Moreover, self-persuasion as well as self-perception do not rely on discomfort. Anyway, it makes me a feeling of déjà-vu and I believe we already had this discussion before! :) My main conclusion with the RRR is that the paradigm is flaw, but I cannot discard the whole theory with this results.

Yes but they were all informed about this tuition raise so they should all experienced such discomfort thus? But we observed the discomfort and conflict in the inconsistency behavior conditions with all ds > .66 and they all answered the same item about attitude. Not perfect, but not discarding.

It does make sense to consider that changing the others is a way to make the social reality consistent with your thoughts but the current experimental or observational evidence are scarce.

Only a few models, like the EIM could explain proselytism. More generally, the most common reactions to disconfirmation are maintain or change (or assimilation/accommodation, or exploitation/exploration; depending on your theoretical background), not proselytism.

I really did not want to write on this but as many people talk about it, I think it is necessary to restate some basic elements. The proselytism has never been a strong assumption (this is even sometime hard to explain why it should occurs).

You should read Chapanis & Chapanis (1964)! They had almost the same conclusions more than 60 years ago! So nothing new here. But things move forward in the meantime.

So hard critic is okay to move forward but Science is much more.
a/ Read the papers (not just abstracts)
b/ Put them in perspective with the full literature
Critique the ethics AND maintain scientific rigor.
#replication #cognitivedissonance #scienticrigor

Bottom line: Yes, condemn the unethical methods. But don't dismiss cognitive dissonance theory based on one inconsistent secondary effect.
We must be serious in engaging in Science.

The proselytism effect was never robust.
Hardyck & Braden (1962)—just 6 years later!—found disconfirmation and maintenance of the belief but NO proselytism. Batson (1975) confirmed: not everyone becomes a proselyte after disconfirmation.
#replication

Kelly (2025) emphasizes two points: a) unethical research methods and b) lack of proselytism effects.
I completely agree the ethics were problematic—this has plagued social psychology for decades (see: Belmont Report, Milgram, Zimbardo).
#ResearchEthics #PsychologyResearch

Good to see that some people are still reading the full paper and not only the abstract. I think Science would thank you if it can. :)

Awarded projects will receive:
✔️ Research funding from SIPS (up to $2,000 USD)
✔️ A recommendation decision from PCI-RR.

Deadline: August 1st.

🔗 More details: buff.ly/AigqCod

Et entre les deux... on arrête de se poser la question par peur de trouver une réponse !