Cognitive dissonance

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In social psychology, cognitive dissonance describes an emotional state that is perceived as unpleasant . It arises from the fact that a person has incompatible cognitions ( perceptions , thoughts , opinions , attitudes , desires or intentions ). Cognitions are mental events associated with an assessment. Conflicts (“dissonances”) can arise between these cognitions.

Leon Festinger subsumes individual perceptions, information, needs, assumptions, opinions, etc. under the category of cognitive elements (Festinger 1978). These are the basic building blocks that make up the content of human memory. When two cognitive elements are at odds with one another, so that one expresses the opposite of the other in some ways, dissonance arises. A consonant state, however, exists when there are no opposites. Dissonant states are perceived as unpleasant and generate internal tensions that urge you to overcome. Humans are in imbalance and strive to regain a consistent state - an equilibrium.

The fox and the grapes : The fox feels the desire for sweet grapes. At the same time he notices her inaccessibility. He resolves the dissonance with the conviction that the grapes are sour anyway.

Definition / background

Simplified model of cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance occurs, among other things,

  • when you made a decision when the alternatives were also attractive;
  • if you have made a decision that subsequently turns out to be the wrong decision;
  • when one realizes that something that has been started is more strenuous or unpleasant than expected;
  • when one has gone to great lengths only to find that the result does not live up to expectations;
  • if you behave contrary to your beliefs without any external justification (benefit / reward or cost / punishment).

If the dissonance is strong enough, combating it can bring about a permanent change in attitudes and behavior ( action ). Strong dissonance arises particularly when the stable, positive self-concept is endangered, i.e. when someone receives information that makes them appear stupid, immoral or irrational. In everyday language, such moments are called embarrassing moments. Cognitive dissonance motivates people to make the corresponding cognitions compatible with each other, using different strategies, such as behavior changes or attitude changes. If necessary, one's own convictions and values ​​are changed, which goes far beyond temporary rationalizations . The term was coined in 1957 by Leon Festinger , who theoretically formulated both the emergence and the resolution of cognitive dissonance. Since then, the underlying theory has been confirmed in several hundred experiments. His student Elliot Aronson developed the theory substantially and substantiated it empirically .

procedure

Origin of dissonance

Four steps must be followed in order for cognitive dissonance to arise:

  1. Behavior and attitudes are perceived as contradicting one another;
  2. the behavior was voluntary;
  3. physiological excitation occurs;
  4. behavior is held responsible for arousal.

Dissonance arises when a person feels incompetent or immoral, when a behavior causes negative consequences for himself or others ( The Emperor's New Clothes ), or when two or more thoughts block the behavior or actions (Harmon-Jones' action-based model of dissonance ).

Dissonance resolution or reduction

Cognitive dissonance creates a motivation in the person concerned to reduce the resulting dissonance. According to Leon Festinger, there are three different ways to resolve cognitive dissonance:

  • Addition of new consonant cognitions.
  • Subtraction of dissonant cognitions (ignoring, repressing, forgetting).
  • Replacement of cognitions: subtraction of dissonant and simultaneous addition of consonant cognitions.

Since dissonance is perceived as uncomfortable, people try to reconcile the cognitions (bring them into a "consonant" relationship) in order to end the negative emotional state. The dissonance resolution (also called dissonance reduction) can start at each of the four development steps:

  1. The underlying problem is solved. It is often necessary to change the perspective in order to identify new solutions. With the solution, the dissonance also disappears.
  2. The wishes, intentions or attitudes are given up ( the fox and the grapes ) or brought to an achievable and thus less conflictual level.
  3. The physiological arousal is dampened, e.g. B. through sport, through balancing activities, through rest, avoidance of avoidable stress, through meditation, but also through the consumption of alcohol, tranquilizers, tobacco or other drugs.

Fake solutions, illusions and excuses can also reduce tension:

  1. The excitement is attributed to other causes ("The hypocrisy of the people annoys me").
  2. The contradiction between behavior and attitude is downplayed ("My behavior is not that bad.")
  3. The behavior is shown as forced ("I had to act like this.")
  4. Failure to see, deny or devalue information
  5. Selective acquisition and interpretation of dissonance-reducing information

Either the behavior is changed to match the belief, or the belief is changed to match the behavior, or other considerations are used as justification (for example, “This test was so important that cheating was exceptionally okay”). As a rule, one of the cognitions is more resistant to change than others, which is why the cognition that is easiest to change is usually changed. If the action has already happened, only the setting can be changed.

