Group Title: effects of active and passive roleplaying, language intensity, and cognitive complexity on attitude change
Title: The effects of active and passive roleplaying, language intensity, and cognitive complexity on attitude change
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00102821/00001
 Material Information
Title: The effects of active and passive roleplaying, language intensity, and cognitive complexity on attitude change
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Long, Mercedes Lopez, 1940-
Copyright Date: 1981
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00102821
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 07891009
ltuf - ABS1780

Full Text











THE EFFECTS OF ACTIVE AND PASSIVE ROLEPLAYING,
LANGUAGE INTENSITY, AND COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY
ON ATTITUDE CHANGE











by

Mercedes Lopez Long


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1981













ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


My sincere appreciation to Dr. Michael Burgoon, my major professor,

formerly of the University of Florida, who is now Professor of

Communication at Michigan State University, for his continued support

during my graduate program. He freely shared his skills and knowledge

which has allowed me to pursue unfamiliar paths successfully. I can

find no sufficient expression of acknowledgement for the curiosity for

knowledge that he has instilled in me. That is the most precious gift

of all.

Dr. Judee Burgoon, my committee member, provided a most valued

source of expertise and support. Her professionalism has provided me

with a model that I have drawn from many times.

Dr. Norman Markel and Dr. Marvin Shaw, also my committee members,

were always available with their knowledge, support, and assistance.

Last, but certainly not least, my deepest gratitude to my husband,

Dale, for his patience and caring way. Without his contributions, my

achievements would not have been realized. A special acknowledgement to

Janine, Mitchell, Keith, and Denise, my children, for their

understanding.













TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

LIST OF TABLES v

ABSTRACT vi


CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1

The Problem 1
Active and Passive Participation 3
Language Intensity 4
Cognitive Complexity 6
Rationale 10
Statement of Hypotheses 10


CHAPTER II METHODS AND PROCEDURES 15

Overview 15
Subjects 16
Measuring Instruments 16
Procedures 19


CHAPTER III RESULTS 23

Pre-Test Analysis of Variance 23
Direct Tests of the Hypotheses 24
Supplementary Analyses 27


CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION 29

Active Roleplaying and Low Language Intensity 30
Passive Roleplaying and High Language Intensity 31
Passive Roleplaying and Moderate Language Intensity 31
Research Implications 32
Summary 34









APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRES 35

APPENDIX B ROLE-PLAYING MATERIALS 42

APPENDIX C ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE STATISTICS FOR
EXPERIMENTAL VARIABLES 57

APPENDIX D PRE- AND POST-TEST MEANS 60


REFERENCES 61

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 66













LIST OF TABLES


Table

1. Attitude Change Means of the Cognitively Complex Group

2. Attitude Change means of the Cognitively Simple Group


Page

25

26













Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate
Council of the University of Florida in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
of Doctor of Philosophy



THE EFFECTS OF ACTIVE AND PASSIVE ROLEPLAYING,
LANGUAGE INTENSITY, AND COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY
ON ATTITUDE CHANGE



By

Mercedes Lopez Long


June 1981



Chairman: Michael Burgoon
Major Department: Speech


Social Science Research has generally demonstrated that roleplaying

affects attitude change. However, few research studies that specify the

antecedent conditions leading to post-roleplaying attitude change have

been attempted. Yet, the application of roleplaying as an attitude

change agent in the applied social sciences continues to increase.

Therefore, further investigation of roleplaying is needed because it is

a scientifically unexplored attitude and behavioral change technique.

The research objective of this study was to systematically

investigate the effects of a combination of cognitive complexity,

language intensity, and roleplaying activity levels on attitude change.

The goal of the investigation was to provide evidence for further









development of roleplaying theory and a basis for more effective

roleplaying techniques in applied situations.

To directly test the hypotheses, t-tests were employed.

Supplementary descriptive statistics were also obtained to explore

possible patterns among the means.

The findings indicated no support for the hypotheses predicting the

influence of combined treatments of levels of complexity, active/passive

roleplaying, and language intensity on attitude change.

Findings were discussed in terms of the limitations of the study

and suggestions for further testing of the experimental variables were

made.

Exploratory observations suggest future research that would offer

potential sources of information for attitude change effects in a

roleplaying paradigm.













CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION



The Problem

Counselors, management trainers, psychologists, psychiatrists, and

teachers employ roleplaying to induce attitude and behavioral change.

Roleplaying as a human relations counseling tool has been used in

industry and in civic, religious, therapeutic, custodial, and

educational institutions (Bryer & Wagner, 1963; Cascio & Bass, 1976;

Corsini, 1966; Harrow, 1950, 1952; Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus & Abramovitz,

1962; Maier & Zerfoss, 1952; Mann & Mann, 1958). The increasing use of

roleplaying necessitates the need to understand its effects so maximum

effectiveness can be achieved. Therefore, it appears that a theoretical

explanation and research evidence are needed to supply the necessary

support for the professionals using roleplaying. Yet, Boies (1972), in

her review of the empirical roleplaying literature, failed to find any

studies that approached theoretical or experimental sophistication.

Many of the studies compared roleplaying with other techniques; few

attempted to study the effects of various roleplaying techniques.

Miller and Burgoon (1973) also agreed that roleplaying was virtually

unexplored. They cited the difficulty in specifying the mediating

personality and structural variables as the reason for the paucity of

scientific research in this area.

This lack of specificity is found in the explanations offered by

roleplaying researchers. For example, some focus on the general









informality of the situation. According to them, the informality

constitutes a real-life interaction in which the roleplayers communicate

with new responses learned through roleplaying. In this way, the

technique changes existing behavioral responses and the new responses

become part of the roleplayer's natural behavior. To further explain

the behavioral change, the psychodrama therapists, Corsini (1966) and

Moreno (1959) suggested that the changes were due to the presence of

evaluators such as therapists, interviewers, or teachers. They also

said that the method served as a catharsis for repressed conflicts and

feelings. Recently, Moreno (1975) stated that the roleplayers are

trained to put themselves into motion in order to summon spontaneity.

Repetition of this motion enables the roleplayers to respond

appropriately and naturally in similar situations. The roleplaying

situation becomes a real-life situation of involvement rather than a

situation of observation. On the other hand, behavioral therapists

emphasize the rehearsal rather than the catharsis as the most important

roleplaying variable in behavioral and attitude change.

The preceding general observations fail to explain specific

antecedent conditions that lead to the roleplaying effect of change.

Furthermore, the different definitions for role-taking, roleplaying and

counter-attitudinal advocacy used by the researchers obstruct attempts

at clarifying the crucial variables in roleplaying. For example, Couter

(1951) and Kelley, Osborne and Hendrick (1977) define role-taking as a

cognitive activity, an imaginative construction of another's role, a

combination of cognitive and behavioral activities. This latter

definition incorporates the rehearsal of attitudes counter to one's own

attitudes which is referred to as counter-attitudinal advocacy and has









been systematically investigated (Elms, 1967; Insko, 1967; McGuire,

1969; Miller & Burgoon, 1973).

The definitions used for roleplaying conflict with th( preceding

definitions for role-taking. For example, Couter (1951) arid Kelley,

Osborne, and Hendrick (1977) agreed that roleplaying in contrast to

role-taking is the overt enactment of one's own appropriate role in a

given situation. On the other hand, Mann (1956) described roleplaying

as a cognitive and behavioral combination in a situation when persons

are asked to perform the roles of others or when they are asked to

perform as themselves in an atypical setting. Vinacke (1954) also

refers to the latter part of the preceding definition as roleplaying.

In the present study, the term "roleplaying" will refer to a situation

in which one plays oneself in an atypical situation.

The preceding supports the evidence that roleplaying is a

scientifically unexplored attitude and behavioral change technique, and

needs further investigation. In addition, the increasing use of

roleplaying in the applied social sciences requires a more intensive

study of the variables in the roleplaying paradigm and an explanation of

their effects on attitude and behavioral change.



Active and Passive Participation

One of the more reliable findings in the area of attitude change is

the greater modification of attitudes following active role-taking

rather than following passive exposure to persuasive communication

(Culbertson, 1957; Elms, 1966; Janis & King, 1956; Jansen & Stolurow,

1962; Kelman, 1953; Sarbin & Allen, 1964; Watts, 1967; Zimbardo, 1965).

This finding appears to be related to the roleplaying study in which









Mann (1967) found that high verbalizers reported more attitude change

than low verbalizers. To further support the activity effects, a more

recent finding by Cascio and Bass (1976) showed that greater attitude

change occurred for those individuals who spontaneously verbalized

supportive messages in roleplaying as opposed to those who simply heard

such verbalizations. However, other variables such as written

communication, critical discussions prior to post-testing, and

informational messages were present during the two preceding studies,

and could have affected attitude change. Yet, the same results for

active/passive participation were found in the first set of studies

which are counterattitudinal and the latter two studies which are

roleplaying studies. Other similarities between the role-taking and

roleplaying studies also occurred. For example, theoretical

considerations such as effort increasing dissonance, the form of an

external control over the subjects' reinforcement schedules, public

commitment of an attitude unlike one privately held which can increase

dissonance, and high involvement, were also present in both sets of

studies. Therefore, it appears that if the conditions, especially the

active/passive conditions, meet the criteria found to be effective for

attitude change in role-raking studies, then the same effects will occur

in roleplaying studies.


Language Intensity

In the following statement, Eiser (1975) summarized the need for

more studies considering the relationship between language and

attitudes.









Although social psychologists have been ready to assume that a
person's attitude is reflected in the statements he makes,
there has been little direct attempt to specify how his
attitude affects the kinds of words which he will actually
employ. Few researchers have examined how differences in
persuasiveness of a message are related to the actual words in
which it is expressed. (p. 235)

He further stated that people's choices of certain terms in

describing attitudes are predictable from their own attitude; second,

attitudes may themselves be affected by the kind of words that people

are led to employ concerning the issue. In other words, what is

observed is a person's preferred mode of expressing the issue. For

example, Franzwa (1967) found speakers favorable toward a topic used

more dynamic language, and speakers who anticipate a hostile audience

use less dynamic language.

