| Abstract: | Recent studies which have explored the role of arguments and comparison processes in group-induced shifts in choice have generally supported the arguments position. The difficulty in completely separating these two processes has, however, precluded a clean-cut test. The present study attempted to effect a complete separation by orthogonally manipulating both the nature of the comparison norm (others' positions) and the number of relevant arguments as part of the same within-subject design. Results strongly supported the role of interpersonal comparison but offered no support for arguments. The overall pattern of the data contradicted assumptions of a more general value theory, from which both comparison and arguments theory were initially derived. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
