Citation
The effects of active and passive roleplaying, language intensity, and cognitive complexity on attitude change

Material Information

Title:
The effects of active and passive roleplaying, language intensity, and cognitive complexity on attitude change
Creator:
Long, Mercedes Lopez, 1940-
Copyright Date:
1981
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Attitude change ( jstor )
Cognitive psychology ( jstor )
Employment interviews ( jstor )
Family relations ( jstor )
Overtime ( jstor )
Personality psychology ( jstor )
Psychodrama ( jstor )
Psychological attitudes ( jstor )
Psychology ( jstor )
Social psychology ( jstor )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
07891009 ( oclc )
ABS1780 ( ltuf )
0028131397 ( ALEPH )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


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




Full Text

PAGE 1

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

PAGE 2

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

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LIST OF TABLES ABSTRACT CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Problem Active and Passive Participation Language Intensity Cognitive Complexity Rationale Statement of Hypotheses CHAPTER II METHODS AND PROCEDURES Overview Subjects Measuring Instru~ents Procedures CHAPTER III RESULTS Pre-Test Analysis of Variance Direct Tests of the Hypotheses Supplementary Analyses CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION Active Roleplaying and Low Language Intensity Passive Roleplaying and High Language Intensity Passive Roleplaying and Moderate Language Intensity Research Implications Summary iii Page ii V vi 1 1 3 4 6 10 10 15 15 16 16 19 23 23 24 27 29 30 31 31 32 34

PAGE 4

APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRES APPENDIX B ROLE-PLAYING MATERIALS APPENDIX C ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE STATISTICS FOR EXPERIMENTAL VARIABLES APPENDIX D PREAND POST-TEST MEANS REFERENCES BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH iv 35 42 57 60 61 66

PAGE 5

i LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Attitude Change Means of the Cognitively Complex Group 25 2. Attitude Change means of the Cognitively Simple Group 26 V

PAGE 6

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 Chaiman: Michael Burgoon Major Department: Speech By Mercedes Lopez Long June 1981 Social Science Research has generally demonstrated that ro1ep1aying 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 vi

PAGE 7

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 tenns 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. vii

PAGE 8

The Problem CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 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 sophis t ication. Many of the studies compared roleplaying with other techni q ues; 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 1

PAGE 9

2 infonnality of the situation. According to them, the infonnality 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. Furthennore, 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 cooibination 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

PAGE 10

been systematically investigated (Elms, 1967; Insko, 1967; McGuire, 1969; Miller & Burgoon, 1973). The definitions used for roleplaying conflict with th i preceding definitions for role-taking. For example, Couter (1951) a r d Kelley, Osborne, and Hendrick {1977) agreed that roleplaying in co n t r ast 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 perfonn the roles of others or when they are asked to perfonn 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 tenn 11 roleplaying 11 will refer to a situation in which one plays oneself in an atypical situation. 3 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

PAGE 11

4 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 great e r 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 infonnational 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 fonn 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.

PAGE 12

I I 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 tenns 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. 5 Therefore, the preceding suggests that the language used may reveal the intensity of the attitude. Furthennore, 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,

PAGE 13

6 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 de v iation 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 envirorvnent (Harrison, 1966; Harvey, Hunt, & Schroder, 1961; Rokeach, 1960; Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough, &

PAGE 14

---7 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 detennine 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 1 963b), and Zajonc (1960) support this line of reasoning and suggest t hat the degree of complexity-simplicity varies over different cogniti -i e domains depending upon the amount and kind of knowledge the individua possesses, and upon the kinds of functional demands with whic h the domain is confronted in daily life. According to Werner (195 7 ), 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 b etween an existing mode of cognitive organization and some domain of e v ents 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 so m e situations and in other situations remain undifferentiated and loosely organized because of the

PAGE 15

8 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 infonnation 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 infonnation except when changing attitudes toward a person from unfavorable to favorable (Leventhal & Singer, 1964). This study found that cognitive complexity contributed to differences in perfonnance because of differential sensitivity to specific infonnation 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 canplex problems; they also have a poorer capacity to assume the role of the other, or to think in tenns 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

PAGE 16

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. 9 3. Cognitively simple subjects are more influenced by env i ronment than cooiplex 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.

