attitude concept measurement 07

8/3/2019 Attitude Concept Measurement 07

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/attitude-concept-measurement-07 1/53

Defining Attitude ConceptDefining Attitude Concept

Eagly & Chaiken (1993): emphasize the tripartiteEagly & Chaiken (1993): emphasize the tripartite(multicomponent) classification.(multicomponent) classification.

•” •” tendencies to evaluate an entity with sometendencies to evaluate an entity with some

degree of favor or disfavor, ordinarily expresseddegree of favor or disfavor, ordinarily expressedin cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses” in cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses” and formed on the basis of cognitive, affective,and formed on the basis of cognitive, affective,and behavioral processes.and behavioral processes.

Evaluating = refers to all classes of evaluativeEvaluating = refers to all classes of evaluativeresponding, whether overt (verbal) or covertresponding, whether overt (verbal) or covert(nonverbal), cognitive, affective, or behavioral.(nonverbal), cognitive, affective, or behavioral.




Tripartite (“trilogy of mind”) originally linked toTripartite (“trilogy of mind”) originally linked to

“Faculty Psychology” “Faculty Psychology”

Tripartite view of attitudinal responding: doTripartite view of attitudinal responding: do

attitudes have all three aspects?attitudes have all three aspects?Grounded in 18Grounded in 18thth C. Enlightenment view of attitudeC. Enlightenment view of attitude

(Cognition, Affection, Conation – act of striving).(Cognition, Affection, Conation – act of striving).

Kant, Leibniz, Scottish School: interest inKant, Leibniz, Scottish School: interest inconsciousness and introspection. Debates aboutconsciousness and introspection. Debates about

how many innate “faculties” of mind existed.how many innate “faculties” of mind existed.




Preceded development of experimental psy in 19Preceded development of experimental psy in 19thth C., and faded with its rise of latter in earlyC., and faded with its rise of latter in early1920’s.1920’s.

Wundt, late 19Wundt, late 19thth

C in Germany, associationism wasC in Germany, associationism wasanti-introspection and discredited Facultyanti-introspection and discredited FacultyPsychology.Psychology.

But trilogy of mind remained in Psychology’sBut trilogy of mind remained in Psychology’s

vocabulary.vocabulary.William McDougall (1923),William McDougall (1923), Outline of Psychology Outline of Psychology

(wrote 1(wrote 1stst social psy text in 1908)social psy text in 1908)




McDougall (1923):McDougall (1923):

“ “We often speak of an intellectual orWe often speak of an intellectual or

cognitive activity; or of an act of willing orcognitive activity; or of an act of willing or

of resolving, choosing, striving, purposing;of resolving, choosing, striving, purposing;

or again of a state of feeling. But it isor again of a state of feeling. But it is

generally admitted that all mental activitygenerally admitted that all mental activity

has these three aspects, cognitive,has these three aspects, cognitive,conative, and affective…” conative, and affective…”




Tripartite view in contrast to Thurstone (1931:Tripartite view in contrast to Thurstone (1931:

“Attitude is the affect for or against a “Attitude is the affect for or against a

psychological object.”); & later, Fishbein & psychological object.”); & later, Fishbein &

Ajzen. Ajzen.Influenced Allport (1935): “An attitude is a mentalInfluenced Allport (1935): “An attitude is a mental

or neural state of readiness, organized throughor neural state of readiness, organized through

experience, exerting a directive or dynamicexperience, exerting a directive or dynamic

influence on the individual’s response to allinfluence on the individual’s response to allobjects and situations to which it is related.” objects and situations to which it is related.”




Tripartite view played central role in attitudeTripartite view played central role in attitude

theory and attitude change research in itstheory and attitude change research in its

heyday in ’50s and ’60s.heyday in ’50s and ’60s.

Rosenberg & Hovland (1960) model:Rosenberg & Hovland (1960) model:

Attitude is an inferred property of the 3 Attitude is an inferred property of the 3

response classes, and the consistency of response classes, and the consistency of

responses (formed on the basis of 3responses (formed on the basis of 3different types of processes).different types of processes).




