirmed. The correlation between Extraversion and the inconsistency score was 0.37 (P < 0.01). the correlation between Radicalism-Conservatism and the inconsistency score was 0.38 (P < 0.001) and the correlation between the Independence score and the inconsistency score was 0.37 (P < 0.01). DISCCSSIO\
It was found, as predicted, that subjects who demonstrated greater inconsistency between the four belief types were more extraverted and scored higher on Cattell’s factors Radicalism-Conservatism and Independence. The positive relationship between extraversion and inconsistency is complementary to the results of Norman and Watson (1976) who have shown that introverts changed their attitudes after writing counter-attitudinal essays more than extraverts. This result is in line with Eysenck’s theory who maintains that extraverts have lower cortical arousal levels than introverts and therefore seek stimulation while introverts try to avoid it. It can be argued that a state of inconsistent beliefs is more stimulating than a state of consistent beliefs. Therefore extraverts who are looking for more stimulation showed greater inconsistency. Further it was found, in regard to Cattell’s factors, that liberal people, those experimenting new experiences. active and unconventional, who are more willing to experience new ideas and situations demonstrated lower degrees of consistency. On the other hand. conventional people. closed to n;w experience, evidenced greater consistency between the four belief types. These findings are in accordance with Cattell and his colleagues who maintain that the second-order factor, Independence, is related to consistency of attitudes and to mental flexibility (Hundleby et a/. , 1965) and that the Radicalism-Conservatism factor represents “a general tendency to try the new” (Cattell, 1973. p. 179). It can be concluded from this study that there are individual differences in the consistency people demonstrate between different types of beliefs. Future research should try to analyze the relationships between personality variables and inconsistencies between specific pairs of beliefs rather than a general inconsistency score. Acknowledgements-The author advisors. Professors H. Kreitler
acknowledges and and S. Kreitler.
appreciates
the helpful
comments
and suggestions
of her
REFERE\CES ABELSON R. P., ARONSONE., MCGUIRE W. J., NEWCOMB T. M., ROSENBERG M. J. and TANNENBAUM P. H. (Eds) (1968) Theories of Cognitiue Consistency: A Source Book. Rand-McNally, Chicago. CATTELL R. B. (1973) Personality and Mood by Questionnaire. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. EYSENCK H. J. (1967) The Biological Basis of Personality. Thomas, Springfield. Illinois. EYSENCK H. J. and EYSENCK S. B. G. (1964) Manual of rhr Eysrnck Personality Inventory. Univ. of London Press, London. FARLEY F. and FARLEY S. V. (1967) Extraversion and stimulus seeking motivation. J. consult Psycho/. 31, 215-216. FESTINGER L. A. (1957) Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford Univ. Press, California. GUTMAN G. M. and KNOX R. E. (1972) Balance, agreement and attraction in pleasantness, tension and consistency ratings of hypothetical social situations. J. Person. sot. Psychof. 24, 351-357. HEIDER F. (1946) Attitudes and cognitive organizations. J. Psycho/. 21, 107-l 12. HEIDER F. (1958) The Psychology oj’lnterpersonal Relations. Wiley, New York. HUNDLEBY J. D., PAWLIK K. AND CATTELL R. B. (1965) Personality Factors in Ohjectice Test Devices. Robert & Knapp, San Diego. KREITLER H. and KREITLER S. (1972) The model of cognitive orientation: towards a theory of human behaviour. Br. J. Psycho/.
63, 9-30.
KREITLER H. and KREITLER S. (1976) Cognitive Orientation and Behaoior. Springer, New York. LYNN R. and BUTLER J. (1962) Introversion and the arousal jag. J. sot. c/in. Psycho/. 1, 15&151. NORMAN R. M. G. and WATSON R. D. (1976) Extraversion and reactions to cognitive inconsistency. J. Res. Person. 10, 44&456. SHAFFER D. R. and HENDRICK C. (1974) Dogmatism and tolerance for ambiguity as determinants of differential reactions to cognitive inconsistency. J. Person. sot. Psycho/. 29, 601-608. SHAFFER D. R. HENDRICK C., REGULA C. R. and FRECONNA J. (1973) interactive effects of ambiguity tolerance and task erort on dissonance reduction. J. Person. 41. 224233. ZAJONC R. B. (1960) The process of cognitive tuning in communication. J. abnorm. sot. Psycho/. 61. 159-167.
III~II%/. Din: Vol. in Grear Britain.
3, pp. 333 to 334. 1982 All rights reserved
0191-8869i82/030333-02SO3.00 Copyright
0
1982 Pergamon
0
Press Ltd
Personality variables and cognitive inconsistency* THALMA Psycholoy~
Department,
E.
