W6b: Attitude-behavior links Flashcards
Overview
Attitude and behaviour links: bi-directionality
When and how can behaviours shape attitudes?
When and how can attitudes predict behaviour?
LaPiere (1934)
Attitudes ≠ Behaviours
attitudes and behaviours are linked in various ways
1) Attitudes can predict behaviours
2) Behaviours can shape attitude formation
Details: attitudes to Chinese couple Behaviour: respectful Attitude: actually Bad therefore presence of disconnect
Direct behavioural bases of attitudes :
Laham et al (2014)
Acting on the attitude object:
If attitude object is acted upon with a valanced behaviour, this can shape attitude
formation and change
Details:
Pull (‘collect’) or push (‘discard’) novel stimuli in a ‘foraging task’
Findings:
More positive implicit attitudes formed to pulled stimuli than to pushed stimuli
Cognitive dissonance and maintenance of cognitive consistency
Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957)
Sometimes our behaviours are inconsistent with our attitudes
people are generally motivated to maintain cognitive consistency
Cognitive dissonance: experienced negative arousal resulting from such inconsistency
People may be motivated to reduce dissonance -> modifying attitudes to restore consistency
insufficient justification effect (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959)
Boring task (creates negative attitude to task) Paid $1 or $20 to lie about it (say it was fun; behaviour)
Subsequent attitudes to task measured (attitude modification)
Those paid $1 reported liking the task more than those paid $20
Those paid $20 have sufficient justification for behaviour (lying)
Those paid $1 do not (insufficient justification) - this creates dissonance -> modifying attitude
Attitudes modified to reduce dissonance caused by attitude-discrepant behaviour that cannot be attributed to an external reward or punishment
Effort justification (Aronson & Mills, 1959)
Initiation and liking
Three conditions: control, mild effort/initiation,
high effort/initiation
How interesting was the discussion?
results:
Attitudes are changed to reduce dissonance caused by choosing to exert considerable effort or suffering to achieve a goal
Post-decisional dissonance (‘free-choice paradigm’; spreading of alternatives; Brehm, 1956)
Evaluate products:
1) toaster or coffee makers.
Rank them
Took 2 of the middle ranked items, ask them to choose one to take home:
Free choice -> choice is potentially inconsistent from evaluation
Re-evaluate products:
attitude change: amplify + of choosen and - of the other
When will dissonance lead to attitude change?
Attitude change is most likely to occur when:
1) Action is perceived as inconsistent
2) Action is perceived as freely chosen
3) Individual experiences physiological arousal
4) Arousal is attributed to perceived inconsistency between attitude and the action
there are boundaries [stated in the textbook]
Does Attitudes as predictors of behaviour?
Wicker (1969)
Attitudes don’t always predict behaviour
seldom > r = .3
More recent reviews: r = .4
Range from small negative to large positive…
When and how do attitudes predict behaviour
It depends on the kind of:
1) Behaviour
2) Attitude
3) Attitude-behaviour compatibility
Kind of behaviours: (3)
Oullette and Wood (1998)
1) Intentional behaviour
2) Habitual behaviour
3) Uncontrolled, spontaneous (but not habitual) behaviour
1) Intentional behaviour
Behaviour that requires conscious intention
Enacted via application of behavioural intentions
Attitudes indirectly impact behaviour (via intentions; TPB; Explicit attitudes)
2)Habitual behaviour
1) Behaviour not under conscious intention, repeated often, in stable contexts
2) Enacted via automatic repetition of established routines
3) Triggered by environmental cues
Attitudes have little impact
(Past behaviour)
3)spontaneous behaviour
1) Behaviour that does not require conscious intention, but is not frequently repeated in similar contexts
2) Enacted via automatic processes (not established routines)
=> Attitudes directly impact behaviour (Implicit attitudes)
Intentional vs spontaneous behaviours
Dovidio, Kawakami & Gaertner (2002)
S51
Details and findings
1) White American undergraduate participants
2) Measured implicit and explicit attitudes (prejudice) towards White and Black targets
3) Interracial interactions (with confederates of different ethnicities)
4) Measured:
Verbal friendliness
Non-verbal friendliness
Double disassociation effect.
Explicit prejudice correlates w verbal behaviour
Implicit w nonverbal only
