Answering extremity with extremity A paradoxical thinking intervention for the unfreezing of extreme attitudes in the Black Pete issue

Abstract

The Black Pete (BP) debate has grown into an intractable conflict in the Netherlands. The conflict is between individuals who are for or against the change of the appearance of BP. Particularly individuals having strong pro-BP attitudes are resistant toward conflict resolution. This research examined whether a paradoxical thinking (PT) intervention results in more unfreezing of held pro-BP attitudes. Unfreezing could lead to the re-evaluation of attitudes and could thereby lead to attitude change (Hameiri et al., 2019). Based on the research of Hameiri et al. (2018), this research examined whether the effect of the PT intervention on unfreezing was mediated by low levels of disagreement, high levels of surprise, and low levels of identity threat. Also was examined whether the PT intervention results in more unfreezing as individuals hold pro-BP attitudes with more confidence. In Study 1, 232 students were randomly assigned to the PT intervention or the control intervention. The results did not suggest that a PT intervention results in higher levels of unfreezing as students held stronger pro-BP attitudes. Similar to this, the results suggested no higher level of unfreezing for students that held these pro-BP attitudes with more confidence. A recommendation for future research is to add pre-measurements of conservatism to increase the likelihood that the sample is characterized by extreme attitudes. Study 2 had been discontinued because of the low response rate. A recommendation for future research is to find alternative ways to approach populations that show high levels of resistance. keywords: PT intervention, attitudes, unfreezing, identity threat, surprise, paradoxical thinking