Zanna & Rempel (1986) evaluative appraisalZanna & Rempel (1986) evaluative appraisalmodel. Do attitudes have to have all 3 aspects?model. Do attitudes have to have all 3 aspects?

Z&R: categorization of a stimulus object along anZ&R: categorization of a stimulus object along anevaluative dimension based upon 3 generalevaluative dimension based upon 3 general

classes of information: cognitive,classes of information: cognitive,affective/emotional, past behaviors or behavioralaffective/emotional, past behaviors or behavioralintentions.intentions.

Model suggest that attitudes are separate cognitiveModel suggest that attitudes are separate cognitive

entities which may be accessed from memoryentities which may be accessed from memoryindependent of the affective, cognitive, orindependent of the affective, cognitive, orbehavioral information on which they are based.behavioral information on which they are based.




6 implications of this view:6 implications of this view:

1.1. That these classes of information canThat these classes of information candetermine evaluations separately or indetermine evaluations separately or in

combination.combination.2.2. When evaluations are based primarily onWhen evaluations are based primarily on

utilitarian beliefs about an attitude object, theutilitarian beliefs about an attitude object, themodel is belief based.model is belief based.

3.3. When evaluations are based primarily on affectWhen evaluations are based primarily on affectproduced by the object, the model becomesproduced by the object, the model becomessingle component (evaluative, preferences)single component (evaluative, preferences)




4. When evaluations based on inferences from4. When evaluations based on inferences from

past behavior, model is like self-perception.past behavior, model is like self-perception.

5. If attitudes are based on different sources of 5. If attitudes are based on different sources of

information, do equivalent evaluations based oninformation, do equivalent evaluations based ondifferent sources differentially predict and guidedifferent sources differentially predict and guide

behavior? (Priming)behavior? (Priming)

6. Are such attitudes differentially susceptible to6. Are such attitudes differentially susceptible to

different methods of persuasion?different methods of persuasion?




Attitudes as “tendencies to evaluate” - -there is an Attitudes as “tendencies to evaluate” - -there is animplicit or explicit response to an entity based onimplicit or explicit response to an entity based onthe “evaluative residue” of past experience (orthe “evaluative residue” of past experience (orbeliefs or feelings) that predisposes the personbeliefs or feelings) that predisposes the personto a favorable or unfavorable response.to a favorable or unfavorable response.

Attitudes can have varied antecedents on the input Attitudes can have varied antecedents on the inputside, and varied consequences on the outputside, and varied consequences on the outputside. But the attitude is not the response per se.side. But the attitude is not the response per se.

Attitude is the tendency or latent property of the Attitude is the tendency or latent property of theperson that gives rise to judgments andperson that gives rise to judgments andcategorizations.categorizations.




Attitudes as Enduring or temporary constructions. Attitudes as Enduring or temporary constructions.

Some attitudes are relatively enduring (formedSome attitudes are relatively enduring (formedearly in life and carry through life; others areearly in life and carry through life; others areformed then changed; some formed but fade)formed then changed; some formed but fade)

N. Schwartz:N. Schwartz: Attitudes-as-construction view Attitudes-as-construction view..Most if not all attitudes are unstable, constantlyMost if not all attitudes are unstable, constantlyemerging anew in specific situations. Equatesemerging anew in specific situations. Equatesvariability in the expression of attitudes withvariability in the expression of attitudes with

variability in the evaluative tendency thatvariability in the evaluative tendency thatconstitutes attitudes. Not same asconstitutes attitudes. Not same as contextcontexteffects – latent construct can be stable buteffects – latent construct can be stable butsensitive to context.sensitive to context.



Implicit and Explicit AttitudesImplicit and Explicit Attitudes

Chen & Bargh (1999): categorize good vs.Chen & Bargh (1999): categorize good vs.

bad. Access attitude from memory.bad. Access attitude from memory.

Nonconsciously predisposes behaviorNonconsciously predisposes behavior

toward object.toward object.