PAGE 17

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 10 The overall goal of this study is to systematically investigate roleplaying in order to better understand its effect on attitude change by exploring a ccxnbination 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 detennine 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 Hy p othes i s The following hypotheses have been specifically derived from the message-centered theory and frcxn cognitive complexity theory in order to provide more research evidence concerning interaction among the variab l e s 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

PAGE 18

11 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 envirortnent, and second based on Proposition II fr001 Burgoon et al. (1975) whose theoretical fonnulation states that in an active encoding situation, the more intense an individual's encoding, the more he will change his attitude to confinn 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 tenns 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.

PAGE 19

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. 12 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

PAGE 20

13 persons should change more in the high intense passive condition than in the low intense passive condition. The preceding is due to the c001plexity findings that suggest that incongruent infonnation, 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 char a cteristics permit optimal message conditions, then differences between cognitively simple and c001plex 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 langua ~1 e (Burgoon & Miller, 1971), and that the reading condition constitutes less c001plexity 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.

PAGE 21

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. 14

PAGE 22

Overview CHAPTER II METHODS AND PROCEDURES 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 infonnation 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. 15

PAGE 23

16 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

PAGE 24

I 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. 17 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 perfonnance 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 detennine 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

PAGE 25

18 canplexity if their total score fell below the median split of the distribution fran all subjects; those above the median were assigned to low c001plexity. 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 conplexity is inversely related to consistency appears to be supported by the data. Supnick (reported in Crockett, 1965) found that high canplexity subjects (on the Role Category Questionnaire developed by W. H. Crockett) produced fewer one-sided descriptions than low c001plexity subjects. Other measures of complexity which yielded a consistent relationship between complexity and consistency are O. J. Harvey 1 s This I Believe measure (Harvey and Ware, 1967); W. A. Scott 1 s (1963a) measure of cognitive structure based on the H statistic; Schroder and Streufert 1 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

PAGE 26

19 coefficient value for the test items marked by 181 sub j ects 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 perfonnances 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

PAGE 27

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 20 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 11 real 11 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).

PAGE 28

21 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 sh e et with the same questions as above. However, in this case the answers were already present, using the list of words as described above. Und e r 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

PAGE 29

I I different language intensity levels to produce attitude change in a specific active/passive persuasive paradigm. Controls 22 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 preand 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 unifonn 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.

PAGE 30

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 at ratio. Therefore, t-tests were employed to directly test the hypotheses. In addition, analyses of variance were perfonned 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. Preand 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' 23

PAGE 31

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 24 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 Capabi 1 ity Interviewer Job Interview (see Tables 1 and 2 for means). t = 1. 37 p .18 t= .25 p .80 t = 18 p .85 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 Interviewer Interview t = .31 p .75 t = .42 p .68 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

PAGE 32

25 Table 1. Attitude Change Means of the Cognitively Complex Group Low Language High Language Attitude Intensitj'. Moderate Language Intensitj'. In tens itj'. Change Active Active Passive Passive Targets Roleplaying Roleplaying Ro1ep1aying Ro1ep1aying Personal Capability 6.18 6.00 7.15 -0.64 Interviewer -1.55 .16 .38 -2.27 Job Interview 1.45 3.67 69 3.09 n = 11 n = 6 n = 13 n = 11

PAGE 33

26 Table 2. Attitude Change Means of the Cognitively Simple Group Low Language High Language Attitude Intensit~ Moderate Language Intensit~ Intens it.}'.'. Change Active Active Passive Passive Targets Roleplaying Roleplaying Roleplaying Roleplaying Personal Capability -7.0 8.70 11. 50 -3.67 Interviewer .88 .40 6.0 .17 Job Interview 2.75 2.30 4.80 -3.33 n = 8 n = 10 n = 10 n = 6

