Lecture 6: attitudes and behaviour Flashcards
- attitude and attitude change
2. attitudes and behaviour
- individual evaluations of aspects of the world
- how attitudes predict behaviour
AND
how behaviours shape attitudes
Attitudes
1. define
a) explicit
b) implicit
- mental representation of a summary evaluation of an attitude object stored in memory
- > things, actions
- > self
- > groups (-) = prejudice
- > other people
a) open and deliberate expressions “ I like…”
- > consciously accessible
- > revealed in explicit measures
b) automatic, uncontrollable
- > consciously inaccessible
- > might be accessible but not willing to report
- > revealed in implicit measures
what are explicit measures?
(2)
limitations
self-report explicit attitudes
- likert scale rate 1-6
- semantic differential scales -> rate attitude across a range of different dimensions
e.g DOCTOR
clean —– dirty
helpful —— cruel
limitations:
-social desirability bias
implicit attitudes cant be
-consciously assessed - thus cannot be reported on
what are implicit measures?
overcome motivates response biases (social desirability bias)
- > physiological responses recorded
- > most common use response time paradigms (patterns of response times) = based on spreading activation accounts of mental processes
Attitude properties
- structure
ABC = 3 types
- structure/components/bases
- Affective: emotion (emotion grounds the attitude)
- Behavioural: interactions (e.g. frequent use of object)
- Cognitive: beliefs about the object (e.g. apple good for health)
= most have a mixture of ABC bases
e.g. political attitudes = emotions
utilitarian product attitudes (fridge) = cognitive
Attitude properties
- function (5)
- > knowledge function = make sense of the world; summaries our experiences with attitude objects
- > instrumental/utilitarian function = help guide behaviour; achieve rewards and avoid punishments
- > social identity/value expression function = express attitudes to express one’s identities and values
- > impression management function = express attitudes to fit into groups/relationships
- > self-esteem/defensive function = protect the self from low-self esteem and anxiety
Attitude properties
- strength
- strong attitudes
- > held with confidence and certainty
- > based on one sided information (A, B, C information that points to either a positive or negative attitude)
- > resistent to change, stable - Ambivalent
- > contains positive and negative components
- > e.g. dont like the taste of apples (A) but believe they have positive health benefits (C)
Attitude formation routes (3)
- broadly:
Affective processes
Behavioural processes
Cognitive processes
Affective routes to attitude formation (2)
- mere exposure: familialrity
> ease of processing due to increased exposure = feels good = attributed to the attitude object - evaluative conditioning: paring a positive or negative stimulus with a neutral target
> apple + co-occurs with a positive stimulus, repeated co-occurrence is transferred onto the object
= ADVERTISING based on pairing a positive stimulus (celebs) with a target (perfume) = takes on positive connotations
Behavioural routes to attitude formation (3)
- direct behavioural influence:
> valence of behaviour (negative or positive) transferred onto object - self-perception:
> observe ourselves performing a behaviour towards an attitude object, we infer based on that behaviour our attitude towards the object - cognitive dissonance reduction:
> our behaviour is inconsistent with our attitudes
> feels unpleasant: can trigger attitude change
cognitive routes to attitude formation
- reasoned inference: think through facts about object and draw evaluative inferences
Attitude change: dual-process models
- ways attitudes can change
- function of persuasion
- persuasion frame
= what does it depend on?
- social influence
- perceived norms
- cognitive dissonance reduction
- social influence
- message about an attitude object
- source -> message -> recipient -> context/situation
= attributes of each of these elements
= depth of processing
- dual-process models of attitude change (via persuasion)
- > 2 models - what do they propose?
- implications
- heuristic-systematic model (HSM)
AND
- Elaboration likelihood model (ELM)
- heuristic-systematic model (HSM)
- two processing routes -> a continuum
Superficial deep processing - amount and kind of attitude change depends on processing route
- factors influencing attitude change and manner of influence are contingent on processing route
- the Elaboration likelihood model (ELM)
- > what does it say about attitude change? - what are the consequences of route-specific attitude change? (2)
- -> attitudes can be changed by processes that involve more or less attitude object-relevant elaboration or thinking
low elaboration (thinking) = peripheral route
high elaboration = central route
-> attitude change can occur vis both routes
2. CENTRAL - stronger - persistent over time - resistant to change - predictive of intentions and behaviour
PERIPHERAL (opposite)
- weaker
- less persistent
- less resistant to change
What influences route selection? (2) (ELM)
what influences these 2 factors?
- motivation and capability
Motivation
- > if in line with goals, values
- > if held accountable
- > high in need for cognition (if you enjoy engaging in thinking)
Capacity
- > ability
- > not distracted
what influences attitude change in each route? (ELM)
what factors determine route processing?