Attitudes of which the person is not Attitudes of which the person is not

conscious at the moment of actionconscious at the moment of action

(implicit attitudes) are also strongly(implicit attitudes) are also stronglypredictive of behavior.predictive of behavior.




D. Myers (1990): “our attitudes predict ourD. Myers (1990): “our attitudes predict our

actions…if, as we act, we areactions…if, as we act, we are conscious conscious of ourof our

attitudes” (p.90). Bias toward the consciousattitudes” (p.90). Bias toward the conscious

operation of attitudes, not automatic activation.operation of attitudes, not automatic activation.Greenwald & Banaji (1995) onGreenwald & Banaji (1995) on implicit attitudes implicit attitudes ::

“Implicit attitudes are introspectively unidentified “Implicit attitudes are introspectively unidentified

(or inaccurately identified) traces of past(or inaccurately identified) traces of past

experience that mediate favorable orexperience that mediate favorable orunfavorable feeling, thought, or action towardunfavorable feeling, thought, or action toward

social objects.” social objects.”




What about those times when people haveWhat about those times when people have

more than one evaluation of the samemore than one evaluation of the same

attitude object, one of which is moreattitude object, one of which is more

accessible than the other?accessible than the other?

Dual Attitude Model (Wilson, Lindsey, & Dual Attitude Model (Wilson, Lindsey, &

Schooler, 2000)Schooler, 2000)



Dual Attitude ModelDual Attitude Model

Working Example:Working Example:

A White American reared in a racist family A White American reared in a racist family

who learned to be prejudiced againstwho learned to be prejudiced against

African Americans. As an adult, he adopts African Americans. As an adult, he adopts

egalitarian views and abhors prejudice of egalitarian views and abhors prejudice of

all kinds. What is this person’s attitudeall kinds. What is this person’s attitude

toward African Americans?toward African Americans?




Dual Attitude Model (Wilson, Lindsey, & Schooler,Dual Attitude Model (Wilson, Lindsey, & Schooler,2000)2000)

●●Model proposes that people can have “dualModel proposes that people can have “dual

attitudes,” which are different evaluations of theattitudes,” which are different evaluations of thesame attitude object (one is automatic, implicitsame attitude object (one is automatic, implicitattitude; other is explicit attitude).attitude; other is explicit attitude).

●●Proposes that the attitude people endorse at anyProposes that the attitude people endorse at any

point in time depends on whether they have thepoint in time depends on whether they have thecapacity to retrieve the explicit attitude, andcapacity to retrieve the explicit attitude, andwhether explicit overrides implicit.whether explicit overrides implicit.




Remember:Remember: Implicit attitudesImplicit attitudes areare

“evaluations that have an unknown origin “evaluations that have an unknown origin

(people are unaware of the basis of their(people are unaware of the basis of their

evaluation), are activated automatically,evaluation), are activated automatically,and influence implicit responsesand influence implicit responses

(uncontrollable responses and ones that(uncontrollable responses and ones that

are not seen as an expression of attitudeare not seen as an expression of attitudeand therefore are not controlled)” and therefore are not controlled)”

Greenwald & Banaji, 1995.Greenwald & Banaji, 1995.




5 Basic Hypotheses:5 Basic Hypotheses:

1.1. A(e) and A(i) toward same attitude A(e) and A(i) toward same attitudeobject can coexist in memory.object can coexist in memory.

2.2. When dual attitudes exist, A(i) isWhen dual attitudes exist, A(i) isautomatically activated; A(e) requiresautomatically activated; A(e) requiresmore capacity and motivation to retrievemore capacity and motivation to retrieve

from memory. When able to retrievefrom memory. When able to retrieve A(e), it overrrides A(i) and A(e) is A(e), it overrrides A(i) and A(e) isreported.reported.




3. Even when A(e) is retrieved, A(i) influences3. Even when A(e) is retrieved, A(i) influences

implicit responses (i.e., uncontrollable responsesimplicit responses (i.e., uncontrollable responses

like nonverbal behaviors) or responses that theylike nonverbal behaviors) or responses that they

do not view as an expression of their attitudedo not view as an expression of their attitudeand do not attempt to control (e.g., neuraland do not attempt to control (e.g., neural

imaging).imaging).