Therefore, the preceding suggests that the language used may reveal

the intensity of the attitude. Furthermore, a change in verbal

intensity may affect the attitude in order to restore balance and

consistency and/or to conform to public communication. This line of

reasoning has been supported by several counter-attitudinal studies in

which resistance to persuasion was the effect sought. Burgoon and Chase

(1973) found that the use of intensity-agreement in refutational

pre-treatment and counter-attitudinal messages resulted in resistance to

persuasion. More directly related to the interests of this

investigation is a counter-attitudinal/attitude change study in which

Burgoon and Miller (1971) found a significant relationship between the

intensity of a counter-attitudinal assertion and subsequent attitude

change.

The preceding research reports a relationship between language

intensity and attitude change that is further advanced in Burgoon,









Jones, and Stewart (1975). These authors proposed a message-centered

theory of persuasion which deals directly with the relationship between

encoding language intensity and subsequent attitude change. Four

initial conditions are reported to be central to the derived

propositions:

1. Prior attitude of the source of the communicator;

2. Amount of cognitive stress experienced by the source of

communication;

3. Type of persuasive paradigm;

4. The receiver's expectations of the source's communication

behavior.

This investigation is designed to meet the first three conditions

with a pre-test, an attitude-discrepant behavior, and a self-persuasion

paradigm (roleplaying). The last condition is different in that the

source is the receiver. For this investigation, the fourth condition

has been interpreted to mean a person's own expectations of his

communicative behavior and any deviation from that expectation would

produce stress and a move toward restoration of consistency. However,

for secondary interest, a questionnaire will be designed to tap the

other person in the dyad for perceptions of subjects' capability in a

roleplaying situation.


Cognitive Complexity

An important variable in social psychology is the complexity or

abstractness of concepts which individuals use to organize and structure

their interpersonal environment (Harrison, 1966; Harvey, Hunt, &

Schroder, 1961; Rokeach, 1960; Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough, &









Karp, 1962). A cognitive structure is complex when (a) it contains a

large number of elements, and (b) the elements are integrated

hierarchically by extensive bonds or relationships. Specifically, the

degree of differentiation refers to the number of constructs contained

in a cognitive system. The degree of hierarchic integration refers to

the complexity of the relationships among constructs and to the degree

to which clusters of constructs are related by superordinate integrating

constructs (Crockett, 1965; Kelly, 1955; Krech, Crutchfield, &

Ballachey, 1952; Lewin, 1951).

This processing mechanism helps to determine the kinds of responses

which are possible for the individuals. Two subsystems, the perceptual

(input processing) and the executive (resultant behavior) can take place

(Streufert & Driver, 1967). Gardner and Schoen (1962, Scott 1963b),

and Zajonc (1960) support this line of reasoning and suggest that the

degree of complexity-simplicity varies over different cognitive domains

depending upon the amount and kind of knowledge the individual

possesses, and upon the kinds of functional demands with which the

domain is confronted in daily life. According to Werner (1957), global

loosely organized cognitive perception proceeds to increased

differentiation and hierarchical integration with age in the development

of cognition. This development depends upon the interaction between an

existing mode of cognitive organization and some domain of events and

individuals' actual experience with those events. To the extent that

people seldom or never encounter some events, their cognitive systems

may remain global toward those events. Consequently, an individual may

be relatively cognitively complex in some situations and in other

situations remain undifferentiated and loosely organized because of the









experience factor which allows awareness of subtle differences and

subsequent differential responses to those differences. In other words,

individuals should show more or less complexity toward different domains

depending upon the extent of their experiences with the events

associated with those domains.

The cognitive complexity literature reveals the following

characteristics of a cognitively simple individual which might influence

attitude change in a roleplaying situation. If the preceding

information holds true for cognitively simple persons in unfamiliar

situations such as roleplaying a job interview, then these

characteristics found in the literature should have some impact on

attitude change.

1. Cognitively simple subjects show the greatest change to

incongruent information except when changing attitudes toward a person

from unfavorable to favorable (Leventhal & Singer, 1964).

This study found that cognitive complexity contributed to

differences in performance because of differential sensitivity to

specific information contents. Simple persons appear to be set toward

and to respond to signs of outer effectiveness, complex persons to signs

of inner effectiveness.

2. Cognitively simple subjects show a greater ability to change

set and hence are more stereotyped in the solution of novel and/or more

complex problems; they also have a poorer capacity to assume the role of

the other, or to think in terms of a hypothetical situation (Harvey,

1965; Wolfe, 1963).

Harvey (1965) points out in his study that more concrete subjects

experienced more attitude change than the complex subjects in the public









condition. This evidence led to the incorporation of the public

condition via videotaping in the present study, in order to establish

optimum conditions for attitude change.

3. Cognitively simple subjects are more influenced by environment

than complex cognitive persons (Suedfeld, 1964).

4. Cognitively simple subjects should respond either to the

source or the message content to whichever is most salient, but not to

both inputs. If the message source is most salient (the receiver is the

source in roleplaying), then cognitively simple persons should agree

with the message without listening carefully and without critically

evaluating the message content (Streufert & Fromkin, 1972, p. 171).

5. Cognitively simple persons have a greater tendency to form and

generalize impressions of other people from highly incomplete

information (Ware & Harvey, 1967).

On the other hand, the preceding research suggests that the

characteristics of simple individuals make them easier to be influenced

and more subject to prediction than complex individuals because of their

unidimensional response to information. The effects of the preceding

influences on cognitively complex persons are not as clear, but are

assumed to be opposite to the effects on cognitively simple persons.

The preceding data on cognitive complexity lend support for its

inclusion in the present study as a useful variable. First, the

incongruent information present in a passive roleplaying situation with

a high intense message should effect more of a change in cognitively

simple subjects than in cognitively complex subjects. Second, the

poorer capacity to assume a role, especially an atypical incongruent

role, should produce higher stress in cognitively simple subjects.









Third, evidence shows that these individuals are more affected by the

environment. It also seems reasonable to predict greater attention to

the source rather than to the content because the high intense message

for the cognitively simple subjects would cause them to draw away from

the saliency of the message.



Rationale

The overall goal of this study is to systematically investigate

roleplaying in order to better understand its effect on attitude change

by exploring a combination of personality, structural, and situational

factors that appear to be basic to the technique.

The preceding research evidence leads to the specific goal of this

experimental study: to determine the effects of active/passive

participation, of language intensity in the message, and of variations

in the subjects' cognitive structure on attitude change in a roleplaying

situation.


Statement of Hypothesis

The following hypotheses have been specifically derived from the

message-centered theory and from cognitive complexity theory in order to

provide more research evidence concerning interaction among the

variables.

Burgoon (1970), Burgoon and Chase (1973), Burgoon and King (1974)

and Burgoon and Miller (1971) suggested that there is a direct positive

relationship between level of language intensity and amount of

self-persuasion when the subject is placed in an active encoding

situation; i.e., when the subject is forced to actively advocate a









position he/she does not privately hold. In addition, Burgoon and King

(1974) suggested that language intensity tended to produce different

effects, depending on the paradigm studied. Burgoon et al. (1975) also

stated that antecedent conditions may influence the outcomes of language

intensity/attitude change studies.

Cognitive complexity theory suggests that the cognitive level of

the individual might constitute an antecedent condition. Therefore,

complexity levels might lead to differential outcomes in a

self-persuasive paradigm using language intensity as a variable.

First, based on the preceding cognitive complexity research that

suggests that cognitively simple persons are more influenced by the

environment, and second based on Proposition II from Burgoon et al.

(1975) whose theoretical formulation states that in an active encoding

situation, the more intense an individual's encoding, the more he will

change his attitude to confirm to his public communication, a higher

attitude change is predicted for cognitively simple subjects.

However, the high intense, active condition also presents a

situation to cognitively simple persons that could further inhibit their

already limited capability to play an atypical role. It also makes them

less able to think in terms of hypothetical situations. Since they are

more influenced by environment and they cannot respond to both the

source and the message content, it is suggested that the high intensity

will make them concentrate more on themselves on the message content and

inhibit attitude change. Conversely, low intensity will allow them to

concentrate on the content of the message, thus influencing them to have

more self-attitude change. These conditions allow them to become aware

of the public commitment factor, thus leading to more involvement.









Therefore, because of their level of cognitive complexity, they should

experience more attitude change under the latter conditions than would

subjects of a higher complexity level. The following hypothesis

reflects this line of thought:

Hypothesis 1: Cognitively simple subjects will change their

attitudes more toward their personal capability in an interview,

toward the interviewer, and toward the interview situation when

they actively roleplay using low intense language than will

cognitively complex subjects.

Therefore, the level of cognitive complexity should mediate the expected

relationship between the level of language intensity and the

active-encoding situation.

Proposition II by Burgoon et al. (1975) states: Given passive

reception of a belief-discrepant persuasive message, low intense

language produces more attitude change than does high intense language.

The explanation given is receiver expectations of source communication

behavior. Since in this study the receiver is the source, a

reinterpretation of Proposition II to also include sources' expectations

of their communication behavior and the public expression of

attitude-discrepant behavior to a negatively perceived other should help

explain the anticipated effects. Reading intense language that

surpasses the optimal level of reading belief-discrepant messages,

assumed to be low intense, may be perceived as unnatural, thereby

producing increased detachment from the roleplaying, and calling

attention to impression formation rather than to the task at hand.

