Cognitive Dissonance: Statistical Analysis

Cognitive Dissonance: Statistical Analysis

I have found the statistical analysis of cognitive dissonance very interesting.  When I first started researching what it was I was completely lost. While I have taken the time to review a few journal articles my knowledge has been enhanced and I think I have a better grasp on the topic.  Ethics scoreboard.com defines cognitive dissonance as, “Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon first identified by Leon Festinger. It occurs when there is a discrepancy between what a person believes, knows and values, and persuasive information that calls these into question. The discrepancy causes psychological discomfort, and the mind adjusts to reduce the discrepancy. In ethics, cognitive dissonance is important in its ability to alter values, such as when an admired celebrity embraces behavior that his or her admirers deplore. Their dissonance will often result in changing their attitudes toward the behavior. Dissonance also leads to rationalizations of unethical conduct, as when the appeal and potential benefits of a large amount of money makes unethical actions to acquire it seem less objectionable than if they were applied to smaller amounts” (http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_definitions.html).

           

I remember reading various examples on the Internet. One example I can think of on my own would be performance enhancement drugs. Performance enhancers help build muscle and make you stronger than the average athlete.  Therefore, many athletes would want to use these drugs to get a step above the rest. However, performance enhancer drugs are illegal, they cause severe health problems. Therefore, performance enhancers should not be used.

From what I have read, many people found Festinger’s Theory very exciting. People stated that they read his book in one sitting because of how excited they were during the reading.  The article, “Back to the Future: Retrospective Review of Leon Festinger’s A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance” states, “Festinger started with a very simple proposition. If a person holds two cognitions that are psychologically inconsistent, he experiences dissonance: a negative drive state. Because the experience of dissonance is unpleasant, the person will strive to reduce it-usually by struggling to find a way to change one or both cognitions to make them more consistent with one another” (Aronson, 1997).

The Cognitive Dissonance Theory helps people make sense of things, especially when it deals with values, beliefs, environment, and behavior.  It also explains the relationship of attitude and behavior. If someone is paid to do something they may perform the expected behavior better. If they are made to do something with nothing in return, the effort may be less.

I found a website that can further explain cognitive dissonance should you feel you would like a little more understanding of the topic. Please click the link to learn more! http://web.mst.edu/~psyworld/cognitive_dissonance.htm.

An article I found through the CWU Library called, “Cognitive dissonance in athletic hazing: The roles of commitment and athletic identity.”  This article explains how many athletes participate in hazing activities to gain membership to a team.  The article states, “Understanding whether athletes are comfortable with their hazing experience or report positive feelings to rationalize their behavior in what may have been an experience of dissonance is an important topic in the social psychology of sport.” (Hinkle, Stillino, 2007. Pg. 169). It also explains its purpose for the research, “the nature of hazing in sport, the psychosocial impact of hazing on the athlete, how the nature of a hazing incident impacts an athlete’s commitment to sport, and how the nature of a hazing incident impacts an athlete’s strength of athletic identity” (Hinkle, Stillino, 2007. Pg. 169).

The research included 284 questionnaires from graduate and undergraduate students 83 of which indicated they had been hazed.  These athletes described through written expression their personal hazing experience. At that time the researchers conducted 14 interviews of participants who had been hazed. The article explains, “Data was analyzed using Festinger’s (1957) theory of cognitive dissonance as a lens for interpretation. This presentation highlights the analyses of the written narratives, interviews, and self-rating of hazing severity. Finding revealed that the hazed athletes downplayed, rationalized, and justified their hazing experiences, suggesting that some athletes experienced cognitive dissonance as a result of their hazing experience” (Hinkle, Stillino, 2007. Pg. 169). 

Athletes justified a negative experience due to the fact they were accepted as a member to the team. This makes a lot of sense to me actually. I hear about hazing incidents often and wonder why those involved choose to participate.  Some take it as an honor to be hazed.  My hope, is that through continued research and more and more organizations against hazing emerge, that we can put a stop to hazing. 

