Chapter 2 - Three Witches of Attitude Flashcards
Content
What is attitude COMPOSED of (CAB)
Structure
How are components of attitude organized (uni or bi-dimensional)
Function
What function does attitude serve (beyond object appraisal)
Multicomponent Model
Attitudes as summary evaluations of object having CAB components
CAB Components (3)
- Cognitive - beliefs, thoughts, attributes (think, is snake kind or cruel?)
- Affective - feelings or emotions (feel, does snake make P feel anxious or happy?)
- Behavioural - past behaviours/experiences (act, infer, does P like to handle snakes)
CAB components are not the same but moderately correlated
Measuring Cognition (2)
- Thought-listing (open-ended)
2. Belief ratings - belief object possesses characteristics * desirability of characteristic
Measuring Affect (2)
- Self-report: mood adjective checklist (clusters), PANAS
2. Facial Electromyography - activity in zygomatic (smiling) and corrugator (frowning) muscles
Measuring Behaviour (1, least frequently studied)
- Behavioural Differential - ranking actions (ex. would you.. attend his speech? shake his hand? vote for him?)
Semantic Differential Scale
Assess C and A either (1) content-specific, separate comparison or (2) generic scales, allows compatibility
Ex. Useful/useless
Ex. Blood donation is (C) vs. Blood donation makes me feel
Open-Ended Qs
- Thought listing per C, A, B (ex. Canadian Men are)
- Rate valence (+, -, neutral) of each word in list
Though hard to articulate allows focus on personal salience for behaviour
Brecklet et al. different objects predicted by different components (C and A examples)
C - attitudes toward abortion, exams
A - attitudes toward blood donation
Contribution of components on prejudice (C and A)
C - attitudes toward strongly disliked groups
A - attitudes toward symbolic beliefs and liked groups
Haddock Native Canadians (C and A and B)
BEHAVIOUR (past experiences w/ natives) best predicted attitudes
IDs in components A and C and how much they predict attitude (results of thinkers vs. feelers and beer ads)
Thinkers more likely to have attitudes toward beer predicted by informational ad (C) and feelers by taste (A)
Uni-dimensional Scale
Attitudes are either felt +vely or -vely (opposite ends of a spectrum)
Bi-dimensional Scale
Attitudes reflect varying amounts of favourability toward object and varying amounts of unfavourability
Benefits of bi-dimensional scale (1)
Distinguishes between ambivalence and those who do not care
Response Polarization
^ Ambivalence about object, ^ influence by most salient features b/c ^ scrutiny to resolve mixed feelings (ambivalent attitudes poorly predict behaviour)
Ambivalence and hiring feminists study
High ambivalence led to stronger intentions to hire feminist category after seeing admirable-but-dislikeable male candidate succeed (rather than fail)
Low ambivalence was not affected by male candidate
Types of ambivalence (4)
- Intracomponent Ambivalence - ambivalence b/w single attitude component
- Intercomponent Ambivalence - ambivalence b/w various attitude components (ex. B/w C and A)
- Potential Ambivalence - state of conflict that may not be consciously perceived by individual (open-ended Qs)
- Felt Ambivalence - actual feelings of tension experienced when thinking about attitude object (how mixed is your opinion about X)
Smith et al.’s three functions of attitude (3)
- Object Appraisal - ability of attitude to summarize +ve and -ve attributes of object in social world (simplify interactions w/ env’t)
- Social Appraisal - identify w/ people who we like and dissociate from those we do not like (ex. celebrity endorsements)
- Externalization - defend self against internal conflict (ex. bad golfer develops dislike for game)
Katz’s four functions of attitude (4)
- Knowledge - organize info about attitude object (OA)
- Utilitarian - maximize rewards and minimize punishments (OA)
- Ego-defensive - protect individual’s self-esteem (E)
- Value-Expressive - express individual’s self-concept and central values (SA)
Attitudes Function Inventory
Self-report asking Ps to measure extent to which attitudes reflect various concerns (to determine primary function of object ex. evaluative or expressive)
Attitudes fulfill diff psychological needs (Utilitarian vs. Social Appeal ad study)
Consumer products (ex. coffee, air conditioning) - utilitarian so change w/ utilitarian arguments (ex. quality) Watches / sunglasses - have social appeal and can change w/ social prestige appeals
Self-Monitoring
Describes how people differ in degree they change behaviour to suit situation (High SM, social function and adapt more)
(Low SM, value-expressive function and present the same)
Self-Monitoring and Whiskey Study (3 studies)
Study 1: People high in SM prefer image-oriented > utilitarian ads
Study 2: WTP for whiskey ^ when image-oriented + High SM = higher WTP, utilitarian + Low SM = lower WTP
Study 3: Willingness to use shampoo replicated 2
Structure + Function
Object appraisal function should be served more strongly by uni-dimensional b/c more decision conflict
Social norms may make it occasionally desirable to have high ambivalence w/ controversial object
Content + Function
Reasons for purchasing (ex. car) could be value-expressive (protecting environment) or need to impress others (social-adjustive)
Function + Structure
Ex. people seeking non-ambivalent attitudes for object appraisal reasons may be drawn to reinforcing info
