What do differences between own, admired, and attributed choices have to do with group induced shifts in choice

6Citations
Citations of this article
3Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Two studies examined certain discrepancies which have been considered important evidence in support of interpersonal comparison (value-adherence) explanations of group induced shifts in choice. These are (a) the differences between a person's own choice and the choice he predicts others would make and (b) the difference between the former and the choice he admires. Findings from the first study indicate that own choices are more extreme than those a person predicts others would make because he is more certain and confident about the former than the latter, not because he wishes to appear to outdo others as interpersonal comparison theories of choice-shift effect would have it. The second study strongly suggests that extreme choices are admired not because they display maximal adherence to a social ideal but because they imply that the person's solution to a problem involving choice is well-founded, that he has persuasive reasons for the choice. On the whole the evidence bodes well for explanations of choice-shift effects based on persuasive argumentation and poorly for those relying on interpersonal comparison processes. © 1974.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Burnstein, E., Vinokur, A., & Pichevin, M. F. (1974). What do differences between own, admired, and attributed choices have to do with group induced shifts in choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(5), 428–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(74)90011-0

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free