PAGE 34

moderate language intensity level while reading the roleplaying script (passive). Personal Capability Interviewer Interview t = 59 p .56 t = 1.42 p .16 t = 73 p .46 Under the Active roleplaying condition, no significant d ifference between groups of subjects was found for the moderate intense level across the three dependent measures. Personal Capability t = 29 p 76 Interviewer Interview Supplementary Analyses Interv i ewee Checklist t = .04 p 96 t = 36 p 72 27 A multivariate analysis of variance was employed to check if the subjects' perception of their involvement i n 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 Situation Post-Test Attitude Capability Post-Test Attitude Interviewer Post-Test Attitude Interviewer Checklist F 1.29 1.67 1.22 p .27 .14 .30 A multivariate analysis of variance was used to detect if any significant variation occurred in the attitude change data due to the

PAGE 35

subjects' perception of the interviewer's evaluation of them. The analysis yielded no significant models: Models Capability Attitude Change Interviewer Attitude Change Situation Attitude Change Interviewer Identification and Class Participation Influence F 1.66 1.15 1.06 p .16 .33 .38 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 28

PAGE 36

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 29

PAGE 37

cognitively simple subjects and the attitude change of cognitively complex subjects under the specific treatm e nts that were designed to illustrate the effect of complexity on roleplaying method and on language intensity. Active Roleplaying and Low Language Intensity 30 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 ccxnplex subjects in the active roleplaying model. However, the statistical test did not support this line of reasoning.

PAGE 38

31 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 froo, 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 betwee r environmental complexity and level of cognitive complexity. A ccording 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 infonnation, and consequently xhibiting more attitude change than the cognitively simple subjects. Til e statistical test failed to support this hypothesis.

PAGE 39

32 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 c001plexity levels on the perception of language intensity. Therefore, the experiment would be a more valid test of the effects of the c001bined treatments on attitude change. Research Implications In addition to the limitations of the current experimental design discussed above, several other observations support further t esting of attitude change hypotheses in the roleplaying paradigm. For example, an overview of the patterns in the Means {Appendix D) shows that the

PAGE 40

highest positive attitude change of the cognitively complex subjects toward their personal capability was under the passive moderate condition. 33 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 lev e ls. The preceding shows that replication of this research incorporating the suggested recommendations for enlarging the sample sizes, measuring

PAGE 41

34 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 infonnation 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

PAGE 42

--------------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 tenns of future research that would offer potential sources of infonnation for advancing theories in cognitive complexity and in language intensity, and for social applications.

PAGE 43

PRE-TEST APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRES 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 S(}1WT NEIT S(}1WT AVG VERY Right: : Agree:-= Weakly:-: No:_ Always:== 2. I look forward to job interviews. Right: : Agree:-= Weakly:-: No:_ Always:== Wrong Disagree Strongly Yes Never 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:== 36 Wrong Disagree Strongly Yes Never

PAGE 44

37 4. I can express myself directly and appropriately in a job interview. Right: : Agree:-: Weakly:-: No: Always:== 5. Job interviewers make me anxious and nervous. Right: : Agree: -= Weakly:-: No: Always:== Wrong Disagree Strongly Yes Never Wrong Disagree Strongly Yes Never 6. I think I might appear f oolish to the interviewer in a job interview. Right: Agree:-= Weakly:-: No:_ Always:== Wrong Disagree Strongly Yes Never 7. I am confident of getting a job when I go to a job interview. Right: : Agree:-= Weakly: -: No:_ Always:== Wrong Disagree Strongly Yes Never 8. Please indicate how you feel about your responses in this survey. Right: : Confident: Certain: Negative: Sure: Wrong Not Confident Uncertain Positi v e Unsure

PAGE 45

II. Please refer to the appropriate person in your life who fits the following descriptions: (M) Mother ( F) Father (SS) Best Same-Sex Friend (OS) Best Opposite-Sex Friend (T) Favorite Teacher (R) Older Relative 38 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 SCJ,1WT 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

PAGE 46

39 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. 2. 3. VERY AVG No: Always:== Right: _: Weakly: _: Agree: : I look forward to job No: Always: == Right: : Weakly:_: Agree:_: In a job interview, I No: Always: -= Right:-: Weakly:-: Agree:== SC,,WT NE IT SC,,WT AVG VERY interviews. am not sure I can make a good Yes Never Wrong Stron g ly Disag r ee Yes Neve r Wron g Strongly Disagree impression. 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

