Attitudes & Behaviour I

Question 1

BOHNER (2001)

Answer 1

• people are constant targets change/reinforcement
• happens via personal communication/mass media

Question 2

ATTITUDE LEVELS

Answer 2

• attitudes = assumed to guide beh; health/environment/social lives implications
  1. INDIVIDUAL LVL: attitudes influence perception/thinking/beh
  2. INTERPERSONAL LVL: knowledge of others; attitudes -> predictable world
  3. INTERGROUP LVL: attitudes towards one’s groups/other groups at heart of intergroup cooperation/conflict

Question 3

ATTITUDE DEFINITIONS

Answer 3

EAGLY & CHAIKEN (1993)
- psychological tendency expressed via evaluating particular entity w/some favour/disfavour
FAZIO (1995)
- association in memory between given object/given summary evaluation of object
PETTY & CACIOPPO (1981)
- general/enduring positive/negative feeling about person/object/issue
OVERALL = evaluative judgement (ie. liking/disliking; favouring/disfavouring; person/issue)

Question 4

WHAT CAN ATTITUDES BE ABOUT?

Answer 4

• anything that can be evaluated via favourability can be conceptualised as attitude object
• some attitudes have special name depending on attitude object aka:
• concrete (ie. phone/film)
• abstract (ie. conservatism)
• personal (ie. self-esteem)
• others (ie. Boris Johnson)
• issues (ie. social policy)

Question 5

THE MULTICOMPONENT MODEL OF ATTITUDE

Answer 5

1. COGNITIVE
2. AFFECTIVE
3. BEHAVIOURAL

Question 6

RESEARCH POST LAPIERE

Answer 6

WIKER (1969)
- reviewed studies; concluded average attitude-beh (A-B) correlation = 0.15 (grim smh)
KRAUS (1995)
- 88 studies
- A-B = 0.38
GLASMAN & ALBARRACIN (2006)
- 4598 studies
- A-B = 0.52

Question 7

ATTITUDE FACTORS

Answer 7

• qualities of attitude itself (ie. accessibility/specificity/strength/components)
• factors about you (ie. pondering attitudes/past experiences w/attitude object)
• what others think about your opinions (ie. subjective norms role in attitude-beh correlations (ABCs)
• methodological issues

Question 8

FAZIO ET AL (1989)

Answer 8

• attitude accessibility focus
• pps rated attitudes = products (ie. gum/candy)
• beh measures -> letting pps pick reward 5/10 products
• ABC ^ for pps w/accessible attitudes; low for inaccessible attitudes (aka. picked item on proximity)
  FAZIO & WILLIAMS (1986)
• voting beh study also fits

Question 9

FAZIO (1990)

Answer 9

• the dual process MODE (Motivation and Opportunity as Determinants of Beh) model aka. not all beh = deliberate
• if people have BOTH sufficient motivation/opportunity -> may base beh on attitudes’ measured consideration
• if NOT -> spontaneous info processing
• may impact A-B link

Question 10

THE DUAL PROCESS MODE MODEL OVERVIEW

Answer 10

Q: Do you have motivation/opportunity to process info?
YES: Deliberative processing -> attitude activated -> high A-B correspondence
NO: Spontaneous processing -> do you have an accessible attitude?
1. YES: Attitude activated -> high A-B correspondence
2. NO: Attitude not activated -> low A-B correspondence

Question 11

ACCESSIBILITY

Answer 11

• how does attitude -> accessible?
• like other constructs, associations between 2 memory constructs = strengthened via repeated pairing
• in attitudes, strength of association between attitude object evaluation/object mental representation…
  AKA. MAIO & HADDOCK (2010)
• people = faster at reporting attitude when previously given many opportunities to express it
• easy attitude retrieval = ^ accessible
• MODE model = perfect for understanding accessibility impacts upon A-B link in spontaneous processing settings

Question 12

DAVIDSON & JACCARD (1979)

Answer 12

• attitude specificity
• women asked for attitudes; general/specific (ie. birth control VS pill)
• did they correlate w/actual beh?
• birth control ABC = .08
• pill beh in 2 years = .57
  OVERALL: more specific attitude = better ABC

Question 13

SILVACEK & CRANO (1982)

Answer 13

• attitude strength/vested interest focus
• proposal to raise drinking age from 19 to 21
• proposed by most affected
• most affected = more prepared to campaign against (46% = youngest; 26% = middle-aged; 12% = oldest)
• vested interest = issues associated w/well-being

Question 14

NORMAN (1975)

Answer 14

• attitude components focus
• students asked feelings/thoughts post volunteering for psych experts (+/-)
• another experimenter tried to recruit pps
• dif thoughts/feelings among pps; no ABC

Question 15

WILSON ET AL (1989)

Answer 15

• introspection focus
• students dating relationships
• 1/2 (A) = introspect on reasons for liking partner
• 1/2 (B) = didn’t
• all then reported attitudes towards current relationships
• B = current attitudes predicted future ones
• A = no ABC link
• AKA. thinking about WHY you have attitude -> ABC disruption

Question 16

FAZIO & ZANNA (1978)

Answer 16

• direct experience focus
• tried to predict if attitudes to volunteering in psych expts -> predict specific experiment participation
• A = predicted beh ^ accurately for pps w/past experience
• past experience = ^ knowledgeable; less influenced by subjective norms

Question 17

MANSTEAD ET AL (1983)

Answer 17

• subjective norms focus
• TRA (theory of reasoned action) -> attitude = feelings about outcomes/subjective norms
• first-time mums asked about breast VS bottle feeding 2m pre birth -> their attitude
• subjective norms (ie. partners views)
• self-report; non-student pps; lab VS field
• KRAUS (1995) = meta-analysis

Question 18

MANSTEAD ET AL (1983): RESULTS

Answer 18

• attitudes AND subjective norms = fairly good intention to breastfeed predictors BUT…
• attitudes + subjective norms = BEST predictors
• TRA = useful in predicting behs; similar to Theory of Planned Beh