References:

Aronson, Elliot. (1997). Back to the Future: Retrospective Review of Leon Festinger’s: A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 110 (Issue 1), Pages 127-137.

Hinkle Smith, S. L., & Stellino, M. (2007). Cognitive dissonance in athletic hazing: The roles of commitment and athletic identity. Journal Of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29S169-S170.

http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_definitions.html

Descriptive Research: Defining High School Hazing: Control Through Clarity

           While researching various articles on hazing, I have realized that most of the research completed on hazing has been completed through the use of descriptive research, or descriptive statistics.  In the book, “Research Methods in Physical Activity”, Thomas defines descriptive research as, “A type of research that attempts to describe the status of the study’s focus. Common techniques are questionnaires, interviews, normative surveys, case studies, job analyses, observational research, developmental studies, and correlational studies.” (Thomas. 2011, pg. 19).   There have many studies I have read about that completed surveys and/or interviews.  It is believed that through this type of research, viewing the results can eliminate problems.  There are many ways to administer descriptive research, however the most common is through the use of surveys. The use of surveys is extremely valuable. Through surveys you are able to determine the participants present practices and/or opinions.  Although the survey is the most popular, sometimes it would be more beneficial to conduct an interview. Conducting an interview you would be able to clarify questions should the participant have a question, and the respondent can elaborate on the questions whereas a survey is limited to the possible answers.

            It is important when conducting descriptive research that you are able to plan well.  First you must determine your objective in conducting the survey in the first place. What are you really trying to figure out through your research? Make sure when you create your questions that you review them carefully to make sure the answers will give the information you are looking for.  It is imperative provide an introduction to your catchy title. The introduction should explain the purpose of the survey, how confidentiality will be maintained, and how long it should take the participant to complete the survey.  I know from personal experience when completing surveys, it is easier to take the time to complete a survey that looks nice, well organized, and easy to understand.  Another detail you must keep in mind when planning for your survey is how you will analyze your survey.  This should be thought of before you create your survey, not after!

            It is important you think carefully about who you want to sample. Think about your objective, and then think about where you can go, and who you can survey to get the results you are looking for.  Stratified random sampling is a great strategy to use when conducting surveys.  There are multiple types of questions you can use when conducting a survey. These types of questions include, open-ended questions, closed questions, and categorical questions.  There are positives and negatives to each different types of questions.  The important thing is that you think about the question you want to ask and fit the question to the best format for getting valuable feedback.

            Lastly, when conducting a survey it is recommended to conduct a pilot study. Doing so when give you the feedback and/or critique you will need to make your survey ready to be given to your sample.  The feedback should let you know if any of your questions were confusing, worded weirdly, lack discrimination, as well as many other helpful tips. 

            An article I read about hazing that used descriptive research is, “Defining High School Hazing: Control Through Clarity.”  This article explained in detail how they conducted a survey to gather their information. I liked that the first sentence of this article explained their purpose, “The purpose of this study was to investigate the extent of hazing that had existed in former high school athletes who were enrolled in introduction to coaching classes in a Northern Rocky Mountain state” (Tokar, Stewart, 2010). The survey that was conducted in the research was a nationally accepted survey and was given to 189 college students in which most had been sport participants in high school.  The article stated, “Results were interpreted to determine the extent these students had been hazed in their athletic careers and specifically what those behaviors were. Implications were made for future definition and clarification of hazing to ensure proper enforcement and eliminations of all negative behaviors” (Tokar, Stewart, 2010). 