- in the central route
>Petty and cacipoop
- source factors
- message factors
- CENTRAL
- quality matters:
Petty and cacipoop
-> strong or weak arguments
-> high involvement = central (it would directly impact them)
or
-> low involvement = peripheral (it would impact other students)
= central
strong arguments = shift attitudes in favour
weak arguments = shift attitudes against (other direction)
= peripheral
argument quality doesn’t matter, strong and weak = the same
=argument quality only matters in the central route
what influences attitude change in each route? (ELM)
what factors determine route processing?
- peripheral route
>Petty and cacipoop
- heuristics
- not quality but QUANTITY
(the same study as central route processing):
PERIPHERAL ROUTE:
- > 9 arguments = shift attitudes in the direction of the message
- > 3 arguments= shift away from the message
Central route = argument quantity doesn’t matter
peripheral route
= more is better
= familiarity -> ease of processing feels good = NOT for central ONLY peripheral
what influences attitude change in each route? (ELM)
what factors determine route processing?
- peripheral route
Source characteristics
- source heuristics
more likely to be persuaded by:
-> credible sources (expertise or trustworthiness)
-> attractiveness (likeableness)
> pallak
= more persuaded by a message when the person was attractive
-> sources that are liked
>mimicry: more likely to be persuaded by people who have mimic/copy their behaviour
Attitude behaviour links: bi-directionality
- attitudes dont equal behaviours
> LaPiere
-> prejudice against Chinese people, hotel staff treated them courteously
= discrepancies between attitudes and behaviours
when and how can behaviours shape attitudes?
- direct behavioural bases of attitudes
>Laham
- acting on the attitude object with valanced (+ or -) behaviour can shape attitude formation and change
Laham
- > stimuli (novel)
- > foraging
- > collect = pull joystick
- > discard = push joystick
(behaviour is balanced -> pull = positive connotation, push = negative connotation)
- > measured attitudes towards objects
- > positive implicit attitudes towards objects that were pulled
= when people act upon objects in a valanced way, behaviour can shape attitudes
= example of direct behavioural basis attitude formation
cognitive dissonance and the maintenance of cognitive consistency
- when behaviours are inconsistent with attitudes
- why are people motivated to reduce dissonance?
> how do they?
- like something but act negatively towards it or vice versa
- > people are generally motivated to maintain cognitive consistency - -> inconsistencies = unpleasant
> cognitive dissonance = experienced negative arousal resulting from inconsistencies
= because of the unpleasantness people may be motivated to reduce dissonance
> modifying attitudes to restore consistency
Experimental paradigms for studying cognitive dissonance
- induced compliance paradigm
> Festinger and Carlsmith
- induced compliance paradigm:
-> mindnumbing task -> negative attitude formed
-> tell other participant’s that it’s fun
= dissonance (inconsistent)
-> paid $1 or $20 conditions
-> paid $1 like task more
= if paid $20 there is sufficient justification for behaviour (lying) - they were lying for the $20
= if lying for $1, no justification -> experiencing dissonance they cannot resolve through the money. It needs to be resolved another way
= they try to reduce this inconsistency but changing their attitude from a negative to a positive one
= attitudes modified to reduce dissonance caused by attitude-discrepant behaviour that cannot be attributed to an external reward or punishment
Experimental paradigms for studying cognitive dissonance
- Effort justification
> Aronson and Mills
- initiating ritual and liking
- > 3 conditions: control, mild effort/initiation, high effort/initiation
- > give a speech on sex: mild, more effortful and very detailed
- > participants then listened to a discussion about sex (boring)
question then asked: what’s your attitude towards the discussion (how much did you like it)
severe initiation = very high ratings of linking the boring discussion compared to control and mild initiation
= to resolve the dissonance between putting in a lot of effort and listening to the boring discussion, attitude is adjusted towards the discussion
= justifying the effort they put in by modifying their attitude
= attitudes are changed to reduce dissonance caused by choosing to exert considerable effort or suffering to achieve a goal
Experimental paradigms for studying cognitive dissonance
- post-decisional dissonance: ‘free choice paradigm’
> Brehm
women: rate household products
-> rank/evaluate products
-> 2 products rated similarly taken (toaster and coffee pot)
-> choose one of them
-> after choice, they are asked to rate the 2 products again
= spreading of alternatives
-> the chosen favourite is rated a lot higher than the other product that was previously equal in rank to the other
-> justifying the choice made by increasing the positivity of the chosen object
= attitude change to reduce dissonance caused by a freely made decision
= amplify positives of chosen option; amplify negatives of unchosen option
= make attitude more consistent with the decision made
when will dissonance lead to attitude change?
