Attitudes Flashcards
attitude
a favorable or unfavorable evaluative reaction toward something or someone
explicit attitude
consciously accessible
implicit attitude
unconscious association between object and evaluative response
univariate
one dimension with two endpoints
rate something positively or negatively
implies that positive and negative attitudes are mutually exclusive – you cannot have both
bivariate
two independent dimensions
attitudes are a joint function of two dimensions: positiveity (low to high) and negativity (low to high)
can evaluate something on both scales
explicit attitude measurement
self report
problem: social desirability – says what people want to hear
implicit attitude measurement
indirect measures
ex: modern racism scale, IAT
dual processing theory
implicit and explicit attitudes are from separate processes
do not always agree, change independently of one another
explicit: predict deliberate, conscious behavior
implicit: predict automatic, uncontrollable behavior
mere exposure effect
more exposure leads to more positive feelings
classical conditioning
initially neutral stimulus begins to evoke a reaction after repeated pairings with another stimulus
instrumental conditioning
rewards and punishments lead to attitudes and behaviors
observational learning
vicarious rewards and punishments (modeling)
cognitive appraisal
attitudes form rationally by thinking through and weighing information
physical movement
can produce attitudes (similar to self perception, except not conscious)
embodied cognition
brain and body are deeply intertwined and influence each other
when are attitudes predictors of behavior
in the absence of situational constraints
when they are at the same level of specificity
when the attitude is strong (becomes value/identity)
when the attitude is formed through direct experience
when the attitude is assessed shortly before behavior
for low self-monitors
cognitive dissonance theory
people desire consistency among their “cognitions”
seek to avoid dissonance through various means
dissonance-based phenomena
counterattitudinal behavior, spreading of alternatives, effort expenditures, dehumanization
counterattitudinal behavior
engaging in behavior contrary to your attitude changes the attitude
spreading of alternatives
accentuate the positives of a purchase to reduce uncomfortableness with your purchase
effects of expenditure
severe discussion groups will enjoy the discussion more than mild - no discussion group
dehumanization
reduce dissonance by making themselves believe they were doing the right thing
ben franklin effect
dissonance theory suggests that we like people not for the favors they have done us, but for the favors we have done them
self-perception theory
attitude change due to behavior that isn’t driven by dissonance
when unsure of our attitudes we look to our behavior and base our attitudes off that
impression management theory
what looks like attitude change isn’t
people want to APPEAR consistent, not BE consistent
self-affirmation theory
key is maintaining general positive view of oneself – inconsistency threatens this
elaboration likelihood model
what makes a message persuasive?
two ways to attitude change
central route, peripheral route
central route
systematic thinking; influenced by argument strength
peripheral route
heuristic thinking; influenced by cues irrelevant to content
peripherally based attitudes are
weaker, easier to change, less predictive of actual behavior
source characteristics
credibility (expert, trustworthy)
likeability (physical attractiveness, fame, similarity)
message characteristics
amount of information (more is better)
repetition (more is better)
1 vs. 2 sided (it depends)
two elements influence the extent of attitude change
source and message characteristics
1-sided argument
more effective if audience is:
initially on your side
unaware of both sides
2-sided argument
more effective if audience is:
initially opposed to you
aware of both sides
reactance
responding to perceived threat to one’s freedom by acting in opposite direction to persuasion attempt
inoculation
exposing people to weak attacks on their attitudes so they can better refute stronger attacks
forewarning
about counterattitudinal arguments decreases their effectiveness
selective avoidance
avoiding attacks on one’s beliefs to maintain the belief