            There is quite a bit of controversy over what is truly hazing.  Some think that only the result of injury is hazing while others feel that having to carry the ball bag as a freshman is considered hazing.  This article was trying to find the perception of these students and what they considered hazing.  Organizations such as Character Counts, and Mothers Against School Hazing have tried to define hazing and put a stop to it. A website I have spent some time reviewing is StopHazing.org which defines hazing as, “any activity expected of someone joining a group (or to maintain full status in a group) that humiliates, degrades or risks emotional and/or physical harm, regardless of the person's willingness to participate. In years past, hazing practices were typically considered harmless pranks or comical antics associated with young men in college fraternities” (StopHazing.org).

            The article also discusses some research that was completed by Alfred University where over 1500 high school students were asked to engage in a national survey.  Through this research they discovered that the understanding of what hazing is was not clear. It states, “the researchers found that although only 14 percent of the subjects said they were hazed, 48 percent said they participated in activities that were defined as hazing, and 29 percent said they did things that were potentially illegal in order to join a group (http://www.alfred.edu/hs%5hazing/exectuive_summary.html.)” (Tokar, Stewart, 2010). I found this interesting because the descriptive statistics show that many students did not believed they were hazed, however, several more said they participated in hazing activities.

            The method of the original article I have been discussing was over the span of two years with 189 participants, which included 96 females and 93 males. The survey was both voluntary and anonymous. The article explains, “The close-ended questions/phrases were divided into three categories according to the intensity of potential hazing incidents.” (Tokar, Stewart, 2010). The first section, which included eight questions, described positive team activities. The second were focused on more negative hazing behaviors, and the third was the most extreme. There was a final response question that was open ended where participants were able to add any additional information.

            The results indicated that 89% of the females and 91% of males were expected to maintain a specific grade point average. The same percentages were found when participants were asked if they were expected to dress up for team functions. Both of the above percentages were from category number one.  The second category of questions found 68% males and 42% females admitted they had been yelled, cursed, or sworn at by others along with 20% females and 16% males were required to complete calisthenics that were unrelated to their sport. The article goes on to explain that this is a little bias because participants may not have realized that the calisthenics would be beneficial to their sport if not explained why they were important. The last category, category number 3 showed 12% males said they have been “tied up, taped, or confined, in small space, while 18% being paddled, whipped, beaten, kicked, or beating others” (Tokar, Stewart, 2010).

            In conclusion, I hope the explanation of descriptive stats has enhanced you knowledge of why and how they are used.  The article I discussed is a good example of the type of results you will be able to gather should you choose to use descriptive research.  Although at times descriptive research can be limiting, it also has many advantages. The information is fairly easy to interpret, and if you complete online surveys they can be cost efficient.  I hope after reading this post you understand a little more about descriptive statistics!

References:

http://www.stophazing.org/athletic_hazing/index.htm

Thomas, J., Nelson, J., Silverman, S. (2011). Research Methods in Physical Education (6^th Edition). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics/Thomson-Shore, Inc.

Tokar, K., & Stewart, C. (2010). Defining High School Hazing: Control Through Clarity. Physical Educator, 67(4), 204-208. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Do you think this would be hazing?

On Tuesday I took our ASB students to what is called an inter-high. This is basically a one day event where local ASB leaders get together from different schools to share ideas.  One topic that was discussed was fundraising.  A fundraiser that was shared by two schools was the auctioning off of their seniors. Students and staff could buy a senior for a day. When the senior got to school the next day they would have to do whatever the person who bought them said. Some things they said were typical was making them dress up goofy, following them around to all their classes, making them cook breakfast or lunch and so on.  I thought this was a great idea until I started thinking about my blog. Would this be considered hazing?  I'm a little torn on this one.  If the student volunteers to be auctioned of could the requirements they are expected to complete be hazing?  What are your thoughts on this topic? How could this fundraiser be successful without being worried about hazing?