- > action is perceived as inconsistent with the attitude
- > action is freely chosen; no external or co-erced quality
-> individual experiences physiological arousal
> attributed to perceived inconsistency between attitude and action
= attitude change
without these less likely to see change
when and how can attitudes predict behaviour?
3 things that matter
correlation between attitudes and correlation sit between .3 and .4
- kind of behaviour
- nature of attitude
- match between attitude and behaviour: attitude-behaviour compatibility
What kinds of behaviours? (attitudes predicting behaviour)
> Oullette and Wood
- intentional behaviour
- habitual behaviour
- uncontrolled, spontaneous behaviour (not habitual)
- intentional behaviour
> conscious intention or commitment to perform the behaviour
>enacted via application of behavioural intentions
> intentions are guided by attitudes AND norms/efficacy beliefs - habitual behaviour
> doesn’t require conscious intention
> often repeated in a single, stable context
> enacted via automatic repetition of established routines
> triggered by environmental cues
= attitudes don’t play a role here!
e.g. open the fridge door - uncontrolled, spontaneous
> doesn’t require consciour intention
> NOT frequently repeated in similar contexts
> enacted via automatic process, NOT via established routes
e.g. smile at a stranger (non-verbal behaviours)
= attitudes can make a difference here
Attitude effects depend on behaviour type: direct, indirect or not at all
- intentional
- habitual
- spontaneous
- intentional
-> attitudes indirectly (via intentions) impact behaviour
= explicit attitudes - Spontaneous
-> attitudes directly impact behaviour
= implicit attitudes - Habitual
-> attitudes have little impact
= past behaviour/environmental cues is the predictor
intentional vs spontaneous behaviour
-> Dovidio, Kawakami and Gaertner
- what was the experiment?
- > implicit and explicit measures
- > intentional and spontaneous behaviour being measured - results
- > white participants
- > measured implicit and explicit attitudes towards white and black targets
explicit = self-repot implicit = RT paradigms
- > interracial interactions occurring with confederate and participant
- > interactions filmed and coded
1. verbal friendliness (intentional behaviour)
2. non-verbal friendliness (spontaneously behaviour)
- explicit attitudes and verbal intentional behaviour = .4 correlation
implicit attitudes and non- verbal behaviour = .41 correlation
= explicit attitudes are predicting intentional behaviour. They DONT predict non-verbal (spontaneous)
= implicit attitudes are predicting spontaneous behaviour. They DONT predict verbal (intentional)
What kinds of attitudes predict/influence behaviours?
- what is accessibility?
- what increases accessibility?
- accessible, strong, stable attitudes influence behaviour
- how easily an attitude is retrieved from memory
- > strong attitudes are more likely to be accessible (come to mind more readily)
2.
- elaboration (motivation + capacity)
- repeated expression
- direct experience with attitude object
- one-sidedness of infromation
- confidence
Attitudes aren’t the only thing that predict behaviour
- intentional behaviour
- > whats an intention? - the theory of reasoned action (TRA)
> Fishbein and Ajzen
- attitudes (evalutations) predict behaviour indirectly via intentions
intention = commitment to reach a desired outcome or perform a desired behaviour
- attitudes aren’t the only thing that can predict intentions
- > attitudes and subjective norms combine to predict intentions, then the intentions predict the behaviour/action
positive attitude towards a behaviour + the norm towards that behaviour is positive = predict the intention, which then predicts the behaviour
The theory of reasoned action (TRA) was updated to the theory of planned behaviour (TBA) (Ajzen)
- differences
- what does TBA say about predicting intentions?
TRA = attitude towards behaviour + subjective norms -> predict intention -> predict behaviour
TBA = perceived behavioural control, also called efficacy beliefs (belief that you are able to perform the behaviour)
attitude towards behaviour + subjective norms + perceived behavioural control (efficacy beliefs) -> influence intentional commitment -> predicts behaviour
factor shaping the extent to which attitudes predict intentions and thus behaviour: the principle of compatibility (or correspondence); or match between attitude and behaviour
> Davidson and Jaccard study
increased match between properties of action and attitude increase prediction
- > predicting female’s use of birth control in the next 2 years = behaviour
- > measured attitudes = variety of levels of specificity:
e. g. 1. attitude towards birth control
2. attitude towards using birth control pills
3. attitude towards using birth control pills in the next 2 year
= attitude becoming more similar in line with behaviour
= As the attitude becomes more specific = to match the behaviour, the correlation increases
= attitudes predict behaviours more strongly when the attitudes match the behaviours