In applying the expected effects of cognitive complexity on

roleplaying and language intensity conditions, cognitively simple









persons should change more in the high intense passive condition than in

the low intense passive condition. The preceding is due to the

complexity findings that suggest that incongruent information, in this

case due to the passive production of high intense language in the

message, should elicit more attitude change from simple complex persons.

Therefore, complexity mediates the expected effects resulting from

passive roleplaying and low language intensity. With this in mind, the

following hypothesis is offered:

Hypothesis 2: Cognitively simple subjects will exhibit more

attitude change toward their personal capability, toward the

interviewer, and toward the interview situation when they read the

interview responses using high intense language than will

cognitively complex subjects.

Streufert and Fromkin (1972, p. 164) postulate a curvilinear

relationship between environmental complexity and level of cognitive

complexity. Assuming that the message and environmental characteristics

permit optimal message conditions, then differences between cognitively

simple and complex individuals would be at their highest in the moderate

condition. At this point, the complex individual would be able to

utilize more information than the simple individual under less favorable

conditions. Considering the research that shows that belief-discrepant

messages are usually encoded in moderately high intense language

(Burgoon & Miller, 1971), and that the reading condition constitutes

less complexity than an improvising condition, the following hypothesis

is suggested:

Hypothesis 3: After reading a moderate intense message,

cognitively complex interviewees will exhibit more attitude change

across all three measures than will simple interviewees.






14


Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3, are designed to provide evidence that

different levels of cognitive complexity constitute antecedent

conditions that mediate the results of language intensity/attitude

change studies. The results of these findings could lead to further

developments in roleplaying theory and would also provide a basis for

more effective roleplaying techniques in practical situations.












CHAPTER II

METHODS AND PROCEDURES


Overview

A 3 X 2 X 2 factorial design was employed to examine the effects of

three levels of language intensity, two levels of cognitive complexity,

and two variations of roleplaying participation on attitude change.

Subjects completed a pre-test that rated their perception of their job

interview skills, their attitude toward the job interviewer, and their

attitude toward the job interview situation. At the same time, a

modified role test was administered to the subjects to measure cognitive

complexity in order to determine their assignment to cognitively complex

or cognitively simple groups.

The experimental setting was introduced to the subjects as an

exercise designed to develop models of effective interviewing skills.

The subjects were also told that the models resulting from this exercise

would be used to teach people who lacked the job interview skills

necessary for successful job hunting. The cognitively complex and

cognitively simple subjects were then randomly assigned to roleplaying

participation and language intensity conditions. Following the

roleplaying job interview exercise, post-tests of the three attitude

measures and perceptions of the experimental inductions were

administered to the subjects. The information from the pre-tests and

the post-tests was used to generate attitude change means designed to

detect subject differences due to the participation, language intensity,

and cognitive conditions.









This chapter details the methods and procedures of the study. The

following sections are presented in sequential order: a description of

the subjects; a description of the measuring instruments (pre/post

tests); the introduction to the experiment, instructions for roleplaying

and a description of roleplaying materials, and methodological

considerations.



Subjects

Subjects (N = 181) were freshmen enrolled in first year math,

English, speech, and sociology classes at Hillsborough Community

College, Fall 1979. They ranged from 18 to 26 years old. Before the

pre-tests were given, the subjects were asked to recall the number of

their past job interviews. Those subjects with more than one past job

interview were asked not to participate in the investigation.

Therefore, the subjects participating had little or no experience with

job interview situations. All subjects completed the pre-tests during

the second week of class. The roleplaying job interviews and post-tests

were completed by 107 subjects during the eighth week of class.

Seventy-four of the subjects who took the pre-tests refused to

participate in the roleplaying job interview situation.


Measuring Instruments

Pre-Tests

The pre-test included eight sets of semantic differential scales

and a modified role test to measure levels of cognitive complexity.

Three of the sets were designed to tap the initial attitudes of the

subjects toward their capabilities in the interview setting: One of









these sets rated their perception of favorable self-presentation in an

interview setting; the second set rated their perception of their

ability to respond effectively in a job interview situation; the third

set rated their perception of their ability to successfully perform

easily in a job interview situation.

Two of the eight sets of scales were designed to elicit the

subjects' attitudes toward the interviewer; one of these sets tapped the

subjects' comfortableness with the interviewer, while the other set

measured the subjects' perception of their performance with an

interviewer.

Two sets of scales were directed at the subjects' attitudes toward

the job interview situation; one set evaluated their anticipation of an

interview, and the other measured their confidence in the results of a

job interview.

The eighth set of scales was designed to check the confidence of

the subjects in their responses.

Prior to the administration of the roleplaying situation, the

modified role test was scored to determine the cognitive level of the

subjects by adding the number of agreed ratings of six roles across ten

bipolar scales. Each time the subjects rated the roles on the same

degree of each scale, they were given a score of 1 for every agreement

of ratings. The scores for all agreements were then summed, yielding a

total score; the higher the total score for a subject, the lower the

level of complexity. A high score indicated that the subjects used the

constructs in the same way; therefore, the constructs were not

differentiated. Based on the interpretation of complexity, as being

inversely related to total scores, subjects were assigned to high









complexity if their total score fell below the median split of the

distribution from all subjects; those above the median were assigned to

low complexity.

The validity of using this type of modified role test is supported

by Schroeder, Driver, and Streufert (1967).

A request that subject arrange or scale stimuli in
object-sorting or REP-Test categories is particularly
important; for if the subject simply lumps a number of stimuli
into a nominal category, then discrimination is poor, whatever
the number of stimuli involved. It is the number of
discriminated stimuli per category that should best relate to
abstractness. (p. 176)

That complexity is inversely related to consistency appears to be

supported by the data. Supnick (reported in Crockett, 1965) found that

high complexity subjects (on the Role Category Questionnaire developed

by W. H. Crockett) produced fewer one-sided descriptions than low

complexity subjects. Other measures of complexity which yielded a

consistent relationship between complexity and consistency are 0. J.

Harvey's This I Believe measure (Harvey and Ware, 1967); W. A. Scott's

(1963a) measure of cognitive structure based on the H statistic;

Schroder and Streufert's Sentence Completion Test (Crano and Schroder,

1967); Hunt and Schroder's Situational Interpretation Test (Janicki,

1964). Across the different measures, the need for and expression of

consistency has been shown to be higher for simple than for complex

subjects.

The reliability of the modified role test used in this study was

tested by computing the split-halves reliability measure. The

even-numbered items were put in one group and the odd-numbered items in

the other group. The pairs of scores were then used to compute the

correlation (Bruning and Kintz, 1968). The split-halves reliability









coefficient value for the test items marked by 181 subjects was .95

indicating that the test items are homogenous and reliably (consistent-

ly) measuring the characteristic they were designed to measure.

Post-tests

The post-tests included the same eight sets of scales. However,

the semantic differential scales within the sets were rearranged to

prevent response bias due to the use of the same measuring instrument.

Also included in the post-tests were three semantic differential scales

which measured the subjects' involvement, awareness of the experiment,

and their evaluation of the interviewer.


Procedures

Introduction to Experiment; Instructions for
Roleplaying; Description of Roleplaying Materials

The subjects were introduced to the experimental setting as an

exercise which was designed to develop models of speaking skills for job

interviews. The subjects were encouraged to be assertive, appear

confident, competent, and assured of success. They were told that their

performances would be videotaped for later presentation to another group

as examples of effective interview styles for purposes of evaluation;

selected models would be used to teach interview skills to those lacking

in that area. This introduced the public commitment factor. The

subjects were then assigned randomly to active/passive and language

intensity conditions. The subjects drew a slip of paper describing the

conditions from boxes containing 180 slips. One box contained 90 slips

for complex individuals (15 for each combination of participation and









language intensity), and the other box contained 90 slips for simple

individuals (15 for each combination of participation and language

intensity). This assured randomization for each level of complexity.

The slips were coded as follows:

Active High Intense

Active Moderately Intense

Active Low Intense

Passive High Intense

Passive Moderately Intense

Passive Low Intense

In the active condition, the subjects received a sheet which

presented the questions they would be asked in the interview. These

questions were the result of a survey by a federal program coordinator

and reflected typical questions (proper and improper) asked by "real"

job interviewers. Under each question, the subjects were given a list

of words they could use to formulate their answers. These were the

intensity level suggested on their slip. The words had previously been

assigned scale values for their intensity through successive interval

scaling by Jones and Thurstone (1955). This is a reversal of the

"blanking procedure" which has been used in a number of recent studies

concerning message intensity. Intensity for the answers to each

question was computed by averaging the values of the 20 words used in

the 10 answers (two for each answer). The subjects were directed to use

the selected intensity words in the construction of their answers for

the active condition. Validity of this procedure to measure intensity

of language is supported by evidence in Burgoon and Miller (1971).









The subjects were given two minutes to answer each question with

specific instructions as to length of answers (two sentences of 10 words

maximum) in order to ensure message consistency. A set of assertiveness

was again suggested to the subjects. They then proceeded to the job

interview situation.

In the passive condition, the subjects received a sheet with the

same questions as above. However, in this case the answers were already

present, using the list of words as described above. Under the passive

condition, the subjects were directed to read the answers with the 20

assigned intensity words. The subjects were given two minutes to re-

hearse the answers. The set of assertiveness was again suggested. They

were then instructed to proceed to the roleplaying situation.

Each subjects was interviewed by an interviewer in a private room

with lit video cameras. Three interviewers, professionally trained in

job interviewing, were briefed to assure consistency of interviewing

method. Timed spacing of interviews was used to decrease interviewer

fatigue. Following the interview, each subject completed the post-test.

At this time, the interviewers completed a checklist describing their

perception of the interviewees' involvement with their roles.



Methodological Considerations

In order to ensure optimal conditions for maximum attitude change,

the following were considered in the design: a stress situation that

includes public commitment, involvement, and effort; a self-persuasion

paradigm to emphasize change in self-attitude, in attitude toward

others, and toward a situation; the characteristics of cognitively

complex/simple individuals as possible mediating factors; and the use of









different language intensity levels to produce attitude change in a

specific active/passive persuasive paradigm.



