Does Minimal Inconsistency Evoke Negative Affect? Report From Three Studies Using an Implicit Measure of Emotion

Abstract

From cognitive dissonance theory to the meaning maintenance model, most cognitive consistency models suggest that the detection of an inconsistency evokes negative affect. However, there is no consensus on the minimal conditions that are necessary for the occurrence of negative affect. In three studies, we tested whether exposure to minimal inconsistencies, that is, inconsistencies that involve very few cognitions, evokes negative affect. Negative affect was assessed by using an implicit method inspired by the Implicit Positive and Negative Attitude Test. Neither exposure to incorrect basic equations (Study 1, N = 91) nor exposure to Thatcher illusions (Study 2; N = 120) nor exposure to colour-reversed playing cards (Study 3, N = 94) resulted in increased negative affect. An internal meta-analysis of the three studies confirms a likely absence of negative affect (Cohen’s d = 0.05). This absence suggests that more than minimal inconsistency is needed for inconsistency to evoke negative affect. We discuss the likely requirements and the role of negative affect in the cognitive consistency process.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Availability of data and material

Data and materials can be freely accessed at: https://osf.io/ar97y/?view_only=97d7ed7532ce40448176030cfee86e04

Notes

  1. 1.

    We conducted a pretest to ensure the neutrality of the Cambodian words used in Study 3. In a pre-screening, we selected 36 neutral-looking words based on their appearance. Then, 102 participants (Mage = 26; SDage = 7; 79 women) were recruited in an online procedure to rate each word on a positive and a negative four-point scale. After this pretest, the 10 most neutral words, both in terms of valence means and variance, were selected for the study.

References

  1. Beauvois, J.-L., & Joule, R.-V. (1996). A radical dissonance theory. London: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Botvinick, M. M. (2007). Conflict monitoring and decision making: reconciling two perspectives on anterior cingulate function. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioural Neuroscience, 7(4), 356–366. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.7.4.356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brannon, S. M., & Gawronski, B. (2018). In search of a negativity bias in expectancy violation. Social Cognition, 36(2), 199–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bruner, J. S., & Postman, L. (1949). On the perception of incongruity: a paradigm. Journal of Personality, 18, 206–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1949.tb01241.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cooper, J. (2019). Cognitive dissonance: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. International Review of Social Psychology, 32(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.277

  6. Dreisbach, G., & Fischer, R. (2012). Conflicts as aversive signals. Brain and Cognition, 78(2), 94–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2011.12.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Elliot, A. J., & Devine, P. G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,, 67(3), 382–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  9. Fritz, J., & Dreisbach, G. (2013). Conflicts as aversive signals: conflict priming increases negative judgments for neutral stimuli. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioural Neurosciences, 13(2), 311–317. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-012-0147-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Goh, J. X., Hall, J. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(10), 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Harmon-Jones, C., Harmon-Jones, E. (2018). Toward an Increased Understanding of Dissonance Processes: A Response to the Target Article by Kruglanski et al. Psychological Inquiry, 29, 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2018.1480691.

  12. Harmon-Jones, E., Harmon-Jones, C., & Levy, N. (2015). An action-based model of cognitive-dissonance processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(3), 184–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414566449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jonas, E., McGregor, I., Klackl, J., Agroskin, D., Fritsche, I., Holbrook, C., Nash, K., Proulx, T., & Quirin, M. (2014). Threat and defense: From anxiety to approach. Advances in experimental social psychology, 49, 219–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800052-6.00004-4.

  14. Krosnick, J. A., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). Designing Rating Scales for Effective Measurement in Surveys. In Lyberg et al. (Eds.), Survey Measurement and Process Quality (pp. 141–164). Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118490013.ch6.