Coaches Responsibility and Athletes' Perceptions:

     I think it is safe to say that there are hazing incidents that have happened where it is known that the coach turned their head or looked the other way.  Sometimes, there can be serious consequences for those actions. I have been reviewing various articles on hazing and I remember reading in one where the coach was criminally charged for a hazing accident that another athlete committed because of the choice they made to "turn their head."
     I found a great article through the CWU Library titled, "Looking the Other Way: Athletes' Perceptions of Coaches' Responses to Hazing."  The article discusses many points of emphasis when it comes to hazing. They used the interviews to gather their information. Twenty-one athletes volunteered to partake in the research.  Some points that were discussed in this article were not only about when coaches look the other way, but also the importance a coach can have about being proactive about hazing.  They mostly used open ended questions during their interviews.  The article states, "Coaches agreed that most athletes participated in hazing to gain acceptance from their teammates. When confronted with hazing, coaches believed athletes should question or challenge hazing practices" (Kowalski, C., Waldron, J., 2010 p.89).  There was a mix in response on when hazing should be reported. The research found that some coaches believed that hazing should only be reported if there was discomfort or injury.  The article also discussed the thought that athletes should try to stand up for themselves when put in a hazing situation. However, there have been studies completed where athletes stated that there were harsher consequences if they tried to stay out of the the hazing activities. 
     One topic that really made me think was the coaches perception on if hazing was occurring or not. I wonder how many coaches feel hazing is not happening and thus do not see a problem. I can honestly say in all the sports I played I was involved in a hazing incident as an the one hazing or the one being hazed.  Some coaches felt there was no need to be proactive due to the fact that there were no problems with hazing in their program.  I see why they may say this but I can also see the importance of being practice rather than waiting for an incident to occur and then being reactive. 
     Like I said before, there were 21 participants in the survey, eleven male and ten female who were current or former high school and collegiate athletes. The study found, "All participants indicated experiencing hazing behaviors during their interview revealing they met the selection criterion of being a hazer or haze" (Kowalski, C., Waldron, J., 2010 p.90).
    There was a data analysis completed on the survey.  An inductive analysis was used through sorting, connecting, and coding date that was received through the interviews.  They also used axial coding to help in their data analysis.  Two researchers worked together and had to reach a consensus on themes. They created two charts where they compared higher order themes, lower ordered themes, and categories. I found this article to be very interesting and I suggest you to review it to learn more about the impact a coach can have on hazing. 

Reference:
Kowalski, C., & Waldron, J. (2010). Looking the Other Way:  Athletes' Perceptions of Coaches' Responses to Hazing. International Journal Of Sports Science & Coaching, 5(1), 87-100.

ANOVA

I have been reading quite a bit about statistical analysis. However, I have not yet seen someone complete the analysis using a computer program. In this video you will be able to learn a little bit about ANOVA as well as see how you can use a statistical analysis program to help examine your data. 

T-Test

Are you wanting to learn more about T-Test? Here is a video I found on youtube that made it a little bit more clearer for me!  Hope this helps!

Correlation: The Relationship Between Hazing and Team Cohesion

Correlation:    

Why do people continue to haze?  Some find it to be fun while others believe that it makes the team better.  Is hazing a part of team building? Do teams who participate in hazing have better team chemistry? These are some of the questions that encouraged a study to be conducted on hazing, team building, and cohesion.

           

            There is an article I would like to discuss about hazing and how it correlates to team cohesion.  First though, I would like to talk to you about correlation when used for statistical analysis. The book, “Research Methods in Physical Activity” by Thomas, Nelson, and Silverman, explains correlation as, “A statistical technique used to determine the relationship between two variables” (Thomas, Nelson, and Silverman, 2011). Correlation is basically looking at two things and sees how they relate to one another. The book explains measuring cardiovascular through a distance run and a step test.  Correlation is also used to traits and behavior, personality, characteristics, and many other variables. Thomas explains, “Correlation may involve two variables, such as the relationship between height and weight. It may involve three or more variables, such as when a researcher investigates he relationship between a criterion (dependent variables) such as body weight, percentage of fat, speed, muscular endurance, and so on. This technique is called multiple correlation” (Thomas, Nelson, and Silverman, 2011).  The book also explains, “You can use correlation to identify relationships between variables, but you cannot use them to establish causation. The only way causation can be shown is with an experimental study in which an independent variable can be manipulated to bring about an effect” (Thomas, Nelson, and Silverman, 2011).