Controls

In order to limit variance due to extraneous factors, discussion of

the roleplaying situation was eliminated after the interview. Boies

(1972) discusses the mirroring, role reversal and verbal reinforcement

which affect attitude change if discussion of results occurs prior to

post-tests. The debriefing consisted of an explanation of the

experiment that took place after the post-tests. The post-tests were

explained as another type of attitude test to tap attitudes toward job

interviews. Both the pre- and post-tests were described as types of

tests that would be given to trainees learning job interview skills.

Another control was also built into the design in order to control

error variance. Special care was given to demand characteristics which

could cast doubt on the validity of any findings. For example, the

interviewers were trained previously to exhibit uniform behavior that

was nonbiased but strictly professional with no rewarding or punishing

implications, covert or overt. All three were selected to fit this

image and were naive as to the purposes of the study. The notion was to

present a situation were the subjects perceived a seemingly noxious

environment similar to a real business-like world, professional but not

biased. In order to minimize suspicion of experimentation, the exercise

was reinforced as one used often in developmental programs to develop

models of oral skills in interviewing.













CHAPTER III

RESULTS


Prior to employing statistical analyses that directly tested the

hypotheses, a multivariate analysis of variance was performed on each

dependent variable to determine the presence of premanipulation

differences among the subjects.

Tests involving a specific set of hypotheses such as the set in

this study are referred to as a priori or planned comparisons. With the

latter, an overall test of significance is not necessary (Kirk, 1968, p.

73). Means that fall in the a priori category can be compared with a t

ratio. Therefore, t-tests were employed to directly test the

hypotheses. In addition, analyses of variance were performed on the

data to check for possible interviewer bias, interviewee perception of

interviewer bias, and class group bias. Supplementary descriptive

statistics were also obtained for exploring possible patterns among

means. Mean statistics are reported in Tables 1 and 2. The pre-test

MANOVA findings are reported in Appendix C. Pre- and post-test means

are reported in Appendix D.


Pre-Test Analysis of Variance

The Multivariate Analysis of Variance on the pre-test dependent

variables, attitude toward subjects' capability, attitude toward

interviewer, and attitude toward interview situation, resulted in no

significant models. The model for the attitude of the subjects'









capability yielded an F of .57, p 84; the model for the subjects'

attitude toward the interviewer yielded an F of .64, p .78; the model

for the subjects' attitude toward the interview situation yielded an F

of .63, p .79. Other related results of the analysis are reported in

Appendix C.


Direct Tests of the Hypotheses

The results of a direct test of the first hypothesis showed the

attitude change means for the eight cognitively simple subjects and the

eleven cognitively complex subjects exposed to the low intense language

treatment while actively roleplaying yielded nonsignificant t's across

the three dependent measures:

Personal Capability t = 1.37 p .18

Interviewer t = .25 p .80

Job Interview t = .18 p .85

(see Tables 1 and 2 for means). Therefore, the results failed to

support Hypothesis 1. Similar results were obtained for Hypothesis 2.

The six cognitively simple subjects did not differ significantly from

the eleven cognitively complex subjects across the three dependent

measures when they read the interview script using high intense

language.

Personal Capability t = .31 p .75

Interviewer t = .42 p .68

Interview t = .69 p .49

The t-tests for Hypothesis 3 also yielded non-significant t's for

the attitude change mean differences between the ten cognitively simple

subjects and the thirteen cognitively complex subjects under the













Table 1. Attitude Change Means of the Cognitively Complex Group



Low Language High Language
Attitude Intensity Moderate Language Intensity Intensity
Change Active Active Passive Passive
Targets Roleplaying Roleplaying Roleplaying Roleplaying


Personal
Capability

Interviewer

Job
Interview


6.00


6.18

-1.55


1.45


n = 11


3.67


-0.64

-2.27


7.15

-.38


-.69


n=6 n = 13


3.09


n = 11












Table 2. Attitude Change Means of the Cognitively Simple Group



Low Language High Language
Attitude Intensity Moderate Language Intensity Intensity
Change Active Active Passive Passive
Targets Roleplaying Roleplaying Roleplaying Roleplaying


Personal
Capability

Interviewer

Job
Interview


n=10 n=10


-7.0


8.70


11.50


6.0


-3.67


2.75

n= 8


2.30


4.80


-3.33

n=6









moderate language intensity level while reading the roleplaying script

(passive).


Personal Capability t = .59

Interviewer t = 1.42

Interview t = .73

Under the Active roleplaying condition,

between groups of subjects was found for the

across the three dependent measures.

Personal Capability t = .29 |

Interviewer t = .04 I

Interview t = .36 I


p .56

p .16

p .46

no significant difference

moderate intense level


Supplementary Analyses

Interviewee Checklist

A multivariate analysis of variance was employed to check if the

subjects' perception of their involvement in the exercise, their

awareness of the experiment, and their evaluation of the interviewer

caused any variation on the post-test scores. The three models were not

significant:

Models F P

Situation Post-Test Attitude 1.29 .27

Capability Post-Test Attitude 1.67 .14

Interviewer Post-Test Attitude 1.22 .30



Interviewer Checklist

A multivariate analysis of variance was used to detect if any

significant variation occurred in the attitude change data due to the






28


subjects' perception of the interviewer's evaluation of them. The

analysis yielded no significant models:

Models F P

Capability Attitude Change 1.66 .16

Interviewer Attitude Change 1.15 .33

Situation Attitude Change 1.06 .38



Interviewer Identification and
Class Participation Influence

A multivariate analysis was employed to check if the different

interviewers' or the subjects' participation in different college

classes influenced the subjects' attitude change. The results yielded

no significance for the three following models:

Models F P

Capability Attitude Change .80 .57

Interviewer Attitude Change .39 .88

Situation Attitude Change .70 .65













CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION



Roleplaying is increasingly being used by professionals in

industry, education, and therapeutic institutions to change attitude and

behavior. In order to accurately assess the results of employing the

different roleplaying techniques, it is important to understand the

antecedent conditions necessary for the maximum effectiveness of the

various techniques. A survey of the roleplaying literature showed that

there is a lack of scientific research offering theoretical explanations

in this area. Therefore, based on the available research in

roleplaying, in language intensity, and in cognitive complexity, this

study was designed to investigate the effects of these factors on

self-capability in an unfamiliar situation, a job interview, and

attitude change toward the interviewer and toward the job interview

situation itself. More specifically, cognitive complexity was predicted

to mediate the predicted effects of language intensity and

active/passive roleplaying which are based on empirical findings in the

literature.

Since the focus of the investigation was to find out how cognitive

complexity specifically mediated the effects of language intensity and

roleplaying method on attitude change, three hypotheses based on

cognitive complexity theory were formulated which were tested by

t-tests. The results of the t-tests failed to support the hypotheses.

No significant differences were found between the attitude change of









cognitively simple subjects and the attitude change of cognitively

complex subjects under the specific treatments that were designed to

illustrate the effect of complexity on roleplaying method and on

language intensity.


Active Roleplaying and Low Language Intensity

Hypothesis 1 predicted that cognitively simple subjects would

change their attitudes more toward their personal capability in an

interview, toward the interviewer, and toward the interview situation

when they actively roleplayed using low intense language than would

cognitively complex subjects. This hypothesis was based on the

assumption that cognitive complexity was an antecedent condition that

would mediate the attitude change results expected from predictions

based on theoretical explanations of language intensity and

active/passive roleplaying conditions. The high intense active encoding

situation was assumed to present a high complex environment that would

cause the cognitively simple persons' already limited roleplaying

capability to be further inhibited, would make them less able to operate

in a hypothetical situation, and would force them to concentrate on

their own perceived competence rather than on the message. Thus, the

result would be less involvement and consequently less attitude change.

Therefore, the low language intensity level was predicted to produce

more attitude change for cognitively simple subjects than for

cognitively complex subjects in the active roleplaying model. However,

the statistical test did not support this line of reasoning.









Passive Roleplaying and High Language Intensity

Hypothesis 2 predicted that under passive high intense roleplaying,

cognitively simple subjects would change their attitudes more toward

their self-capability in the interview task, toward the interview, and

toward the interviewer, than cognitively complex subjects. The

hypothesis was based on a line of reasoning that the expected maximum

attitude change effects due to passive/low intensity conditions derived

from language intensity theory would not occur for the cognitively

simple subject. They should change more than the cognitively complex

subjects under the passive/high language intensity conditions because

the reading of high intense language would produce a more incongruent

message which theoretically should facilitate more attitude change for

cognitively simple subjects than for cognitively complex subjects. As

with the first hypothesis, the statistical test failed to support the

preceding reasoning.


Passive Roleplaying and Moderate Language Intensity

Hypothesis 3 stated that cognitively complex subjects will change

their attitudes across all three dependent measures more than will

cognitively simple subjects when reading a moderately intense language.

This hypothesis is based on a curvilinear relationship between

environmental complexity and level of cognitive complexity. According

to cognitive complexity theory, maximum differences between s mple and

complex individuals should occur in the moderate condition wi h complex

individuals utilizing the most information, and consequently xhibiting

more attitude change than the cognitively simple subjects. Tne

statistical test failed to support this hypothesis.