4. A(e)’s change relatively easily, whereas Ai, like4. A(e)’s change relatively easily, whereas Ai, like

old habits, change more slowly. Attitude changeold habits, change more slowly. Attitude changetechniques target A(e) but not A(i).techniques target A(e) but not A(i).




5. Dual attitudes not same as ambivalent5. Dual attitudes not same as ambivalentattitudes or attitudes with discrepantattitudes or attitudes with discrepantaffective and cognitive components.affective and cognitive components.

People with dual attitudes report thePeople with dual attitudes report theattitude that is most accessible; don’tattitude that is most accessible; don’texperience a subjective state of conflictexperience a subjective state of conflictfrom holding dual attitudes.from holding dual attitudes.

Define attitudinal ambivalence vs. dualDefine attitudinal ambivalence vs. dualattitudes.attitudes.



Segue to MeasurementSegue to Measurement

Direct measuresDirect measures: rely on self-reported attitudes.: rely on self-reported attitudes.

Asked direct questions about their thoughts, Asked direct questions about their thoughts,

feelings, or behaviors toward attitude objects.feelings, or behaviors toward attitude objects.

Indirect measuresIndirect measures: do not alert respondents to the: do not alert respondents to theidentity of the object of the attitude beingidentity of the object of the attitude being

measured. Indirect measures rely on moremeasured. Indirect measures rely on more

circuitous methods of obtaining info. Assumecircuitous methods of obtaining info. Assume

that self-reports are of questionable validitythat self-reports are of questionable validitybecause people are frequently unaware of theirbecause people are frequently unaware of their

attitudes or unwilling to disclose them publicly.attitudes or unwilling to disclose them publicly.



Different Types of Evaluative Responseifferent Types of Evaluative Response



Implicit-Explicit Measures (Hofmann, et al. 2005)mplicit-Explicit Measures (Hofmann, et al. 2005)

5 accounts for low5 accounts for low r’ r’ s between explicit and implicit:s between explicit and implicit:

1.1. Motivational biases in explicit self-reports (e.g.,Motivational biases in explicit self-reports (e.g.,prejudicial attitudes).prejudicial attitudes).

2.2. Lack of introspective access to implicitly assessedLack of introspective access to implicitly assessed

attitudes (introspection may increase awareness).attitudes (introspection may increase awareness).3.3. Factors influencing the retrieval of information fromFactors influencing the retrieval of information from

memory [dual attitudes model; A(e) that arememory [dual attitudes model; A(e) that arespontaneous correlate more highly with A(i)]spontaneous correlate more highly with A(i)]

4.4. Method-related characteristics of the two measuresMethod-related characteristics of the two measures(e.g., lack of “correspondence”).(e.g., lack of “correspondence”).

5.5. Complete independence of the underlying constructs.Complete independence of the underlying constructs.



Implicit-Explicit Measures (Hofmann, et al. 2005)mplicit-Explicit Measures (Hofmann, et al. 2005)

Quantitative meta-analysis (126 studies)Quantitative meta-analysis (126 studies)

••Used IAT as implicit measure; variousUsed IAT as implicit measure; various

explicit measures used.explicit measures used.

••Overall effect size = .24 (sd=.14)Overall effect size = .24 (sd=.14)

••Moderators (e.g., research topic involved;Moderators (e.g., research topic involved;

awareness of A(i); effortful retrieval?awareness of A(i); effortful retrieval?higherhigher r’ r’ s with spontaneous self-reports with spontaneous self-report

(less thought)(less thought)



Attitude Measurement Attitude Measurement



Behavioral IndicatorsBehavioral Indicators

Assumption: that proper measurement on the Assumption: that proper measurement on the

behavior side is equally important and that webehavior side is equally important and that we

do not have to abandon attitude construct asdo not have to abandon attitude construct as

long as we use properly scaled behaviorallong as we use properly scaled behavioralcriteriacriteria and and a valid attitude measure.a valid attitude measure.

