Effects of Controversy and Defensiveness on Cognitive Perspective-Taking

Abstract

45 undergraduates discussed a moral issue with a confederate who had the same opinion (no controversy) or opposite opinion (controversy). Subjects in the conditions with controversy were induced to have a high level of defensiveness by a disconfirmation of personal competence or a low level of defensiveness by a confirmation. Subjects in no controversy experienced confirmation. Subjects in the condition of confirm controversy indicated mote conceptual conflict (uncertainty) and were more accurate in taking the cognitive perspective of the confederate than were subjects in the condition of confirm no controversy. These results support Piaget's and Kohlberg's views of the role of controversy in perspective-taking and cognitive development and Berlyne's theory of conceptual conflict and epistemic curiosity. Subjects in the condition of disconfirm controversy experienced more uncertainty and were more accurate in cognitive perspective-taking than were subjects in the condition of confirm controversy. Subjects in the condition of disconfirm controversy also experienced more internal distress, derogated the confederate and the confederate's position and arguments to a greater extent, and indicated greater closed-mindedness in responding to the confederate and the confederate's arguments than did subjects in the condition of confirm controversy.