PAGE 47

5. 6. Job interviewers make me anxious No: . Always:== Right:_ Weakly: _: Agree:_: I think I might appear interview. No: : Always:-= Right:-: Weakly:-: Agree:== foolish to and nervous. the interviewer in Yes Never Wrong Strongly Disagree 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: : Confident: Certain: : Negative:-= Sure : Wrong Not Confident Uncertain Positive Unsure 40

PAGE 48

41 Interviewee Checklist 1. Were your involved with the exercise? Yes: No 2. Were you aware that this was an experimental situation? Yes: 3. Please evaluate the interviewer. Professional: Biased: Friendly: == No Unprofessional Unbiased Unfriendly

PAGE 49

Job Interviewer Checklist I. GENERAL ATTITUDE: Sociable: Interested: Involved: Confident: Comfortable : Assertive: II. ATTITUDE TOWARD INTERVIEW: Positive: III. ATTITUDE TOWARD INTERVIEWER: Positive: IV. EVALUATION OF INTERVIEWEE RESPONSES: Meaningful: : Timely:-= Relaxed: Active: Unsociable Disinterested Uninvolved Unconfident Uncomfortable Nonassertive Negative Negative Meaningless Untimely Unrelaxed Passive 42

PAGE 50

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 sa l a ry? 17. By the way, what do you think about Jimmy Carter, Ted Kenned y ? 18. Thank you, we'll be in touch with you. 43

PAGE 51

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. 11 7. How does your wife/husband feel about you working (nights)? RESPONSE: My wife/husband and I have an excellent relationship. 44 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.

PAGE 52

I 45 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.

PAGE 53

PASSIVE/MODERATE INTENSITY INTERVIEWEE SCRIPT 46 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 acceptabl e part of this job before we decided that I should apply. 8. Do you have kids? (If yes, ) How many? (If no, Do you plan any? .) Why? RESPONSE: I have very lovely children. Do you have any? RESPONSE : important effect on private. Please forgive me for not answering that somewhat personal question. Unless it has a moderately important the type of pos i tion offered, I would prefer to keep that Thank you.

PAGE 54

47 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 fai~y well. 18. Thank you, we'll be in touch with you. RESPONSE: When can I be expecting a call from you? Thank you.

PAGE 55

PASSIVE/LOW INTENSITY INTERVIEWEE SCRIPT 48 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. 11 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.

PAGE 56

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? 49 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 yo u

PAGE 57

ACTIVE/HIGH INTENSITY INTERVIEWEE SCRIPT 50 INTERVIEWEE: Please note the general idea of what your response should be. Then proceed to fonn 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? GENER.AL 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? GE N ERAL 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 IDE A 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 ki d s? (If yes, ) How many? (If no, ) Why? Do you plan an y ? 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 persona l 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.

PAGE 58

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 ccxnpany is fair) Use excellent reputation, and very reasonable. 11. Have you ever cried/become angry on the job? 51 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.

PAGE 59

ACTIVE/MODERATE INTENSITY INTERVIEWEE SCRIPT 52 INTERVIEWEE: Please note the general idea of what your response should be for each question. Then proceed to fom 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 1 i ke.) 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 ye a r s 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.

PAGE 60

9. How do you feel about overtime? GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Anything it takes, you ca I do) Use somewhat capable, and on the average. 10. How would that interfere with your family life? 53 GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (Only if it was unreasonable and this canpany 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.

PAGE 61

ACTIVE/LOW INTENSITY INTERVIEWEE SCRIPT 54 INTERVIEWEE: Please note the general idea of what your response should be for each question. Then proceed to fonn 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? 3. 4. GENERAL IDEA OF RESPONSE: (You were paid last in 1978, but you have been working on other things since) Use like. What position are you interested in? (Name a position you would like.) 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.

PAGE 62

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 c001pany is fair) Use unreasonable, reputation, fair, reasonable. 11. Have you ever cried/become angry on the job? 55 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.

PAGE 63

56 GENERAL ROLE PLAYING INSTRUCTIONS In this interview, you will be asked questions that have been asked at job interviews in 92 c001panies. 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 c001petent 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 perfonnances 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.