The nonsignificant tests prevent generalization of any of the

findings and prohibit stable predictions of attitude change resulting

from the manipulation of the message, the persuader, and the contextual

variables. Several limitations in the experimental design may have

contributed to the nonsignificance of the tests. First, the design of

the experiment included a roleplaying task which was perceived as highly

difficult or risky by 74 of the inexperienced low socioeconomic subjects

who consequently did not participate in the task. This resulted in

small sample sizes for the treatment cells which decreased the

statistical power of the tests. Replication of this study is encouraged

with larger sample sizes. However, the problem of attempting socially

relevant experimental research by using subjects who are representative

of the group one is seeking to aid cannot be avoided. It is suggested

to attempt immediate roleplaying after the pre-test in order to diminish

the high dropout rate of this type of population. Another suggestion to

further clarify the role of violations of expectation is to measure the

subjects' expectations of the various langauge intensities prior to

roleplaying. This would more accurately define the influence of

cognitive complexity levels on the perception of language intensity.

Therefore, the experiment would be a more valid test of the effects of

the combined treatments on attitude change.


Research Implications

In addition to the limitations of the current experimental design

discussed above, several other observations support further testing of

attitude change hypotheses in the roleplaying paradigm. For example, an

overview of the patterns in the Means (Appendix D) shows that the









highest positive attitude change of the cognitively complex subjects

toward their personal capability was under the passive moderate

condi tion.

Another observation suggests that the interaction of cognitive

complexity and environmental complexity might lead to a regression of

positive attitudes in the interview situation. The self-perception of

capability of cognitively simple subjects appeared to be more negatively

affected under the active low intense roleplaying than under any other

treatment combination.

The preceding observation supports the cognitive complexity

literature that, when the environment appears incongruous as in the

active/low treatment, cognitively simple subjects attend more to

themselves than to the message. The outer environment affects them

considerably as is evidenced by their negative reaction to perception of

capability.

The overall implication of the preceding observations is that the

levels of cognitive complexity appear to differentially affect attitudes

toward personal capability depending on mode of roleplaying activity and

level of language intensity in the message.

Based on these observations, it is suggested that hypotheses be

designed to test the cognitive complexity effect on attitude change

toward self separately from the effect on the outside environment.

These observations suggest a need for further exploration in the area of

attitude change in roleplaying situations that consider cognitive

complexity levels, language intensity, and participation levels.

The preceding shows that replication of this research incorporating

the suggested recommendations for enlarging the sample sizes, measuring









the subjects' expectations of language intensity levels, and segmenting

the hypotheses will result in advancing attitude change theories in

cognitive complexity and language intensity areas. Further, the

socially relevant implications of significant results will lead to

roleplaying techniques that effect positive attitude change.


Summary

A survey of the literature showed that there is a lack of

scientific research aimed at detecting specific antecedent conditions

that lead to attitude change in roleplaying situations. This

investigation was an attempt to design a roleplaying experimental study

that would result in specifying some antecedent condition that would

lead to positive changes in capability, positive attitude changes toward

anxiety-provoking unfamiliar job interview interactions, and toward the

job interviewer, a figure of authority and power. Since roleplaying is

increasingly being used in the applied social sciences, a secondary goal

was to provide information for more effective roleplaying techniques.

Direct tests of the hypotheses (t-tests) were found to be

nonsignificant.

Limitations of the study included a high level of risk for the type

of subjects necessarily employed in the design which resulted in a high

drop-out rate, causing small sample sizes, which limited the statistical

power of the tests.

Suggests for future research included immediate roleplaying after

the pre-test in order to diminish the drop-out rate which should lead to

larger sample sizes. Future research was also discussed in terms of the

observations that cognitive complexity might influence the roleplaying






35


effectiveness of differing message strategies, and that self-persuasion

might be enhanced or inhibited by the level of complexity interacting

with the language intensity of the message and the active/passive

role-playing method. The preceding was discussed in terms of future

research that would offer potential sources of information for advancing

theories in cognitive complexity and in language intensity, and for

social applications.













APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRES



PRE-TEST

A mark in the center scale indicates a neutral attitude towards the
statement. The closer your mark is to one of the following words on the
opposite ends of the scale, the more that word indicates your attitude
towards the statement. Please indicate a mark in the place that most
accurately reflects your feelings.

1. In a situation where others such as a job interviewer have
perceived authority and power to evaluate me I feel I might say
something meaningless and unimportant.

VERY AVG SOMWT NEIT SOMWT AVG VERY


Right: :
Agree:
Weakly: :
No: :
Always: :


: Wrong
: Disagree
: Strongly
: Yes
: Never


2. I look forward to job interviews.


Right: :
Agree:
Weakly: :
No: :
Always: :


: Wrong
: Disagree
: Strongly
: Yes
: Never


3. In a job interview, I am not sure I can make a good impression.


Right:
Agree:
Weakly:
No:
Always: :


: Wrong
: Disagree
: Strongly
: Yes
: Never









4. I can express myself directly and appropriately in a job interview.

Right: : : : : : : : Wrong
Agree: : : : : : : Disagree
Weakly: : : : : : : : Strongly
No: : : : : Yes
Always: : :: : : : Never


5. Job interviewers make me anxious and nervous.

Right: : : : : : : : Wrong
Agree: : : : : : : Disagree
Weakly : : : : : Strongly
No: : : : : : : : Yes
Always: : : : : : : : Never


6. I think I might appear foolish to the interviewer in a job
interview.

Right: : : : : : : : Wrong
Agree: : : : : : Disagree
Weakly: : : : : :: Strongly
No: : : : : : Yes
Always: : : : : : : : Never


7. I am confident of getting a job when I go to a job interview.

Right: : : : : : : : Wrong
Agree: : : : : : : Disagree
Weakly: : : : : : : : Strongly
No: : : : : : Yes
Always: : : : : : : : Never


8. Please indicate how you feel about your responses in this survey.

Right: : : : : : : : Wrong
Confident: : : : : : : : Not Confident
Certain: : : : : : : Uncertain
Negative: : : : : : : : Positive
Sure: : : : : : Unsure









II. Please refer to the appropriate person in your life who fits the
following descriptions:


(M)
(F)
(SS)
(OS)
(T)
(R)


Mother
Father
Best Same-Sex Friend
Best Opposite-Sex Friend
Favorite Teacher
Older Relative


Please place the preceding initials in the following spaces nearest
each adjective that you feel best describes the personality of the
people in your life:


VERY AVG SOMWT NEIT SOMWT AVG VERY


Outgoing: :
Adjusted: :
Decisive: :
Calm:
Controlled: :
Cheerful: :
Responsible:
Considerate: :
Happy:
Interesting: :


Shy
Maladjusted
Indecisive
Excitable
Uncontrolled
Ill-Humored
Irresponsible
Inconsiderate
Sad
Dull









POST-TEST

A mark in the center scale indicates a neutral attitude towards the
statement. The closer your mark is to one of the following words on the
opposite ends of the scale, the more that word indicates your attitude
towards the statement. Please indicate a mark in the space that most
accurately reflects your feelings.

1. In a situation where others such as a job interviewer have
perceived authority and power to evaluate me I feel I might say
something meaningless and unimportant.


VERY AVG SOMWT NEIT


No:
Always:
Right:
Weakly:
Agree:


SOMWT AVG


VERY


Yes
Never
Wrong
Strongly
Disagree


2. I look forward to job interviews.


No:
Always:
Right:
Weakly:
Agree:


Yes
Never
Wrony
Strongly
Disagree


3. In a job interview, I am not sure I can make a good impression.


No:
Always:
Right:
Weakly:
Agree:


Yes
Never
Wrong
Strongly
Disagree


4. I can express myself directly and appropriately in a job interview.


No:
Always:
Right:
Weakly:
Agree:


Yes
Never
Wrong
Strongly
Disagree









5. Job interviewers make me anxious and nervous.


No: :
Always: :
Right:
Weakly:
Agree:


6. I think I might
interview.


No:
Always: _:
Right:
Weakly:
Agree: :


appear foolish to the interviewer in a job


Yes
Never
Wrong
Strongly
Disagree


7. I am confident of getting a job when I go to a job interview.


No: :
Always: :
Right: :
Weakly: :
Agree:


: Yes
: Never
: Wrong
: Strongly
: Disagree


8. Please indicate how you feel about your responses in this survey.

Right: : : : : : : : Wrong
Confident: : : : : : : Not Confident
Certain: : : : : : : : Uncertain
Negative: : : : : : Positive
Sure: : : : : : : Unsure


Yes
Never
Wrong
Strongly
Disagree






41

Interviewee Checklist

1. Were your involved with the exercise?

Yes: : : : : : : : No


2. Were you aware that this was an experimental situation?

Yes: : : : : : : : No


3. Please evaluate the interviewer.

Professional: : : : : : : : Unprofessional
Biased: : : : : : : : Unbiased
Friendly: : : : : : : Unfriendly








Job Interviewer Checklist

I. GENERAL ATTITUDE:


Sociable: __
Interested: _
Involved: :
Confident: :
Comfortable: :
Assertive: :


: _: Unsociable
_: _: Disinterested
_ __: Uninvolved
: : Unconfident
: : Uncomfortable
_: : Nonassertive


II. ATTITUDE TOWARD INTERVIEW:


Positive: :


: : : : : : Negative


III. ATTITUDE TOWARD INTERVIEWER:


Positive:


: : : : : Negative


IV. EVALUATION OF INTERVIEWEE RESPONSES:


Meaningful: :
Timely: :
Relaxed: __
Active: :


: Meaningless
: Untimely
: Unrelaxed
: Passive


_ _













APPENDIX B

ROLE-PLAYING MATERIALS


JOB INTERVIEW QUESTIONS


1. How are you today?

2. I see you held your last job in 1978; what you been doing since?

3. What position are you interested in?

4. Why this particular position?

5. What would you like to be doing ten years from now?

6. Are you married? (Yes/No) (If yes, . .) What does your
wife/husband do?

7. How does your wife/husband feel about you working (nights)?

8. Do you have kids? (If yes, . .) How many? (If no, . .) Why?
Do you plan any?

9. How do you feel about overtime?

10. How would that interfere with your family life?

11. Have you ever cried/become angry on the job?

12. In a job, what is the most difficult job you have ever had?

13. How do you feel about the rights and liberation movement of the
blacks, the women?

14. Why did you leave your last job?

15. What do you have to offer us?

16. What are your ideas on salary?

17. By the way, what do you think about Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy?

18. Thank you, we'll be in touch with you.









PASSIVE/HIGH INTENSITY
INTERVIEWEE SCRIPT

INTERVIEWEE: Please read the responses exactly as they are written
below.

