According to cognitive-dissonance theory, performing counterattitudinal behavior produces a state of dissonance that people are motivated to resolve, usually by changing their attitude to be in line with their behavior. One of the most popular experimental paradigms used to produce such attitude change is the induced-compliance paradigm. Despite its popularity, the replication crisis in social psychology and other fields, as well as methodological limitations associated with the paradigm, raise concerns about the robustness of classic studies in this literature. We therefore conducted a multilab constructive replication of the induced-compliance paradigm based on Croyle and Cooper (Experiment 1). In a total of 39 labs from 19 countries and 14 languages, participants ( N = 4,898) were assigned to one of three conditions: writing a counterattitudinal essay under high choice, writing a counterattitudinal essay under low choice, or writing a neutral essay under high choice. The primary analyses failed to support the core hypothesis: No significant difference in attitude was observed after writing a counterattitudinal essay under high choice compared with low choice. However, we did observe a significant difference in attitude after writing a counterattitudinal essay compared with writing a neutral essay. Secondary analyses revealed the pattern of results to be robust to data exclusions, lab variability, and attitude assessment. Additional exploratory analyses were conducted to test predictions from cognitive-dissonance theory. Overall, the results call into question whether the induced-compliance paradigm provides robust evidence for cognitive dissonance.

Pictorial stimuli were presented in a Stroop task paradigm that enabled the recording of attentional bias. The sample comprised 33 pathological slot machine gamblers (PG) and 22 control participants. The design of the study had one between-subjects factor – Group (PGs vs control), and two within-subject factors: (1) Stimulus meaning (win-related gambling stimuli vs neutral stimuli) and (2) Exposure (subliminal vs supraliminal). The results supported the notion that the PG group had an attentional bias towards visual win-related gambling stimuli compared with the control group. Furthermore, the degree of attentional bias among the PG group was moderately negatively correlated with net loss in the week before testing. One possible treatment implication of the findings is to include in-vivo exposure sessions as a supplement to cognitive behavioural therapy for gambling. Future studies could also include non-win gambling-related stimuli and should also comprise non-pathological regular gamblers as an additional control group.

The aim of this paper is to present a methodology where the extent of information sharing among team members is used as an indicator of shared mental models (SMM) and situation awareness (SA). Data collection procedures and probe materials are described for two field experiments performed among emergency management teams in the hydrocarbon industry. Methods are suggested for calculating a “similarity index” by comparing a team member’s responses with the average response in the team or with the responses of the team member assumed to be best informed. It is argued that similarity to team average could be a measure of SMM, whereas similarity to the best-informed team member could be argued to be an indicator of SA. The degree of compliance in responding to the probes is reported, as is the degree to which the extent of shared information differed between the probe questions or according to team positions. Lessons learned from the data collection are summarized, and the applicability of the similarity index as a measure of SA is discussed. Some advantages of the current approach are presented, as are challenges and inherent assumptions in future applications of this approach.