1. Failing to Change Attitudes
Ryan Duffy and Karen Baetz

2. Conway & Schaller (2005) Consensus heuristic Attribution theory
“When Authorities’ Commands Backfire: Attributions About Consensus and Effects on Deviant Decision Making”
Consensus heuristic
Attribution theory
Reactance theory

3. Central Hypothesis!
When an individual within a group observes a consensus, an authority’s command can lead to a decrease in one’s willingness to follow the explicit behavior

4. Study 1
Hypothesis: backfiring is moderated by the authority figures’ continued presence
Results, for both a new and old boss:
When an authority did not give a command to the participants, then participants inferred that consensus reflected inherent qualities of the object of consensus
However, a command by authority led participants to attribute the consensus to the power of social influence
Endorsement of command was higher for old boss: continued presence led to higher endorsement

5. Table 1
Interactive Effects of Authorities’ Command and Continued
Presence of Authority on Attributions and Endorsement of the
Object of Consensus in Study 1
Same boss New boss
No No
Measure command Command command Command
Attribution
Endorsement

6. Study 2
Hypothesis: backfiring is dependent upon expertise of the authority
Backfiring was reduced when authority was an expert
Participants attribute consensus, when receiving a command, to social influence
Endorsement was much less for the non-expert, though it was still lower for the expert
Thus, the variables in studies 1 and 2 (continued authority and expertise) directly affect compliance or individual perceptions without impacting attribution

7. Table 2
Interactive Effects of Authorities’ Command and Expertise on
Attributions and Endorsement of the Object of Consensus in
Study 2
Expert Nonexpert
No No
Measure command Command command Command
Attribution
Endorsement

8. Study 3 This study is more about reactance than attribution
Hypothesis: backfiring is moderated by the nature of the audience to whom the command is communicated (individual vs. group target of command)
Results: only in the command/group target condition was consensus attributed to social influence
For the individual command condition, there was no attribution because there was no backfiring; they could not attribute social influence because they’re alone
Individuals endorsed commands on a much higher scale
Reactance was not found to mediate such relationships

9. Table 3
Interactive Effects of Authorities’ Command and Target of
Command on Attributions, Reactance, and Endorsement of the
Object of Consensus in Study 3
Individual target Group target
No No
Measure command Command command Command
Attribution
Reactance
Endorsement

10. Study 4
Hypothesis: backfiring depends on the interaction of the leadership style (authoritarian vs. open-minded) and how the command is presented (hard vs. soft)
Backfiring should be reduced when an open-minded authority gives commands
Results: it does not matter how gentle or kind the command or the commander is: as long as they believe consensus comes from the power of social influence
Reactance was not found to be a factor, in that the soft command from the open leader had less reactance compared to hard commands from both types of leaders, as well as a soft command from an authoritarian leader – less reactance for this special condition

11. Table 4
Effects of Authorities’ Command and Leader Style on Attributions, Reactance, and Endorsement
of the Object of Consensus in Study 4
Authoritarian leader Open leader
Measure No Soft Hard No Soft Hard
comm comm comm comm comm comm
Attribution
Reactance
Endorsement

12. Study 5
Hypothesis: backfiring is affected by the amount of cognitive resources available to the person (cognitive loads affect backfiring)
Results: when participants were deprived of their resources, the backfiring effect of the authority virtually disappeared
Cognitively distracted people were less likely to take situational factors into account when making attributional judgments
They recognize the factors in the situation such as social influence but weren’t able to use them in order to make a decision about the object of consensus

13. Table 5
Interactive Effects of Authorities’ Command and Cognitive Load
on Attributions, Reactance, and Endorsement of the Object of
Consensus in Study 5
No load Load
No No
Measure command Command command Command
Attribution
Reactance
Endorsement

14. Summary!
When an authority figure commands people to behave in a consensual manner, the command itself will lead individuals to deviate from the consensus; thus, the command backfires
A reason for deviance is that the authority’s command changes observer’s attributions about why popular opinion exists in the first place
Consensus loses power when obvious constraints (i.e., factors that create consensus) are made salient to us, such as a command from an authority