LOBEL
Tel Auic Unioersir~,
(Rrcrired
1 Septrmher
Ramat Avic 69978. Israel
1981)
Summary-The present research studied the relationships between personality variables and cognitive inconsistency. Cognitive inconsistency was defined on the basis of the cognitive orientation theory of Kreitler and Kreitler (1972. 1976) as inconsistency between four types of beliefs. Positive correlations were found, as predicted. between cognitive inconsistency and three personality variables: Extraversion. Cattell’s factor ‘Independence’ and Cattell’s factor ‘RadicalismConservatism.’ The implications of these results to Eysenck’s and Cattell’s theories were discussed. IYTRODUCTION
The relationship between personality variables and cognitive consistency has been investigated by several studies (e.g. Abelson rt a/., 1968; Norman and Watson. 1976; Shaffer and Hendrick. 1974; Zajonc. 1960). Cognitive consistency has been differently defined by various researchers. Some (e.g. Gutman and Knox, 1972) have defined cognitive consistency on the basis of the Heider balance theory (Heider. 1946. 1958). while others (e.g. ShalTer el al.. 1973; Shaffer and Hendrick. 1974) have used the Festinger dissonance theory (Festinger. 1957) as the basis for similar research. The current study is introducing another way of defining cognitive consistency by applying the cognitive orientation theory developed by Kreitler and Kreitler (1972. 1976). Kreitler and Kreitler (1972. 1976) have suggested that behaviors are predicted from four types of beliefs: (a) beliefs about self (BS); (b) beliefs about norms and rules (NO); (c) general beliefs (GB) which express information about people, objects and situations; and (d) beliefs about goals (GO). According to Kreitler and Kreitler (1976). in a process called the clustering process, the four belief types are matched and the result which is called a cognitive orientation (CO) cluster reflects the common meaning values of these four types of beliefs. The product of the CO cluster is the behavioral intent. Kreitler and Kreitler maintain that a certain degree of consistency between the four types of beliefs is needed in order to reach a CO cluster. The current study investigates whether there are individual differences in the consistency between the four types of beliefs. In other words. whether some people believe in norms for example which contradict their beliefs about self, or their goals or their general beliefs. while others have greater consistency between their beliefs. Three personality variables were hypothesized to be related to the consistency between the four belief types: ExtraversionIntroversion. Cattell’s factor Independence and Cattell’s factor Radicalism-Conservatism. It is hypothesized that extraverts will evidence a lower degree of consistency between the four belief types as compared to introverts. According to Eysenck (1967; Eysenck and Eysenck. 1964) the difference between extraverts and introverts is a result of a difference in their levels of arousal. Introverts have higher levels of arousal and as a result try to avoid stimulation and behave in a more inhibited way. Extraverts. on the other hand, are cortically inhibited and hence they look for stimulation in order to maintain an optimal level of arousal. Several studies have found a positive relationship between extraversion and stimulation seeking (e.g. Lynn and Butler, 1962; Farley and Farley. 1967). Norman and Watson (1976) have shown that introverts changed their attitudes more often in order to avoid cognitive dissonance. These findings lead to the hypothesis that the degree of extraversion will be positively related to the degree of inconsistency between the four belief types. The other two personality variables that were hypothesized to be related to cognitive consistency were Cattell’s factors ‘Independence’ and ‘Radicalism-Conservatism.’ Cattell describes the independent person as unconventional. In addition he describes this person as assertive, active, alert and cheerful. characteristics which are similar to those of extraverts. This factor was also found to be related to mental flexibility and to inconsistency of attitudes (Hundleby rt al.. 1965). Therefore it is predicted that the higher people score on ‘Independence’ the greater inconsistency they will demonstrate between the four belief types. As for the factor ‘Radicalism-Conservatism’. Cattell (1973) describes those who score low on this factor as conservative and respecting conventional ideas, while those who score high on this factor are experimenting, liberal and free thinkers. Therefore it is predicted that those who score low on this factor will demonstrate greater consistency between the four belief types as compared to those who score high on this factor. METHOD
Sample Fifty-nine
subjects.
undergraduates
in psychology
at Tel Aviv University,
44 females and 15 males,
Method
It was decided to construct three CO questionnaires. one dealing with assertive behavior. one dealing punctuality and a third dealing with orderliness. The questionnaires were constructed in a similar way scribed by Kreitler and Kreitler (1976). Each questionnaire consisted of beliefs which were constructed formulated in terms of the four belief types so that each questionnaire had four parts. each representing * This study is based on a dissertation at Tel-Aviv University.