For example, when smokers are confronted with information about the dire consequences of their cigarette consumption, they can avoid dissonance by paying significantly less attention to this information than non-smokers. Another strategy to reduce dissonance is to use additional cognitions, such as referring to smokers who have grown old.

In dissonance resolution, a distinction is made between direct and indirect strategies. Direct strategies relate to resolving the discrepancy between behavior and attitudes responsible for the dissonance; H. People change their behavior to bring it into line with their attitudes, or change their attitudes towards their behavior. Indirectly, dissonance can also be compensated for by emphasizing good qualities or skills in other areas , for example, if one has behaved incompetently and this creates dissonance, one would look for other behavioral areas in which one is more competent. This indirect strategy describes the “ self-affirmation theory ” ( CM Steele, 1988). The criminology called strategies that perpetrators justify their crimes, as neutralization .

Dissonance prevention

If an event is imminent that might threaten a stable, positive self-image, such as an exam, people often come up with excuses for this case. Often these are physical symptoms, negative experiences or unfavorable moods (test anxiety, shyness, "not in a good mood") etc. This can even go so far as to change one's behavior in such a way that it can then serve as an excuse, the so-called self- handicapping , for example not sleeping before an exam. The problem with this is that such an advance justification can work as a self-fulfilling prophecy , that is, it may only bring about the embarrassing moment. Self-handicapping also serves to justify oneself to other people, see impression management .

history

In the 1950s, Marian Keech (actually Dorothy Martin) from Salt Lake City stated that he was receiving messages from the alien "Sananda from the planet Clarion". They gathered a sect in Wisconsin ( USA ) who believed their predictions that a huge flood would kill all people on earth and only the sect's followers would be saved by flying saucers . When the prophesied flood failed to materialize, the group found themselves ridiculed. Instead of accepting the failure of their leader and turning away from her, the followers found themselves all the more strengthened in their faith. They claimed that their prayers had made God change their minds and were now trying to convert other people to their views. Much of her following remained loyal to Keech until her death in 1982.

Leon Festinger, who, together with Stanley Schachter and Henry W. Riecken, appeared to be a sect member, developed the theory of cognitive dissonance on the basis of these events: According to the sect's personal conviction, the world should have plunged into the flood. Since this did not happen, there was a cognitive dissonance between the expectation and the experience of reality. To resolve this conflict, there were only two options: change your own opinion or the opinion of everyone else. For the supporters of the UFO sect only the second option came into consideration, ergo from then on they tried to convince everyone else of their belief.

Festinger published his theory in 1957 in his book A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (German title: "Theory of cognitive dissonance", see below literature ).

Festinger's theory

Cognitive elements can be relevantly related to one another or be irrelevant to one another. Only relevant relations are important for the development of dissonance.

Festinger's theory is based on the following hypotheses:

  • The presence of dissonance is experienced as an uncomfortable state of tension and exerts pressure on people to eliminate or reduce it. The strength of the pressure to reduce dissonance results from the strength of the dissonance.
  • The dissonance between two cognitive elements cannot be greater than is necessary to change the less resilient of the two elements. The reason is that at the time of the greatest possible dissonance, the less resistant element would change - the dissonance would thus be eliminated.

This means that people perceive consonant cognitions as pleasant and therefore actively search. Therefore, people try u. a. to avoid dissonant information (seeking-and-avoiding hypothesis). The consequence of the behavior described is the selective perception of information, for example of media content presented. People tend to stick to or justify decisions once they have been made (see confirmation errors ). Therefore, all new information that contradicts the decision made will tend to be devalued, while all consonant information will tend to be valued. Only when the internal tension generated by the dissonance becomes too great, i.e. exceeds the individual tolerance threshold, does the individual change the decision made in order to bring experience and decision back to consonance. The more tolerant and willing to change a person is, the lower the tensions (i.e. the perceived dissonance) caused by new information.