  15. Kruglanski, A. W., Jasko, K., Milyavsky, M., Chernikova, M., Webber, D., Pierro, A., & di Santo, D. (2018a). All about cognitive consistency: A reply to commentaries. Psychological Inquiry, 29, 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2018.1480656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kruglanski, A. W., Jasko, K., Milyavsky, M., Chernikova, M., Webber, D., Pierro, A., & di Santo, D. (2018b). Cognitive consistency theory in social psychology: A paradigm reconsidered. Psychological Inquiry, 29, 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2018.1480619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Levy, N., Harmon-Jones, C., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2018). Dissonance and discomfort: Does a simple cognitive inconsistency evoke a negative affective state? Motivation Science, 4(2), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lewis, M. B., & Johnston, R. A. (1997). The Thatcher illusion as a test of configural disruption. Perception, 26(2), 225–227. https://doi.org/10.1068/p260225.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ma, D. S., Correll, J., & Wittenbrink, B. (2015). The Chicago face database: A free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1122–1135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (2004). Designing experiments and analyzing data: a model comparison perspective (2nd ed.). Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Morris, S. B., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 105–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Noordewier, M. K., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2013). On the valence of surprise. Cognition and Emotion, 27(7), 1326–1334. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.777660.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Payne, B. K., Cheng, C. M., Govorun, O., & Stewart, B. D. (2005). An inkblot for attitudes: Affect misattribution as implicit measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.277.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Proulx, T. (2018). Lumping the affective and behavioral responses to inconsistency: A lump too far? Psychological Inquiry, 29, 82–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2018.1480588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Proulx, T., & Heine, S. J. (2008). The case of the transmogrifying experimenter: Affirmation of a moral schema following implicit change detection. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1294–1300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02238.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Proulx, T., & Heine, S. J. (2009). Connections from Kafka: Exposure to meaning threats improves implicit learning of an artificial grammar. Psychological Science, 20(9), 1125–1131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02414.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Proulx, T., Heine, S. J., & Vohs, K. (2010). When is the unfamiliar the uncanny? Meaning affirmation after exposure to Absurdist Literature, Humor, and Art. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 817–829. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210369896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Proulx, T., & Major, B. (2013). A raw deal: Heightened liberalism following exposure to anomalous playing cards. Journal of Social Issues, 69(3), 455–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Proulx, T., Inzlicht, M., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2012). Understanding all inconsistency compensation as a palliative response to violated expectations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(5), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.04.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Proulx, T., Sleegers, W., & Tritt, S. M. (2017). The expectancy bias: Expectancy-violating faces evoke earlier pupillary dilation than neutral or negative faces. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Quirin, M., Kazén, M., & Kuhl, J. (2009). When nonsense sounds happy or helpless: The Implicit Positive and Negative Affect Test (IPANAT). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(3), 500–516. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016063.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Quirin, M., Wróbel, M., Norcini Pala, A., Stieger, S., Brosschot, J., Kazén, M., et al. (2018). A cross-cultural validation of the Implicit Positive and Negative Affect Test (IPANAT): Results from ten countries across three continents. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 34(1), 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Randles, D., Proulx, T., & Heine, S. J. (2011). Turn-frogs and careful-sweaters: Non-conscious perception of incongruous word pairings provokes fluid compensation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 246–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Renaud, P., & Blondin, J. P. (1997). The stress of Stroop performance: physiological and emotional responses to color-word interference, task pacing, and pacing speed. International Journal of Psychohysiology, 27(2), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8760(97)00049-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Simmons, J., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2013). Life After P-Hacking. In S. Botti & A. Labroo. (eds.) Advances in Consumer Research (vol. 41). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research. http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/v41/acr_v41_15833.pdf.

  36. Sklar, A. Y., Levy, N., Goldstein, A., Mandel, R., Maril, A., & Hassin, R. R. (2012). Reading and doing arithmetic nonconsciously. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(48), 19614–19619. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211645109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sleegers, W. W. A., Proulx, T., & van Beest, I. (2015). Extremism reduces conflict arousal and increases values affirmation in response to meaning violations. Biological Psychology, 108, 126–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2015.03.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Tan, X., Van Prooijen, J.-W., Proulx, T., Wu, H., Van Beest, I., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2017). Reacting to unexpected losses in an uncertain world: High approach individuals become even more risk-seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 109, 117–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Vaidis, D. C., & Bran, A. (2018). Some prior considerations about dissonance to understand its reduction: Comment on McGrath (2017). Social and Personality Psychology Compass, e12411. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12411.

  40. Vaidis, D. C., & Bran, A. (2019). Respectable challenges to respectable theory: Cognitive dissonance theory requires conceptualization clarification and operational tools. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01189.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Alexandre Bran is jointly supported by the Association Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique and PACIFICA through the CIFRE grant 2017/0145.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandre Bran.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Ethics approval

In accordance with French laws concerning research on human participants and with the Comité d’Ethique de la Recherche of University de Paris, no ethics approval was required for the studies presented in this manuscript. All studies have been performed in accordance with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Consent to participate

All participants provided written informed consent before participating in any of the presented studies.

Consent for publication

All participants provided written informed consent for the use of their data in scientific articles.

Code availability

Code for Study 3 can be obtained upon request to the corresponding author.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bran, A., Vaidis, D.C. Does Minimal Inconsistency Evoke Negative Affect? Report From Three Studies Using an Implicit Measure of Emotion. Psychol Stud (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-020-00594-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Consistency
  • Affect
  • Cognitive dissonance
  • Cognitive conflict
  • Implicit measures