1. How are you today?

RESPONSE: Mighty fine, thank you; how are you?

2. I see you held your last job in 1978; what have you been doing
since?

RESPONSE: I got paid last in 1978, but I've been working all
along. It's some personal work that I like quite a bit.

3. What position are you interested in?

RESPONSE: (Name a position you would like)

4. Why this particular position?

RESPONSE: I feel I have excellent skills and especially good
experience in this area.

5. What would you like to be doing ten years from now?

RESPONSE: I'd like best of all to be working here at double the
salary and triple the responsibility.

6. Are you married? (Yes/No) (If yes . .) What does your
wife/husband do?

RESPONSE: I asked him/her that very same question the other day.
He/she told me, "I do an excellent job and I work very hard."

7. How does your wife/husband feel about you working (nights)?

RESPONSE: My wife/husband and I have an excellent relationship.
We consult each other on everything and weigh all options. We knew
working shifts and nights was a very important part of this job
before we decided that I should apply.

8. Do you have kids? (If yes, . .) How many? (If no, . .) Why?
Do you plan any?

RESPONSE: I have very lovely children! Do you have any?

RESPONSE: Please forgive me for not answering that very important
personal question. Unless it has an extremely important effect on
the type of position offered, I'd prefer very much to keep that
private. Thank you.









9. How do you feel about overtime?

RESPONSE: Whatever the job entails, overtime, etc., I am extremely
capable and very much able to do.

10. How would that interfere with your family life?

RESPONSE: My family life would only be hampered by a very
unreasonable amount of overtime. Your company has an excellent
reputation for being very fair and very reasonable.

11. Have you ever cried/become angry on the job?

RESPONSE: Only when the company I worked for went into bankruptcy.

12. In a job, what is the most difficult job you have ever had?

RESPONSE: All assignments are very tough if you think them through
very carefully, organize them very effectively, and do them to the
best of your ability.

13. How do you feel about the rights and liberation movement of the
blacks, the women?

RESPONSE: I most decidedly believe in all people's individual
rights, don't you?

14. Why did you leave your last job?

RESPONSE: I'll be very happy to answer that, but first I very much
would like to know why the person left the job I'm applying for.

15. What do you have to offer us?

RESPONSE: Diversified excellent organizational skills and
especially good experience.

16. What are your ideas on salary?

RESPONSE I'd like very much for you to make me an offer based on
my excellent skills and highly favorable experience.

17. By the way, what do you think about Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy?

RESPONSE: I dislike extremely to mix politics and work, because I
feel very intensely about both.

18. Thank you, we'll be in touch with you.

RESPONSE: When can I be expecting a call from you? Thank you.









PASSIVE/MODERATE INTENSITY
INTERVIEWEE SCRIPT

INTERVIEWEE: Please respond to each question exactly as written below.

1. How are you today?

RESPONSE: Good, thank you; how are you?

2. I see you held your last job in 1978; what you been doing since?

RESPONSE: I got paid last in 1978, but I've been working all
along. It's some personal work that I prefer.

3. What position are you interested in?

RESPONSE: (Name a position you would like.)

4. Why this particular position?

RESPONSE: I feel I have good skills and fairly good experience in
this area.

5. What would you like to be doing ten years from now?

RESPONSE: It would be pleasing to be working here at twice the
salary and three times the responsibility.

6. Are you married? (Yes/No) (If yes, . .) What does your
wife/husband do?

RESPONSE: I asked him/her that same question the other day.
He/she told me, "I do a good job and I work moderately hard."

7. How does your wife/husband feel about you working (nights)?

RESPONSE: My wife/husband and I have a good relationship. We
consult each other on some things and weigh several options. We
knew working shifts and nights was an acceptable part of this job
before we decided that I should apply.

8. Do you have kids? (If yes, . .) How many? (If no, . .) Why?
Do you plan any?

RESPONSE: I have very lovely children. Do you have any?

RESPONSE: Please forgive me for not answering that somewhat
important personal question. Unless it has a moderately important
effect on the type of position offered, I would prefer to keep that
private. Thank you.









9. How do you feel about overtime?

RESPONSE: Whatever the job entails, overtime, etc., I am somewhat
capable and on the average able to do.

10. How would that interfere with your family life?

RESPONSE: My family life would only be hampered by a somewhat
unreasonable amount of overtime. Your company has an average
reputation for being somewhat fair and somewhat reasonable.

11. Have you ever cried/become angry on the job?

RESPONSE: Only when the company I worked for was in some financial
trouble.

12. In a job, what is the most difficult job you have ever had?

RESPONSE: All assignments are somewhat difficult if you think them
through carefully, organize them very effectively and do them
fairly well.

13. How do you feel about the rights and liberation movement of the
blacks, the women?

RESPONSE: I believe in all people's individual rights, don't you?

14. Why did you leave your last job?

RESPONSE: I'd be glad to answer that, but first I'd be glad to
know why the person left the job I'm applying for?

15. What do you have to offer us?

RESPONSE: Diversified good organizational skills and acceptable
experience.

16. What are your ideas on salary?

RESPONSE: I'd be glad for you to make me an offer based on my good
skills and acceptable experience.

17. By the way, what do you think about Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy?

RESPONSE: I dislike to mix politics and work, because I like both
fairly well.

18. Thank you, we'll be in touch with you.

RESPONSE: When can I be expecting a call from you? Thank you.









PASSIVE/LOW INTENSITY
INTERVIEWEE SCRIPT

INTERVIEWEE: Please respond to each question exactly as written below.

1. How are you today?

RESPONSE: OK; how are you?

2. I see you held your last job in 1978; what you been doing since?

RESPONSE: I got paid last in 1978, but I've been working all
along. It's some personal work that I like.

3. What position are you interested in?

RESPONSE: (Name a position you would like.)

4. Why this particular position?

RESPONSE: I feel I have average skills and fairly acceptable
experience in this area.

5. What would you like to be doing ten years from now?

RESPONSE: I'd like it fairly well to be working here at two times
the salary and three times the responsibility.

6. Are you married? (Yes/No) (If yes, . .) What does your
wife/husband do?

RESPONSE: I asked him/her that question the other day. He/she
told me, "I do an average job and I work fairly hard."

7. How does your wife/husband feel about you working (nights)?

RESPONSE: My wife/husband and I have an average relationship. We
consult each other and weigh options. We knew working shifts and
nights was some part of this job before we decided that I should
apply.

8. Do you have kids? (If yes, . .) How many? (If no, . .) Why?
Do you plan any?

RESPONSE: I have very lovely children. Do you have any?

RESPONSE: Please forgive me for not answering that personal
question. Unless it has a slightly important effect on the type of
position offered, I would like to keep that private. Thank you.









9. How do you feel about overtime?

RESPONSE: Whatever the job entails, overtime, etc., I am capable
and able to do.

10. How would that interfere with your family life?

RESPONSE: My family life would only be hampered by an unreasonable
amount of overtime. Your company has a reputation for being fair
and reasonable.

11. Have you ever cried/become angry on the job?

RESPONSE: Only when the company I worked for was in trouble.

12. In a job, what is the most difficult job you have ever had?

RESPONSE: All assignments are difficult if you think them through,
organize them, and do them well.

13. How do you feel about the rights and liberation movement of the
blacks, the women?

RESPONSE: I accept all people's individual rights, don't you?

14. Why did you leave your last job?

RESPONSE: I'd like to answer that, but first I'd like to know why
the person left the job I'm applying for.

15. What do you have to offer us?

RESPONSE: Diversified acceptable organizational skills and average
experience.

16. What are your ideas on salary?

RESPONSE: I'd like for you to make me an offer based on my skills
and experience.

17. By the way, what do you think about Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy?

RESPONSE: I do not like to mix politics and work, because I like
both.

18. Thank you, we'll be in touch with you.

RESPONSE: when can I be expecting a call from you? Thank you.









ACTIVE/HIGH INTENSITY
INTERVIEWEE SCRIPT


INTERVIEWEE: Please note the general idea of what your response should
be. Then proceed to form your answers (not longer than 2 sentences or
10 words) to each question by using the exact words provided after the
word use.

1. How are you today?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (You feel great) Use: Mighty fine.

2. I see you held your last job in 1978; what you been doing since?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (You were paid last in 1978, but you
have been working on other things since) Use: Work I like quite a
bit.

3. What position are you interested in? (Name a position you would
like.)

4. Why this particular position?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Refer to skills and experience) Use
excellent and especially good.

5. What would you like to be doing ten years from now?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Refer to working at this company at
double the salary and triple the responsibility) Use best of all.

6. Are you married? (Yes/No) (If yes, . .) What does your
wife/husband do?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (She/he has a job and works) Use very,
excellent.

7. How does your wife/husband feel about you working (nights)?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Refer to how you and your spouse plan
together) Use excellent, everything, all, very important.

8. Do you have kids? (If yes, . .) How many? (If no, . .) Why?
Do you plan any?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: If yes 1) (answer # of kids and ask
how many of the interviewer) Use very.

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: 2) (answer by referring to the privacy
and personal nature of the question and the necessity of knowing
this information in relation to the job and your preference on
keeping private). Use very important, personal, extremely
important, and prefer very much.









9. How do you feel about overtime?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Anything it takes, you can do) Use
extremely capable, and very much able.

10. How would that interfere with your family life?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Only if it was unreasonable and this
company is fair) Use excellent reputation, and very reasonable.