Festinger names four areas of application of dissonance theory to which a large part of empirical research refers:

  • Dissonance before and after decisions (pre- / post decisional dissonance)
  • Dissonance based on attitude-discrepant behavior (forced compliance paradigm)
  • Dissonance and selective information search (selective exposure)
  • Dissonance and social support

Forced compliance paradigm

Forced compliance or Induced compliance refers to forced consent / brought about consent / manipulation and is based on a study by Leon Festinger and Merrill Carlsmith from 1959.

The experiment is based on the assumption that people experience dissonance when they display behavior that is inconsistent with their attitudes. In their experiment, Festinger and Carlsmith had two experimental groups do an extremely boring job. Then the test subjects of both groups were asked to “sell” their work to subsequent test subjects as extremely interesting and exciting. The subjects in the first group received only a small payment (one dollar) for the positive presentation of the experiment, while those in the second group received 20 dollars. There was also a control group that did not have to persuade anyone and was not rewarded. The test persons were then asked how attractive they rated the activity performed.

The first group (one dollar) rated the task as much more attractive than the second group and the control group. According to the theory of cognitive dissonance, the behavior can be explained as follows: The test subjects in the first group had to lie in order to present the activity as exciting. This created a cognitive dissonance. In order to compensate for this, they rated the task in retrospect as more attractive. The test subjects from the $ 20 group had an external justification for their lie (the $ 20 as a reward), so that their behavior did not contradict their negative attitude towards the experiment, i.e. they did not experience any dissonance.

Alternative theories

The dissonance theory is the most popular theory from the group of consistency theories . In addition to dissonance theory, this includes:

Despite considerable differentiation and empirical breadth of variation, all theories are based on the same basic assumptions.

Basic assumptions in the consonance model: The complex ideas of people (cognitive maps) on individual topics that arise through experience, which are hierarchically composed of values, attitudes and opinions, strive for consonance (i.e. balance, harmony and agreement). The selective absorption of information primarily follows the reinforcement of existing attitudes. Consonant, appropriate information is selected, processed and remembered and can easily be incorporated into existing maps. Inappropriate (incongruent, dissonant) information is avoided, ignored, forgotten or congruently reinterpreted (justifications) in order to avoid contradictions. If inconsistencies between different elements cannot be bridged cognitively, the map breaks at the weakest point (i.e. the cognition that can be most easily changed is rearranged in the direction of congruence). If there is a change or uncertainty on the emotional and personal-social level, new (suitable, congruent) information is sought. Contradictions between cognition and emotion can be balanced through repression, sublimation and reinterpretation.

application areas

marketing

The concept of cognitive dissonance also plays a role in marketing and sales psychology, especially in the distribution of consumer goods . Since cognitive dissonances are perceived as unpleasant by people, they try to reinforce the positive aspects of a product while suppressing the negative parts. In addition, consumers are very selective about information before making a purchase decision . This creates cognitive dissonances, which cause a discrepancy between the expected and actual benefits of the product for the consumer. In consumer choice experiments it was confirmed that a cognitive reassessment of the purchased product takes place in post-purchase behavior in order to reduce the dissonance. Example: "My new car has even more advantages than I thought."

The following cognitive dissonances can occur in marketing:

  1. Behavior and attitudes are perceived as contradicting one another
  2. Attitudes towards different objects but the same facts are perceived as contradicting one another
  3. Different cognitions are perceived as contradicting one another
  4. Cognition and emotion are perceived as contradicting one another

Causes and effects

  • Subsequent regrets of the purchase decision ( purchase regret )
  • New information about the selected product
  • New information about competing products
  • Lack of social support
  • New information through better information sources.

Cognitive dissonances are more likely to occur the more

  • more important the decision
  • more similar the alternatives,
  • more predictable the consequences of the decision,
  • the more urgent the decision
  • lower the level of information of the decision maker,
  • the buying pattern deviates more from previous behavior,
  • a product is more expensive.

The resolution of cognitive dissonances to achieve a mentally pleasant state is an essential element of psychological egoism .