submitted
in partial
fulfillment
of the requirements
with deand one
for a Ph.D. degree
334
NOTES AND SHORTLK COMMUNICATIONS
type of belief and each had its own instructions. For example. one of the beliefs about self in the assertiveness questionnaire was: “If someone cuts in line I usually tell him/her to go to the end of the line and wait for his/her turn.” A similar norm belief was: “If someone cu!s in line. he/she should be told to go to the end of the line and wait for his/her turn.” An item analysis was performed on each part of each questionnaire and as a result certain items were discarded. The z reliability coefficients of the final versions of these questionnaires ranged from 0.62 to 0.88. In addition each subject completed the extraversion scale of the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) and Cattell’s CAQ Part One which is a short version of the 16 PF. The CO questionnaires and the personality scales were administered in three separate meetings whereby subjects were given questionnaires in random order. Each subject received an inconsistency score which was the mean of three inconsistency scores calculated for each behavior. The inconsistency score for each behavior was calculated by combining all the possible absolute differences between the mean scores of the six possible pairs of the belief types. RESLLTS
All the three hypotheses were confirmed. The correlation between Extraversion and the inconsistency score was 0.37 (P < 0.01). the correlation between Radicalism-Conservatism and the inconsistency score was 0.38 (P < 0.001) and the correlation between the Independence score and the inconsistency score was 0.37 (P < 0.01). DISCCSSIO\
It was found, as predicted, that subjects who demonstrated greater inconsistency between the four belief types were more extraverted and scored higher on Cattell’s factors Radicalism-Conservatism and Independence. The positive relationship between extraversion and inconsistency is complementary to the results of Norman and Watson (1976) who have shown that introverts changed their attitudes after writing counter-attitudinal essays more than extraverts. This result is in line with Eysenck’s theory who maintains that extraverts have lower cortical arousal levels than introverts and therefore seek stimulation while introverts try to avoid it. It can be argued that a state of inconsistent beliefs is more stimulating than a state of consistent beliefs. Therefore extraverts who are looking for more stimulation showed greater inconsistency. Further it was found, in regard to Cattell’s factors, that liberal people, those experimenting new experiences. active and unconventional, who are more willing to experience new ideas and situations demonstrated lower degrees of consistency. On the other hand. conventional people. closed to n;w experience, evidenced greater consistency between the four belief types. These findings are in accordance with Cattell and his colleagues who maintain that the second-order factor, Independence, is related to consistency of attitudes and to mental flexibility (Hundleby et a/. , 1965) and that the Radicalism-Conservatism factor represents “a general tendency to try the new” (Cattell, 1973. p. 179). It can be concluded from this study that there are individual differences in the consistency people demonstrate between different types of beliefs. Future research should try to analyze the relationships between personality variables and inconsistencies between specific pairs of beliefs rather than a general inconsistency score. Acknowledgements-The author advisors. Professors H. Kreitler
acknowledges and and S. Kreitler.
appreciates
the helpful
comments
and suggestions
of her
REFERE\CES ABELSON R. P., ARONSONE., MCGUIRE W. J., NEWCOMB T. M., ROSENBERG M. J. and TANNENBAUM P. H. (Eds) (1968) Theories of Cognitiue Consistency: A Source Book. Rand-McNally, Chicago. CATTELL R. B. (1973) Personality and Mood by Questionnaire. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. EYSENCK H. J. (1967) The Biological Basis of Personality. Thomas, Springfield. Illinois. EYSENCK H. J. and EYSENCK S. B. G. (1964) Manual of rhr Eysrnck Personality Inventory. Univ. of London Press, London. FARLEY F. and FARLEY S. V. (1967) Extraversion and stimulus seeking motivation. J. consult Psycho/. 31, 215-216. FESTINGER L. A. (1957) Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford Univ. Press, California. GUTMAN G. M. and KNOX R. E. (1972) Balance, agreement and attraction in pleasantness, tension and consistency ratings of hypothetical social situations. J. Person. sot. Psychof. 24, 351-357. HEIDER F. (1946) Attitudes and cognitive organizations. J. Psycho/. 21, 107-l 12. HEIDER F. (1958) The Psychology oj’lnterpersonal Relations. Wiley, New York. HUNDLEBY J. D., PAWLIK K. AND CATTELL R. B. (1965) Personality Factors in Ohjectice Test Devices. Robert & Knapp, San Diego. KREITLER H. and KREITLER S. (1972) The model of cognitive orientation: towards a theory of human behaviour. Br. J. Psycho/.
63, 9-30.
KREITLER H. and KREITLER S. (1976) Cognitive Orientation and Behaoior. Springer, New York. LYNN R. and BUTLER J. (1962) Introversion and the arousal jag. J. sot. c/in. Psycho/. 1, 15&151. NORMAN R. M. G. and WATSON R. D. (1976) Extraversion and reactions to cognitive inconsistency. J. Res. Person. 10, 44&456. SHAFFER D. R. and HENDRICK C. (1974) Dogmatism and tolerance for ambiguity as determinants of differential reactions to cognitive inconsistency. J. Person. sot. Psycho/. 29, 601-608. SHAFFER D. R. HENDRICK C., REGULA C. R. and FRECONNA J. (1973) interactive effects of ambiguity tolerance and task erort on dissonance reduction. J. Person. 41. 224233. ZAJONC R. B. (1960) The process of cognitive tuning in communication. J. abnorm. sot. Psycho/. 61. 159-167.