Fishbein & Ajzen’s behavioral criteria: Self-reportFishbein & Ajzen’s behavioral criteria: Self-report

validity problems can also be addressed byvalidity problems can also be addressed by

measuring behavior appropriately.measuring behavior appropriately.




1.1. Specific act or single act criterionSpecific act or single act criterion: Should: Should

include 4 elements (action, time, context,include 4 elements (action, time, context,

target). Measure can be dichotomous ortarget). Measure can be dichotomous or

continuous.continuous.2.2. Repeated observations of same single act:Repeated observations of same single act:

repeated observations of same behavior atrepeated observations of same behavior at

different observation times (e.g., unobtrusivedifferent observation times (e.g., unobtrusive

measure of popularity of an art exhibit).measure of popularity of an art exhibit).Observations combined into repeatedObservations combined into repeated

observation criterion.observation criterion.




3.3. Multiple act criterionMultiple act criterion: Observation of : Observation of

different behaviors.different behaviors.

4.4. Multiple act, repeated observationMultiple act, repeated observation: Gold: Gold

standard. Cell entries can be summed,standard. Cell entries can be summed,

averaged, scaled.averaged, scaled.



Attitude Measurementttitude Measurement



Return to Multimethod Approacheturn to Multimethod Approach

Guglielmi (199): Multidimensional view of Guglielmi (199): Multidimensional view of

prejudicial attitudes that makes use of prejudicial attitudes that makes use of

multimethod strategies .multimethod strategies .

Argues for both implicit and explicit Argues for both implicit and explicit

measures of cognitive, affective,measures of cognitive, affective,

behavioral components.behavioral components.

Esp. focused on psychophysiologicalEsp. focused on psychophysiological

methods.methods.




Long history, beginning withLong history, beginning with Bogus Pipeline.Bogus Pipeline.

Sigall and colleagues (1971): trying toSigall and colleagues (1971): trying to

account for decline in anti-Black sentimentaccount for decline in anti-Black sentiment

using the adjective checklist procedure.using the adjective checklist procedure.

Was the change due to social desirability?Was the change due to social desirability?

Hooked up participants to fancy machine;Hooked up participants to fancy machine;

attached electrodes; used info collectedattached electrodes; used info collected

earlier to establish “accuracy” earlier to establish “accuracy”




The asked to rate on 7-point scale howThe asked to rate on 7-point scale howcharacteristic each of 22 traits was of characteristic each of 22 traits was of Blacks and Whites (half rated eachBlacks and Whites (half rated each

group).group).In order to determine “to what extentIn order to determine “to what extent

people are in touch with their realpeople are in touch with their realfeelings” E allegedly checked participant’sfeelings” E allegedly checked participant’sverbal response against machine’sverbal response against machine’sreading.reading.

Control: same task, no machine.Control: same task, no machine.




Found that students were much more likely toFound that students were much more likely to

assign negative traits to Blacks under the bogusassign negative traits to Blacks under the bogus

pipeline condition than Control.pipeline condition than Control.

Significant racial prejudice exposed. Same conceptSignificant racial prejudice exposed. Same conceptas polygraph and lie detection – suspects needas polygraph and lie detection – suspects need

to believe that the machine will unmask theirto believe that the machine will unmask their

deception; leads to them spilling their guts, anddeception; leads to them spilling their guts, and

the polygraph industry claiming efficacy. Samethe polygraph industry claiming efficacy. Samewithwith No Lie MRI, Inc.No Lie MRI, Inc.




Which approaches are best? How does oneWhich approaches are best? How does one

choose? Does it really matter whichchoose? Does it really matter which

technique one uses? What generaltechnique one uses? What general

conclusions should be reached?conclusions should be reached?



Some general conclusionsome general conclusions

Caveat: Answers depend in part on theCaveat: Answers depend in part on the

attitude “objects” under investigation.attitude “objects” under investigation.