11. Have you ever cried/become angry on the job?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Only when the company previously worked
for went into the red) Use bankruptcy.

12. In a job, what is the most difficult job you have ever had?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (When you do something well, it is not
easy) Use very tough, very carefully, very effectively and the
best of your ability.

13. How do you feel about the rights and liberation movement of the
blacks, the women?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (You believe in everyone's rights,
doesn't everyone?) Use most decidedly believe.

14. Why did you leave your last job?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Happy to answer, but you would like to
know what happened to the person who left the job you are applying
for) Use very happy, very much like to know.

15. What do you have to offer us?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Skills and experience) Use excellent
and especially good.

16. What are your ideas on salary?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Let them make you an offer based on
your skills and experience) Use like very much for you, excellent,
highly favorable.

17. By the way, what do you think about Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Don't like to mix politics and work
because you like both) Use dislike extremely, feel very intensely.

18. Thank you, we'll be in touch with you.

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: When can I be expecting a call from you?
Thank you.









ACTIVE/MODERATE INTENSITY
INTERVIEWEE SCRIPT

INTERVIEWEE: Please note the general idea of what your response should
be for each question. Then proceed to form your answer (not longer than
2 sentences or 10 words) by using the exact words provided after use.

1. How are you today?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (You feel great) Use good.

2. I see you held your last job in 1978; what you been doing since?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (You were paid last in 1978, but you
have been working on other things since) Use prefer.

3. What position are you interested in? (Name a position you would
like.)

4. Why this particular position?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Refer to skills and experience) Use
good, fairly good.

5. What would you like to be doing ten years from now?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Refer to working at this company at
double the salary and triple the responsibility) Use it would be
pleasing, twice, three times.

6. Are you married? (Yes/No) (If yes, . .) What does your
wife/husband do?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (She/he has a job and works) Use same,
good, moderately.

7. How does your wife/husband feel about you working (nights)?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Refer to how you and your spouse plan
together) Use good, some things, several, and acceptable.

8. Do you have kids? (If yes, . .) How many? (If no, . .) Why?
Do you plan any?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: If yes 1) (answer # of kids and ask
how many of the interviewer) Use very.

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: 2) (answer by referring to the privacy
and personal nature of the question and the necessity of knowing
this information in relation to the job and your preference on
keeping private). Use somewhat important, personal, moderately
important, would prefer.









9. How do you feel about overtime?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Anything it takes, you ca do) Use
somewhat capable, and on the average.

10. How would that interfere with your family life?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Only if it was unreasonable and this
company is fair) Use somewhat unreasonable, an average, somewhat.

11. Have you ever cried/become angry on the job?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Only when the company previously worked
for went into the red) Use was in some financial trouble.

12. In a job, what is the most difficult job you have ever had?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (When you do something well, it is not
easy) Use somewhat difficult, carefully, effectively, do them
fairly well.

13. How do you feel about the rights and liberation movement of the
blacks, the women?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (You believe in everyone's rights,
doesn't everyone?) Use I believe.

14. Why did you leave your last job?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Happy to answer, but you would like to
know what happened to the person who left the job you are applying
for) Use I'd be glad.

15. What do you have to offer us?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Skills and experience) Use good.

16. What are your ideas on salary?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Let them make you an offer based on
your skills and experience) Use I'd be glad, good, acceptable.

17. By the way, what do you think about Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Don't like to mix politics and work
because you like both) Use dislike, like both fairly well.

18. Thank you, we'll be in touch with you.

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: When can I be expecting a call from you?
Thank you.









ACTIVE/LOW INTENSITY
INTERVIEWEE SCRIPT

INTERVIEWEE: Please note the general idea of what your response should
be for each question. Then proceed to form your answer (not longer than
2 sentences or 10 words) by using the exact words provided after use.

1. How are you today?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (You feel great) Use OK.

2. I see you held your last job in 1978; what you been doing since?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (You were paid last in 1978, but you
have been working on other things since) Use like.

3. What position are you interested in? (Name a position you would
like.)

4. Why this particular position?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Refer to skills and experience) Use
average, acceptable.

5. What would you like to be doing ten years from now?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Refer to working at this company at
double the salary and triple the responsibility) Use I'd like it
fairly well to, two times, three times.

6. Are you married? (Yes/No) (If yes, . .) What does your
wife/husband do?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (She/he has a job and works) Use
average, fairly.

7. How does your wife/husband feel about you working (nights)?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Refer to how you and your spouse plan
together) Use some, average.

8. Do you have kids? (If yes, . .) How many? (If no, . .) Why?
Do you plan any?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: If yes 1) (answer # of kids and ask
how many of the interviewer) Use very.

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: 2) (answer by referring to the privacy
and personal nature of the question and the necessity of knowing
this information in relation to the job and your preference on
keeping private). Use personal, slightly important, would like.









9. How do you feel about overtime?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Anything it takes, you can do) Use
capable, able.

10. How would that interfere with your family life?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Only if it was unreasonable and this
company is fair) Use unreasonable, reputation, fair, reasonable.

11. Have you ever cried/become angry on the job?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Only when the company previously worked
for went into the red) Use was in trouble.

12. In a job, what is the most difficult job you have ever had?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (When you do something well, it is not
easy) Use difficult, well.

13. How do you feel about the rights and liberation movement of the
blacks, the women?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (You believe in everyone's rights,
doesn't everyone?) Use accept.

14. Why did you leave your last job?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Happy to answer, but you would like to
know what happened to the person who left the job you are applying
for) Use I'd like.

15. What do you have to offer us?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Skills and experience) Use acceptable,
average.

16. What are your ideas on salary?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Let them make you an offer based on
your skills and experience) Use I'd like, skills, experience.

17. By the way, what do you think about Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy?

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Don't like to mix politics and work
because you like both) Use I do not like to and I like both.

18. Thank you, we'll be in touch with you.

GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: When can I be expecting a call from you?
Thank you.












GENERAL ROLE PLAYING INSTRUCTIONS


In this interview, you will be asked questions that have been asked

at job interviews in 92 companies. Some of these questions are proper

questions relating specifically to the job situation and skills

necessary for the job. Other questions are personal and considered

improper in a job interview by professional job interviewers. You will

answer all questions as if you were applying for a job of your choice

with a real company.

You will be assertive, appear confident, feel competent and be

assured of getting the job; remember, you have the necessary skills.

You will be given appropriate answers for all the questions that you

will be asked.

The interviewers will be evaluating you along the following

dimensions:

1. General attitude toward yourself, the interview situation, and

toward the interviewer;

2. What you say and how you say it.

You will be videotaped and the best ten performances will be used

as models in training other persons in job interviewing skills. Please

do the best job you can.

You have a maximum of one minute to answer each question. If you

are directed to make up your own answers, do not use more than 2

sentences or 10 words.













Specific Instructions


1. The interviewer has questions and an evaluation checklist.

2. Please find your test from these: If your test says C, pick a slip
from the C box; if your test says S, pull a slip from the S box.

3. Your slip will have a label that describes your script; please give
me that label.

4. I will then give you your script with the questions you will be
asked, and your responses.

5. You will be assertive, self-confident, not sarcastic; you will be
assured of getting the job.

6. You have 3 minutes to review your answers/questions.

7. Remember, be confident; you are being videotaped and the best 10
interviews will be shown while training others in job interview
skills.

8. Please put the last four number of your social security number on
this test and answer as truthfully as you can.













APPENDIX C

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE STATISTICS FOR
EXPERIMENTAL VARIABLES


Pre-Test Attitude Towards Personal Capability


DF SS MS F P

Model 11 3259.92 296.35 .57 .84

Error 95 49323.06 519.19

Corrected Total 106 52582.99


Source DF F P

Complexity 1 .02 .88

Active/Passive
Participation 1 .23 .62

Language Intensity 2 .32 .72

Com*A/P*LI 2 1.72 .18

Com*A/P 1 .03 .86

Com*LI 2 .12 .89

A/P*LI 2 .56 .57













Pre-Test Attitude Towards Interviewer


DF SS MS F P

Model 11 1560.74 141.88 .64 .78

Error 95 20972.15 220.75

Corrected Total 106 22532.89


Source DF F P

Complexity 1 .02 .88

Active/Passive
Participation 1 .01 .91

Language Intensity 2 .89 .41

Com*A/P*LI 2 .92 .40

Com*A/P 1 2.15 .14

Com*LI 2 .70 .49

A/P*LI 2 .33 .71







60





Pre-Test Attitude Towards Interview Situation


DF SS MS F P

Model 11 1685.82 153.25 .63 .79

Error 95 23088.04 243.03

Corrected Total 106 24773.86


Source DF F P

Complexity 1 .22 .63

Active/Passive
Participation 1 .01 .92

Language Intensity 2 .39 .67

Com*A/P*LI 2 .49 .61

Com*A/P 1 2.25 .13

Com*LI 2 1.52 .22

A/P*LI 2 1.30 .27













APPENDIX D

PRE- AND POST-TEST MEANS OF THE COGNITIVELY COMPLEX GROUP*


Attitude Target

Personal
Capability

Interviewer

Job Interview


Low Language
Intensity
Active
Roleplaying
S Pre Post


62 68

41 39

34 35

n= 11


Moderate Language
Intensity
Active Passive
Roleplaying Roleplaying
Pre Post Pre Post


60 66 58 65

46 46 44 43

43 47 36 35


n= 6


n = 13


High Language
Intensity
Passive
Roleplaying
Pre Post


55 55

33 31

35 38

n = 11


. . AND OF THE


Attitude Target

Personal
Capability

Interviewer

Job Interview


Low Language
Intensity
Active
Roleplaying
s Pre Post


71 64

40 41

34 37

n = 8


COGNITIVELY SIMPLE GROUP*

Moderate Language
Intensity
Active Passive
Roleplaying Roleplaying
Pre Post Pre Post


62 70 53 64

43 43 39 44

40 42 38 41


n = 10


n = 10


High Language
Intensity
Passive
Roleplaying
Pre Post


73 70

42 42

35 31


n=6


*Range for means on the seven point scale is from 15 to 105, with 15
equalling the negative end of the scale, and 105 equalling the positive.