Sales techniques

Low ball tactics
First make a cheap offer and then calculate additional costs. Normally, the buyer agrees in order not to act against his purchase decision.
Foot-in-the-door technology
Post-purchase appropriate add-ons that most customers buy to demonstrate consistent behavior.

pedagogy

Resolving cognitive dissonance through persuasion can bring about permanent changes in attitudes and behavior. Persuasion is required when there is no satisfactory external justification such as reward or punishment for one's own behavior. The smaller the reward or punishment, the more effective it is. Large rewards and penalties only lead to short-term behavior changes.

Insufficient reward

In 1962 there were frequent, sometimes brutal, police operations at Yale University against students who protested against the Vietnam War . The social psychologist Arthur R. Cohen offered students various amounts of money if they wrote committed statements for the police operations. Subsequently, the students with the lowest extrinsic reward were most positive about police operations.

For Aronson's successful method of reducing prejudices with the help of insufficient rewards , see group puzzle .

Inadequate punishment

In an experiment with preschool children, they were first asked to name the toys they would most like to play with. Then the experimenter forbade playing with one of the most attractive and left the room. He observed that all children obeyed the prohibition. The toys were then rated again. For the children who had been threatened with severe punishment, the forbidden toys were still as attractive; their behavior was sufficiently extrinsically motivated. Those children who were only threatened with a mild sentence experienced cognitive dissonance and changed their convictions to reduce it: in the second survey, they rated the forbidden toys as less desirable (Aronson and Carlsmith, 1963). Even several weeks after this experiment, the mild threat of punishment continued to have an effect: These children still played much less with toys that were once so popular (Freedman, 1965).

Examples

Consequences of actions

The attitude towards them changes depending on whether fellow human beings are treated in a friendly or unfriendly manner . If we do not help or even harm someone, the victim is devalued by us (cf. victim devaluation and dehumanization ). Kind action makes our attitude friendlier, which makes further kind action more likely; The same applies to unfriendly actions: a feedback process is set in motion.

Benjamin Franklin Effect

When we successfully ask someone to do us a favor, we become more sympathetic to them. Benjamin Franklin called this effect an "old maxim". When we help someone, we become more sympathetic to the recipient. Franklin's suspicion was scientifically confirmed (Jecker & Landy, 1969): After the test subjects had won a considerable amount of money in a bogus experiment, a third of them were asked to return the money, and the investigator said they were doing him a personal favor. A third of the group was asked by the secretary if they wanted to donate the money to the institute's research budget. The last third, the control group, was not asked to return. Then all test subjects rated the test director, with the first group doing significantly better than the other two.

Victim devaluation

The fact that defenseless victims are greatly devalued by the perpetrators is a universal phenomenon that can be explained with dissonance reduction. To name just a few examples: Victims of the Holocaust ("Untermenschen"), civilian war victims ("Polack, frog-eaters, island monkeys"), victims of domestic violence ("sluts, blags, wimpy"), victims of racism ("Kanaks"), Victims of traditional discrimination (“They're only slaves / women”). These devaluations do not occur when victims have an opportunity to get compensation . Rape victims are often devalued by looking for bogus justifications in their behavior or appearance.

Meat paradox

The meat paradox is central to the tension between most people's desire not to harm animals and choosing a diet that is harmful to animals. Psychologists assume that this conflict between values ​​and behavior leads to cognitive dissonance, which meat eaters try to mitigate in various ways. For example, Bastian Brock et al. found that meat-eaters facilitate the practice of meat-eating by ascribing little intelligence, emotional experience and moral value to the animals they eat. Psychologists claim that meat eaters reduce cognitive dissonance by minimizing their perception of animals as conscious, pain-sensitive, and suffering creatures, especially with regard to the animals they consider food. This is a psychologically effective strategy, because organisms that are ascribed a lower pain perception are consequently also considered to be morally less worthy of protection and their use as food is more widely accepted.

