COMMENT ON DITTES' NOTE

Summary.-Levonian (1970) criticized some previous studies in selfesteem and persuasibiliry for failing to use control data to test hypotheses alternative to the research hypothesis. The criticized studies included that of Gollob and Dittes (1965). Dittes (1970) objects to this inclusion, apparently on the grounds that the Gollob and Dittes study, being "relatively more sophisticated," virtually precludes an alternative interpretation. An alternative interpretation is offered. Bases for additional alternative hypotheses which seem reasonable are suggested. In a recent article (Levonian, 1970) I argued for the use of control data in studies of self-esteem and persuasibiliry. My argument was based on the thesis that the anticipated results of a study are usually amenable to interpretations alternative to that which supports the research hypothesis and, therefore, that the use of control data bearing on these alternative interpretations can lead to a more valid final interpretation. Dittes (1970) objects to the generalization of my argument to the study of Gollob and Dirtes (1965), apparently on the grounds that this smdy, being "relatively more sophisticated," virtually precludes an alternative interpretation. Dittes asks, "What would Levonian make, for example, of the fact that we presented different types of communications, predicting and getting effects in different directions according to type of communications?" Arousal increment, that's what. Arousal increment during exposure to communications affects subsequent retention such that a high increment in arousal inhibits short-term retention and facilitates longterm retention (Levonian, 1967). This phenomenon has been explained in terms of the rerentivity-accessibility hypothesis, which draws on the temporal aspects of axonal flow of transmitter substances.' Gollob and Dittes exposed one group to a successful experience, another group to an arousal-inducing experience of failure. This was followed by the administration of three opinion measures, three communications whose arousal-inducing characteristics would be expected to be medium-low-medium, the same three opinion measures, and three information measures. The initial manipulations and the communications should combine ro lead to increments in arousal which are medium-low-medium for the successful group and high-medium-high for the failure group. These increments in arousal, on the retentiviry-accessibility hypothesis, should lead to criterion values which are initially mediurn-low-medium for the successFul group and low-medium-low for the failure group, as shown in Gollob and Dittes' Table 1. Subsequently the failure group should yield criterion values which are medium-medium-low, as shown in Gollob and Dittes' Table 2, and eventually medium-low-medium. Since Tables 1 and 2 do not allow a choice among Gollob and Dittes' three hypotheses and my one post hoc hypothesis, we must look at the remaining results of the Gollob and Dittes study. Two measures of predisposicional self-esteem were also obtained by Gollob and Dittes. who predicted rhat both measures would (a) affect opinion change and information and 'Edward Levonian, Retention over time in relation to arousal during learning: an explanation of discrepant results. (Unpublished manuscript, 1970)