PAGE 64

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

PAGE 65

APPENDIX C ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE STATISTICS FOR EXPERIMENTAL VARIABLES Pre-Test Attitude Towards Personal Capability DF ss MS F Model 11 3259.92 296.35 .57 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 58 p .84

PAGE 66

59 Pre-Test Attitude Towards Interviewer OF ss MS F p Model 11 1560.74 141.88 .64 .78 Error 95 20972.15 220.75 Corrected Total 106 22532.89 Source OF 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

PAGE 67

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 Comp 1 exity 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

PAGE 68

APPENDIX D PREAND POST-TEST MEANS OF THE COGNITIVELY COMPLEX GROUP* Low Language Moderate Language High Language Intens iti'. In tens iti'. Intensiti'. Active Active Passive Passive Roleplaying Roleplaying Roleplaying Roleplaying Attitude Targets Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Personal Capability 62 68 60 66 58 65 55 55 Interviewer 41 39 46 46 44 43 33 31 Job Interview 34 35 43 47 36 35 35 38 n = 11 n = 6 n = 13 n = 11 AND OF THE COGNITIVELY SIMPLE GROUP* Low Language Moderate Language High Lan~uage In tens i ti: Intensitl'.: Intenslti: Active Active Passive Passive Roleplaying Roleplaying Roleplaying Roleplaying Attitude Targets Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Personal Capability 71 64 62 70 53 64 73 70 Interviewer 40 41 43 43 39 44 42 42 Job Interview 34 37 40 42 38 41 35 31 n = 8 n = 10 n = 10 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. 61

PAGE 69

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. tion. The effects of response set and race on message interpreta 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. tion. Role-playing versus role-taking: An appeal for clarifica 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. 62

PAGE 70

Culbertson, F. J. M. Modification of an emotionally held attitude through role playing. Journal of Abnonnal and Social Psychology, 1957, 54:230-233. 63 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 fonnation. Psychological Monographs, 1962, 76 (41, whole No. 560). Harrison, R. Cognitive change and participation in a sen s itivity train ing laboratory. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1 q 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, 19 5 2, 5:120-172. Harvey, 0. J. Some situational and cognitive detenninarts of dissonance resolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psy ch ology, 1965, 14:349-355. Harvey, 0. J., Hunt, D. E., & Schroder, H. M. Conceptu a l systems and personality organization. New York: Wiley, 1961. Harvey, 0. J., and Ware, R. Personality differences in dissonance resolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psy c hology, 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 Abnonnal 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.

PAGE 71

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. experimental investigation. 39:31-39. The psychophysics of semantics: An Journal of Applied Psychology, 1955, 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 Ccxnmunication 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, im p ression forma tion and impression change. Journal of Personalit y 1964, 32:210-226. Lewin, K. Analysis of the concepts whole, differentiat i on, and unity. in D. Cartwright (Ed.). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper, 1951. Maier, N., & Zerfoss, L. MRP a technique for treating l arge groups of supervisors and its potential use in social resear c h. 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. Ill, pp. 136-314. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1969.

PAGE 72

65 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. Processing. Driver, M. J., & Streufert, S. Human Infonnation 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 fonnation 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 detenninant 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.

PAGE 73

Wolfe, R. The role of conceptual systems in cognitive functioning at varying levels of age and intelligence. Journal of Personality, 1963, 31:108-123. 66 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 Experimen t al Social Psychology, 1965, 1:103-120.

PAGE 74

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

PAGE 75

I certify that I have read this study and that in my op1n1on it confonns to acceptab1e standards of scho1arly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Michael Burg~ haf nnan Professor of Communication Michigan State University I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it confonns to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Ju As ate Prof 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. ~t:~ Donald E. Williams Professor of Speech I certify that I have read this study and that in my op1n1on it c on forms to acceptable standards. of scholarly presentation and is fully ad e quate, i n scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doc tor of Phi1 o sophy. ssor of Psychology

PAGE 76

U NI VER SITY OF FLORIDA \ \ \ II \\\\11111 Ill lllll lllll II IIIIII III I II IIIIII II 111111111111111 3 1262 08553 5879