A validation study of the preference for consistency scale

Preference for consistency (PFC) refers to the value some people place on potential human characteristics such as stability, predictability, and reliability. Participants scoring high or low on the PFC Scale [Cialdini, R. B.,Trost, M. R., & Newsom, J. T.(1995). Preference for consistency: The development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioral implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 318–328.] responded to a scenario in which they were stood-up by a friend. The scenario included either a good reason for being stood-up (sufficient justification) or a poor reason (insufficient justification). In accord with predictions derived from cognitive dissonance theory [Festinger, (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press], insufficient justification participants derogated the friend more than sufficient participants, but this effect was stronger for high PFC participants than for low PFCs. In addition, insufficient participants reported that they were more offended for being stood-up than did sufficient participants. Interestingly, high PFCs reported more offense than low PFCs, even under sufficient justification. These results provide strong support for the validity of the PFC construct in general and for the Cialdini et al. scale in particular.