Below you will find the definition related to correlation from the book, “Research Methods in Physical Activity”:

• Correlation: 
• A statistical technique used to determine the relationship between two or more variables.
• Positive Correlation: 
• A relationship between two variables in which  a small value for one variable is associated with a small value for another variable, and a large value.
• Negative Correlation: 
• A relationship between two variables in which a small value for the first    variable is associated with a large value for the second variable.
• Pearson r: 
•  Pearson product moment coefficient of correlation: the most commonly used mouthed of computing correlation between two variables.
• Significance: 
• The reliability of or confidence in the likelihood of a statistic occurring again if the study were repeated. 
• Multiple Regression: 
• Model used for predicting a criterion from two or more independent, or predictor, variables. 
• Factor Analysis:  
• A statistical technique used to reduce a set of data by grouping similar variables into basic components. 

(Thomas, Nelson, and Silverman, 2011).

  

      Through correlation, the article, "The Relationship Between Hazing and Team Cohesion" found that hazing does not result in better team cohesion.  In fact, here is what they discovered, "Results indicated that the more appropriate team building behaviors that athletes were involved in, the more socially cohesive they perceived their team to be. The more hazing activities they reported doing or seeing, the less cohesive they perceived their team to be in sport-related tasks. The results of this study suggest that the argument that hazing builds team cohesion is flawed. Hazing is associated with less, not more, team cohesion" (Van Raalte, Cornelius, Linder, Brewer 2007).  

During their research, they used a questionnaire to ask 167 athletes (66 female and 98 male, 3 did not report gender) question about their hazing experiences and how they perceived them.  The respondents represented six colleges and universities in the United States, “participants were members of basketball (26% n=44), gymnastics (26%, n=43), track and field (22%, n-36), ice hockey (10%, n=17), and swimming and diving (16%, n=27). Thirty-five percent of the sample (n=59 were freshman, 31% (n=52) were sophomore, 23% (n=39) were juniors, 7% (n=12) were seniors, and 2% (n=3) were 5^th year or graduate students (3 did not indicate their year in school)” (Van Raalte, Cornelius, Linder, Brewer 2007). The article goes on to express demographics of nationality as well. I liked that they had a variety of represented sports. However, I feel that they did not get many sports that are known for hazing such as soccer and football. This makes me wonder about their research and if they would have received different results had they included more sports.

           

            Most of the participants had not been a part of a fraternity or sorority. Nearly three fourths of the participants lived on campus while the other twenty-four percent lived off campus.  They used a Group Environment Questionnaire to gather their data on team cohesion. They used a 9-point scale for responses and they confirm adequate reliability and validity for the GEQ. The article states, “Coefficient alphas for the four subscales ranged from .57 to .70 for this sample” (Van Raalte, Cornelius, Linder, Brewer 2007).

           

            A questionnaire or team initiation was used to gather information as well. Activities were described and participants would explain how they perceived them. Some activities included acceptable behaviors while others were questionable, alcohol related, and unacceptable behaviors. “Respondents were presented with 24 activities and for each activity were asked whether they Did it or saw it, Heard about it, or suspected it, or Not done, seen, or heard about it. For those activities that they had done or head about, students were asked to indicate whether the activity was A tradition or requirement, Appropriate, Inappropriate, and Done when drinking alcohol.  Students were instructed to check all of these options that applied to the behavior” (Van Raalte, Cornelius, Linder, Brewer 2007). I would assume this would have give the research team some very valuable information on why someone was participating in hazing and what type of hazing is most common.  Another aspect to look at in this research is what participants perceived hazing to be.  This is an ongoing issue. Many think hazing is only defined as hazing when there has been an injury from the actions. If no harm is done, is it still hazing?