Further examples

  • In Aesop's fable The Fox and the Grapes , the fox wants to eat grapes but is unable to reach them. Instead of admitting his failure, he devalues ​​the grapes as "too sour and not worth the effort".
  • After the bet is placed, bettors expect higher chances of winning than they did before paying (Knox and Inkster, 1968).
  • Corey (1937) found a large discrepancy between belief and behavior on the question of cheating on exams. There was no correlation between the strength with which his subjects condemned cheating and their actual cheating behavior.
  • The same activity is rated more positively when it is done at the request of an unfriendly person than when it is done for the sake of a friendly person (Zimbardo et al., 1965). In the first case there is no external justification: "I do it, but not for the sake of the unfriendly person, so the job must be attractive".
  • The cognitive dissonance that is felt when an application is rejected, be it when flirting or looking for a job, can be alleviated by devaluing the rejecting person.
  • The cognitive dissonance that is felt by recognizing a particular achievement in relation to the attitude towards a person is alleviated by the fact that the achievement as such is devalued and declared as nothing special.

See also

literature

  • Leon Festinger : Theory of Cognitive Dissonance . Huber Verlag Bern, 2012 ( ISBN 978-3-456-85148-8 ), unchanged reprint of the 1978 edition ( ISBN 3-456-80444-X , Verlag Hans Huber, edited by Martin Irle ).
  • Carol Tavris, Elliot Aronson : I'm right, even if I'm wrong: why we justify questionable beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful behavior . Riemann Verlag 2010. ISBN 3-570-50116-7
  • Leon Festinger, Henry W. Riecken, S. Schachter : When Prophecy Fails. A social and psychological study of a group that predicted the destruction of the world . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press 1956.
  • Leon Festinger: A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press 1957
  • Jürgen Beckmann : Cognitive dissonance - an action theory perspective . Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1984, ISBN 3-540-13772-6
  • Michael Gregorius: Psychology: Summary. Attribution theory, cognitive dissonance, social cognitive learning theory. July 20, 1999, pp. 13-19, online .
  • Andreas Püttmann: Cognitive Dissonance. About our pernicious tendency to refuse to see realities. The political opinion, No. 480 · November 2009, pp. 1–3, online
  • Why we gloss over the world: How cognitive dissonance determines our lives. In: Sandra Maxeiner, Hedda Rühle: Dr. Psych's Psychopathology, Clinical Psychology, and Psychotherapy . Jerry-Media-Verlag, Zollikon 2014, Volume 1: ISBN 978-3-9523672-0-9 and Volume 2: ISBN 978-3-9523672-1-6 , online .

