Chapter 2 - Three Witches of Attitude

Question 1

Content

Answer 1

What is attitude COMPOSED of (CAB)

Question 2

Structure

Answer 2

How are components of attitude organized (uni or bi-dimensional)

Question 3

Function

Answer 3

What function does attitude serve (beyond object appraisal)

Question 4

Multicomponent Model

Answer 4

Attitudes as summary evaluations of object having CAB components

Question 5

CAB Components (3)

Answer 5

1. Cognitive - beliefs, thoughts, attributes (think, is snake kind or cruel?)
2. Affective - feelings or emotions (feel, does snake make P feel anxious or happy?)
3. Behavioural - past behaviours/experiences (act, infer, does P like to handle snakes)
   CAB components are not the same but moderately correlated

Question 6

Measuring Cognition (2)

Answer 6

1. Thought-listing (open-ended)

2. Belief ratings - belief object possesses characteristics * desirability of characteristic

Question 7

Measuring Affect (2)

Answer 7

1. Self-report: mood adjective checklist (clusters), PANAS

2. Facial Electromyography - activity in zygomatic (smiling) and corrugator (frowning) muscles

Question 8

Measuring Behaviour (1, least frequently studied)

Answer 8

1. Behavioural Differential - ranking actions (ex. would you.. attend his speech? shake his hand? vote for him?)

Question 9

Semantic Differential Scale

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Open-Ended Qs

Answer 10

1. Thought listing per C, A, B (ex. Canadian Men are)
2. Rate valence (+, -, neutral) of each word in list
   Though hard to articulate allows focus on personal salience for behaviour

Question 11

Brecklet et al. different objects predicted by different components (C and A examples)

Answer 11

C - attitudes toward abortion, exams

A - attitudes toward blood donation

Question 12

Contribution of components on prejudice (C and A)

Answer 12

C - attitudes toward strongly disliked groups

A - attitudes toward symbolic beliefs and liked groups

Question 13

Haddock Native Canadians (C and A and B)

Answer 13

BEHAVIOUR (past experiences w/ natives) best predicted attitudes

Question 14

IDs in components A and C and how much they predict attitude (results of thinkers vs. feelers and beer ads)

Answer 14

Thinkers more likely to have attitudes toward beer predicted by informational ad (C) and feelers by taste (A)

Question 15

Uni-dimensional Scale

Answer 15

Attitudes are either felt +vely or -vely (opposite ends of a spectrum)

Question 16

Bi-dimensional Scale

Answer 16

Attitudes reflect varying amounts of favourability toward object and varying amounts of unfavourability

Question 17

Benefits of bi-dimensional scale (1)

Answer 17

Distinguishes between ambivalence and those who do not care

Question 18

Response Polarization

Answer 18

^ Ambivalence about object, ^ influence by most salient features b/c ^ scrutiny to resolve mixed feelings (ambivalent attitudes poorly predict behaviour)

Question 19

Ambivalence and hiring feminists study

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Types of ambivalence (4)

Answer 20

1. Intracomponent Ambivalence - ambivalence b/w single attitude component
2. Intercomponent Ambivalence - ambivalence b/w various attitude components (ex. B/w C and A)
3. Potential Ambivalence - state of conflict that may not be consciously perceived by individual (open-ended Qs)
4. Felt Ambivalence - actual feelings of tension experienced when thinking about attitude object (how mixed is your opinion about X)

Question 21

Smith et al.’s three functions of attitude (3)

Answer 21

1. Object Appraisal - ability of attitude to summarize +ve and -ve attributes of object in social world (simplify interactions w/ env’t)
2. Social Appraisal - identify w/ people who we like and dissociate from those we do not like (ex. celebrity endorsements)
3. Externalization - defend self against internal conflict (ex. bad golfer develops dislike for game)

Question 22

Katz’s four functions of attitude (4)

Answer 22

1. Knowledge - organize info about attitude object (OA)
2. Utilitarian - maximize rewards and minimize punishments (OA)
3. Ego-defensive - protect individual’s self-esteem (E)
4. Value-Expressive - express individual’s self-concept and central values (SA)

Question 23

Attitudes Function Inventory

Answer 23

Self-report asking Ps to measure extent to which attitudes reflect various concerns (to determine primary function of object ex. evaluative or expressive)

Question 24

Attitudes fulfill diff psychological needs (Utilitarian vs. Social Appeal ad study)

Answer 24

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

Question 25

Self-Monitoring

Answer 25

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)

Question 26

Self-Monitoring and Whiskey Study (3 studies)

Answer 26

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

Question 27

Structure + Function

Answer 27

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

Question 28

Content + Function

Answer 28

Reasons for purchasing (ex. car) could be value-expressive (protecting environment) or need to impress others (social-adjustive)

Question 29

Function + Structure

Answer 29

Ex. people seeking non-ambivalent attitudes for object appraisal reasons may be drawn to reinforcing info