REFERENCES


Boies, K. G. Roleplaying as a behavior change technique: Review of the
empirical literature. Psychotherapy: theory, research, and prac-
tice, 1972, 2:185-192.

Bruning, J. L. & Kintz, B. L. Computational handbook of Statistics.
Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman, and Company, 1968.

Bryer, S., & Wagner, R. The didactic value of roleplaying for institu-
tionalized retardates. Group Psychotherapy, 1963, 16:177-181.

Burgoon, M. The effects of response set and race on message interpreta-
tion. Speech Monographs, 1970, 37:264-268.

Burgoon, M., & Chase, L. J. The effects of differential linguistic
patterns in messages attempting to induce resistance to persuasion.
Speech Monographs, 1973, 40-1-7.

Burgoon, M., Jones, S. B., & Stewart, D. Toward a message-centered
theory of persuasion: Three empirical investigations of language
intensity. Human Communication Research, 1975, 1:240-256.

Burgoon, M., & King, L. G. The mediation of resistance to persuasion
strategies by language variables and active-passive participation.
Human Communication Research, 1974, 1:30-41.

Burgoon, M., & Miller, G. R. Prior attitude and language intensity as
predictors of message style and attitude change following counter-
attitudinal advocacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1971, 20:240-253.

Cascio, W. F., & Bass, B. M. The effects of roleplaying in a program to
modify attitudes toward black employees. Journal of Psychology,
1976, 92:261-266.

Corsini, R. Roleplaying in psychotherapy. Chicago: Aldine Publishing
Co., 1966.

Couter, W. Role-playing versus role-taking: An appeal for clarifica-
tion. American Sociological Review, 1951, 16:180-187.

Crano, W. D. & Schroder, H. M. Complexity of attitude structure and
processes of conflict reduction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1967, 5:110-114.

Crockett, W. H. Cognitive complexity and impression formation. In B.
A. Maher (Ed.). Progress in experimental personality research.
New York: Academic Press, 1965, pp. 47-90.









Culbertson, F. J. M. Modification of an emotionally held attitude
through role playing. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1957, 54:230-233.

Eiser, J. R. Attitudes and the use of evaluative language. Journal for
the Theory of Social Behavior, 1975, 2:235-247.

Elms, A. C. Influence of fantasy ability on attitude change through
role playing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966,
4:36-43.

Role-playing, incentive, and dissonance. Psychological Bulletin,
1967, 68:132-148.

Franzwa, H. H. The use and effectiveness of evaluative dynamic language
in persuasion. University of Illinois, 1967. Dissertation Ab-
stracts, 28: 5169-A.

Gardner, R. W., & Schoen, R. A. Differentiation and abstraction in
concept formation. Psychological Monographs, 1962, 76 (41, whole
No. 560).

Harrison, R. Cognitive change and participation in a sensitivity train-
ing laboratory. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1)66, 30: 517-520.

Harrow, G. The effects of psychodrama group therapy on role behavior of
schizophrenic patients. Group Psychotherapy, 1950, 3:316-320.

Psychodrama group therapy: Its effects upon the role behavior
of schizophrenic patients. Group Psychotherapy, 1952, 5:120-172.

Harvey, 0. J. Some situational and cognitive determinarts of dissonance
resolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965,
14:349-355.

Harvey, 0. J., Hunt, D. E., & Schroder, H. M. Conceptual systems and
personality organization. New York: Wiley, 1961.

Harvey, 0. J., and Ware, R. Personality differences in dissonance
resolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967,
2:227-230.

Insko, C. E. Theories of attitude change. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts, 1967.

Janicki, W. P. Effects of disposition on resolution of incongruity.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 69: 575-584.

Janis, I. L., & King, B. T. Comparison of the effectiveness of impro-
vised versus non-improvised role playing in producing attitude
changes. Human Relations, 1956, 9:177-186.






64

Jansen, M. J., & Stolurow, L. M. An experimental study of role playing.
Psychological Monographs, 1962, 76 31:1-32.

Jones, L. V., & Thurstone, P. H. The psychophysics of semantics: An
experimental investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1955,
39:31-39.

Kelly, G. A. The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton,
1955.

Kelly, R. L., Osborne, W. J., & Hendrick, C. Role-taking and role-playing
in human communication. Human Communication Research, 1977, 3:62-67.

Kelman, H. Attitude change as a function of response restriction.
Human Relations, 1953, 6:185-214.

Kirk, R. E. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral
Sciences. California: Brooks/Cole, 1968.

Krech, D., Crutchfield, R. S., & Ballachey, E. L. Individual in society.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.

Lazarus, A. Behavior rehearsal versus non-directive therapy versus
advice in effecting behavior change. Behavior Research and Therapy,
1966, 4:209-212.

Lazarus, A., & Abramovitz, A. The use of emotive imagery in the treat-
ment of children's phobias. Journal of Mental Sciences, 1962,
108:191-195.

Leventhal, H., & Singer, D. L. Cognitive complexity, impression forma-
tion and impression change. Journal of Personality, 1964,
32:210-226.

Lewin, K. Analysis of the concepts whole, differentiation, and unity.
in D. Cartwright (Ed.). Field theory in social science. New York:
Harper, 1951.

Maier, N., & Zerfoss, L. MRP a technique for treating large groups of
supervisors and its potential use in social research. Human Rela-
tions, 1952, 5:177-186.

Mann, J. H. Experimental evaluations of role playing. Psychological
Bulletin, 1956, 53:227-234.

Mann, J. H., & Mann, C. The effect of role playing experience on self-
ratings of personal adjustment. Group Psychotherapy, 1958, 11:27-32.

Mann, L. The effects of emotional role playing on desire to modify
smoking habits. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1967,
3:334-348.

McGuire, W. The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey
& E. Aronson (Eds.). Handbook of social psychology, Vol. III, pp.
136-314. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1969.









Miller, G. R., & Burgoon, M. New techniques of persuasion. New York:
Harper & Row, 1973.

Moreno, J. L. Psychodrama. In S. Arieti (Ed.). American handbook of
psychiatry, Vol. II. New York: Basic Books, 1959, pp. 1375-1396.

Mental catharsis and the psychodrama. Group Psychotherapy,
1975, 28:11.

Rokeach, M. The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960.

Sarbin, T. R., & Allen V. C. Role enactment, audience feedback, and
attitude change. Sociometry, 1964, 27:183-193.

Schroeder, H. M. Driver, M. J., & Streufert, S. Human Information
Processing. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1967.

Scott, W. A. Cognitive complexity and cognitive balance. Sociometry,
1963, 26:66-74(a).

Conceptualizing and measuring structural properties of cognition.
In 0. J. Harvey (Ed.). Motivation and social interaction. New
York: Ronlad, 1963, pp. 266-288(b).

Streufert, S., & Driver, M. J. Impression formation as a measure of the
complexity of conceptual structure. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 1967, 27:1025-1039.

Streufert, S., & Fromkin, H. L. Complexity and social influence. In J.
Tedeschi (Ed.). Social influence processes. Chicago: Aldine,
1972.

Streufert, S., & Streufert, S. C. Behavior in the complex environment.
New York: Wiley, 1978.

Suedfeld, P. Attitude manipulation in restricted environments: I.
Conceptual structure and response to propaganda. Journal of Abnor-
mal and Social Psychology, 1964, 68:242-247.

Vinacke, W. Deceiving experimental subjects. American Psychologist,
1954, 9:155.

Ware, R., & Harvey, 0. J. A cognitive determinant of impression forma-
tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 5:38-44.

Watts, W. Relative persistence of opinion change induced by active
compared to passive participation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1967, 5:4-15.

Werner, H. Comparative psychology of mental development. New York:
International Universities Press, 1957.

Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R. B., Faterson, H. F., Goodenough, D. R., & Karp,
S. A. Psychological differentiation. New York: Wiley, 1962.


1






66

Wolfe, R. The role of conceptual systems in cognitive functioning at
varying levels of age and intelligence. Journal of Personality,
1963, 31:108-123.

Zajonc, R. B. The process of cognitive tuning in communication. Jour-
nal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 61:159-167.

Zimbardo, P. G. The effect of effort and improvisation on self-
persuasion produced by role playing. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 1965, 1:103-120.













BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH


Born in Tampa, Florida, in 1940, or was it 1957, or was it in 1969,

or was it in 1975? Granted, the latter three births could not have

occurred without the original, but without these three transitional

births I would not be Mercedes Lopez Long. The date in 1957 signals my

marriage to Dale Long. He nurtured and fathered me through those

dependent years. Then in 1969 I started as a freshman at the University

of South Florida, my burst into the reality of fledgling independence!

For four years, I grew in leaps and bounds learning who I was, what I

could be, and opening up roads which I would travel. I received my

master's degree in speech in 1972 and began teaching at Hillsborough

Community College. Then, in 1975, I took a perilous step: I enrolled

as a doctoral student at the University of Florida; perilous because it

finalized the destruction of dependency; perilous because the risk of

losing was high, loss of husband, loss of control of children, loss of

security and the stability of who I had been. But the risk was taken

and I have gained a new respect for myself, from my family, and from my

friends. Not because I have achieved degrees, but because I have become

who I am, a person who looks forward to years of growth and development,

and a spreading of my victory to other women.










67










I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.




Michael Burgoon, chairman
Professor of Communication
Michigan State University


I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.



Juae K. BurgoonO
As ciate Professor of Communication


I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.




Donald E. Williams
Professor of Speech


I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.


Ifessor of Psychology




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - Version 2.9.9 - mvs