Web links

References and comments

  1. ↑ Leon Festinger : Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Huber Verlag Bern, 2012 ( ISBN 978-3-456-85148-8 ), unchanged reprint of the 1978 edition ( ISBN 3-456-80444-X ), Verlag Hans Huber
  2. ↑ what can be expressed in the cognitive (assumptions and beliefs) , affective (feelings and emotions) and behavioral (behavior) areas.
  3. ^ E. Aronson , TD Wilson, RM Akert: Social Psychology . Pearson study. 6th edition 2008. ISBN 978-3-8273-7359-5 , p. 163 ff
  4. ^ ER Smith, DM Mackie: Social Psychology . Psychology Press, 2nd edition 2000, ISBN 0-86377-587-X , p. 299
  5. ^ ER Smith, DM Mackie: Social Psychology . Psychology Press, 2nd edition 2000, ISBN 0-86377-587-X , p. 302
  6. ↑ P. Fischer et al .: Social Psychology for Bachelor. DOI 10.1007 / 978-3-642-30272-5_2, Springer-Verlag, Berlin / Heidelberg 2013; Text excerpt [1]
  7. ^ CM Steele et al. (1981): Dissonance and alcohol: Drinking your troubles away . In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, pp. 831-846.
  8. ^ ER Smith, DM Mackie: Social Psychology . In: Psychology Press. 2nd edition 2000, ISBN 0-86377-587-X , p. 310.
  9. ^ E. Aronson, TD Wilson, RM Akert: Social Psychology . Pearson study. 6th edition 2008. ISBN 978-3-8273-7359-5 , p. 164
  10. ^ E. Aronson, TD Wilson, RM Akert: Social Psychology . Pearson study. 6th edition 2008. ISBN 978-3-8273-7359-5 , pp. 164f.
  11. ^ CM Steele (1988): The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self . In: L. Berkowitz (ed.): Advances in experimental social psychology , Vol. 21, pp. 261-302
  12. ^ RM Arkin, KC Oleson (1998): Self-Handicapping . In: JM Darley, J. Cooper (eds.) Attribution and social interaction: The legacy of Edward E. Jones . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 313-341
  13. ↑ EE Jones, S. Berglas (1978). Control of attributions about the self through self-handicapping strategies: The appeal of alcohol and the role of underachievement . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, pp. 200-206
  14. ^ E. Aronson, TD Wilson, RM Akert: Social Psychology . Pearson study. 6th edition 2008. ISBN 978-3-8273-7359-5 , p. 155
  15. ↑ AH Baumgardner et al. (1985): Claiming mood as a self-handicap . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, pp. 349-357
  16. ↑ J. Greenberg et al. (1984): The role of extrinsic incentives in the use of test anxiety as an anticipatory attributional defense: Playing it cool when the stakes are high. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, pp. 1136-1145
  17. ↑ Rüdiger Maas: What does Bill Gates have to do with Corona? A book about the origins of conspiracy theories and how to deal with them . Ed .: Rüdiger Maas. 1st edition. BoD, Norderstedt 2020, ISBN 978-3-7519-6806-5 , p. 132 .
  18. ↑ Aronson's portrayal of Festinger's discovery (Engl.)
  19. ↑ a b secondary source on Leon Festinger, p. 7
  20. ^ E. Aronson, TD Wilson, RM Akert: Social Psychology . Pearson study. 6th edition 2008. ISBN 978-3-8273-7359-5 , pp. 173 ff.
  21. ↑ Arthur R. Cohen (1962): An experiment on small rewards for discrepant compliance and attitude change . In: Brehm and Cohen (eds.) Explorations in cognitive dissonance , New York: Wiley, pp. 73-78
  22. ↑ E. Aronson, Carl Smith JM: Effect of severity of threat in the devaluation of forbidden behavior . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, pp. 584-588
  23. ^ E. Aronson, TD Wilson, RM Akert: Social Psychology . Pearson study. 6th edition 2008. ISBN 978-3-8273-7359-5 , pp. 181 ff.
  24. ^ Benjamin Franklin : The autobiography of Benjamin Franklin . In: J. Bigelow (ed.): Philadelphia, Lippincott
  25. ↑ J. Jecker & D. Landy (1969): Liking a person as a function of doing him a favor . Human Relations, 22, pp. 371-378
  26. ^ E. Aronson, TD Wilson and RM Akert: Social Psychology . Pearson study. 6th edition 2008. ISBN 978-3-8273-7359-5 , p. 183 ff.
  27. ^ E. Berscheid, D. Boye, E. Walster (1968): Retaliation as a means of restoring equality . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, pp. 370-376
  28. ↑ C. Jones, E. Aronson (1973): Attribution of fault to a rape victim as a function of the respectability of the victim . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, pp. 415-419
  29. ↑ Steve Loughnan et al .: The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals, in: Appetite 55 (1), 2010, pp. 156-159. Retrieved September 24, 2018 .
  30. ^ Jared Piazza et al .: Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns, in: Appetite 91, 2015, pp. 114–128. Retrieved September 26, 2018 .
  31. ↑ a b Bastian Brock et al .: Bastian Brock et al .: Don't mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption, in: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38 (2), 2011, pp. 247-256. Retrieved September 26, 2018 .
  32. ↑ Lois Presser: Why We Harm . Ed .: New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 2011, p. 50-68 .
  33. ↑ Adam Waytz, Kurt Gray, Nicholas Epley, Daniel M. Wegner: r: Causes and consequences of mind perception, in: Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14 (8), 2010, pp 383-388. Retrieved September 26, 2018 .
  34. ↑ Knox, R. & Inkster, J. (1968): Postdecision dissonance at post time . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, pp. 319-323
  35. ↑ Corey, SM (1937): Professed attitudes and actual behavior . Journal of Educational Psychology, 28, pp. 271-280
  36. ↑ Zimbardo et al. (1965): Communicator effectiveness in producing public conformity and private attitude change . Journal of Personality, 33, pp. 233-255