           

            Another questionnaire that was given was the Social Desirability Questionnaire. These were measured using the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. They explain that this information was both valid and reliable.

           

            The last questionnaire to be discussed is the Demographic Questionnaire.  Demographic questions included those of age, gender, year in school, race/ethnicity, location, participation in a fraternity or sorority, and sports participated in. (Van Raalte, Cornelius, Linder, Brewer 2007). Demographics are a necessity when trying to gain valuable information.  It also helps you see the age range you were able to get in your sample. I could see for this research if they only questioned freshman they may not get results on hazing from people who were administering the hazing. This would have skewed results. The procedure, “Athletes who gave their informed consent to participate in this research were given a packet of questionnaires in a counterbalanced order. All participants completed the demographic questionnaire, GEQ, TIQ, and social desirability questionnaires” (Van Raalte, Cornelius, Linder, Brewer 2007).

            The results discuss the correlation between many different aspects in their research. They also categorized many of their findings, such as did the respondents find the activity to be appropriate or inappropriate?  “Eleven activities were categorized as hazing and the other 13 activities were categorized as appropriate team building behaviors. Hazing consists of being the passive victim of physical and psychological abuse, being coerced into self-abuse, or being coerced into abuse other. Acceptable team building included required skill development or assessment, being coerced to engage in deviant behavior, required team socialization activities, and required positive behaviors. Coerced deviant behaviors under acceptable team building included tattooing, piercing, head shaving, or branding, and engaging in or simulating sex acts. Theses activities may appear unacceptable to many segments of our society, and they were intended to be perceived as questionable or unacceptable in the original Hoover (1999) study, but they were rated as acceptable by the participation in this study” (Van Raalte, Cornelius, Linder, Brewer 2007).

          The results showed, “The hazing index and the appropriate Team Building Activity Index were correlated with the four subscales of the GEQ. Three significant correlations were found. The Appropriate Team Building Activity Index was positively correlated with the ATGS subscale of GEQ, indicting the more appropriate activities the participants did or saw, the more positive feelings they had toward the group. The Hazing Index was significantly negatively correlated with the ATGT subscale and the GIT subscales of the GEQ indicating that the more hazing activities the participants did or saw, the less they were attracted to the group’s task and the less bonding and closeness they felt about the group’s task. Separate correlations were run for males and females, and there were no significant gender differences in the magnitude of any of the correlations (all ps> .10)” (Van Raalte, Cornelius, Linder, Brewer 2007).

“The pattern of correlations shown in Table 3 suggests that hazing was negatively related to task cohesiveness, whereas appropriate team building was positively related to social cohesiveness. To explore this possibility two composite indices were constructed. A Task Cohesiveness Index was constructed by summing ATGT and GIT scores. A Social Cohesiveness Index was constructed by summing ATGS and GIS. The conceptual and empirical justification for combining subscales of the GEQ in this manner may be found in the article describing the development of the instrument. The Hazing Index was negatively related ot the Task Cohesiveness Index (r=-.22, p<.005), but not to the Social Cohesiveness Index (r=.07, p=.40). The Appropriate team Building Activity Index was positively related to the Social Cohesiveness Index (r=-.06, p=.48)” (Van Raalte, Cornelius, Linder, Brewer 2007).

            My hope is that through the beginning of this post where I explained correlation with the help of the Thomas text and the article I just discussed that your knowledge of correlation has been enhanced!

References:

Thomas, J., Nelson, J., Silverman, S. (2011). Research Methods in Physical Education (6^th Edition). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics/Thomson-Shore, Inc.

Van Raalte, J. L., Cornelius, A. E., Linder, D. E., & Brewer, B. W. (2007). The Relationship Between Hazing and Team Cohesion. Journal Of Sport Behavior, 30(4), 491-507.