Various assessment techniques are not Various assessment techniques are not

interchangeable. One’s choice of interchangeable. One’s choice of

measurement strategy can affect themeasurement strategy can affect the

results obtained and conclusions drawnresults obtained and conclusions drawn

about focal attitude (esp. intergroupabout focal attitude (esp. intergroupattitudes).attitudes).




2.2. Use of more subtle self-report measures and indirectUse of more subtle self-report measures and indirectmeasures yields a different picture. Responses that aremeasures yields a different picture. Responses that aredifficult to control (e.g., physiological reactions, reactiondifficult to control (e.g., physiological reactions, reactiontimes following racial primes, etc.) uncover moretimes following racial primes, etc.) uncover more

negative feelings and beliefs.negative feelings and beliefs.3.3. Which set of findings more closely represents “true” Which set of findings more closely represents “true”

attitudes? Results from direct measures must be viewedattitudes? Results from direct measures must be viewedwith some skepticism, but social desirability biases morewith some skepticism, but social desirability biases moreproblematic in certain contexts than others (atts towardproblematic in certain contexts than others (atts toward

fat and toward gay/lesbian people vs. race, gender,fat and toward gay/lesbian people vs. race, gender,ethnicity).ethnicity).




4. A combination of indirect and direct4. A combination of indirect and direct

measures may be needed to fullymeasures may be needed to fully

understand people’s attitudes towardunderstand people’s attitudes toward

some groups and other attitude objects.some groups and other attitude objects.Need such an approach to detectNeed such an approach to detect

attitudinal subtleties (e.g., Fazio et al,attitudinal subtleties (e.g., Fazio et al,

1995)1995)




Fazio et al: Whites can be divided into threeFazio et al: Whites can be divided into threecategories with respect to attitudes towardscategories with respect to attitudes towardsBlacks:Blacks:

“ “

truly nonprejudiced”: no negative beliefs ortruly nonprejudiced”: no negative beliefs orfeelings about Blacks; low prejudice scores onfeelings about Blacks; low prejudice scores onboth direct and indirect measures.both direct and indirect measures.

“ “truly prejudiced”: high scores on both direct andtruly prejudiced”: high scores on both direct and

indirect measures; do not try to hide theirindirect measures; do not try to hide theirnegative feelings (either because prejudice is OK negative feelings (either because prejudice is OK or because they fail to recognize that theiror because they fail to recognize that theirattitudes are prejudiced)attitudes are prejudiced)




5. Different instruments are designed to measure5. Different instruments are designed to measure

different aspects of intergroup and other kinds of different aspects of intergroup and other kinds of

attitudes. Physiological measures tap affectiveattitudes. Physiological measures tap affective

component; stereotype measures morecomponent; stereotype measures morecognitive; unobtrusive behavioral measures andcognitive; unobtrusive behavioral measures and

social distance measures intended to assesssocial distance measures intended to assess

discriminatory tendencies.discriminatory tendencies.

6. Tempting to always think that affective,6. Tempting to always think that affective,cognitive, and behavioral measures arecognitive, and behavioral measures are

equivalent; but in fact only modestly correlated.equivalent; but in fact only modestly correlated.




e.g., (Dovidio, Brigham, Johnson, & Gaertner, 1996): Somee.g., (Dovidio, Brigham, Johnson, & Gaertner, 1996): Somepeople hold negative beliefs about outgroups, yet believepeople hold negative beliefs about outgroups, yet believeit is wrong to act on them. Others deny having negativeit is wrong to act on them. Others deny having negativebeliefs about outgroups, yet experience negative feelingsbeliefs about outgroups, yet experience negative feelings

toward those groups. Can’t assume that tripartite attitudetoward those groups. Can’t assume that tripartite attitudemodel holds all or even most of the time (Schneider,model holds all or even most of the time (Schneider,2004, pp.29-30).2004, pp.29-30).

Point: Researchers’ measurement strategies will be shapedPoint: Researchers’ measurement strategies will be shapedby the particular facets of the attitudes of greatestby the particular facets of the attitudes of greatest

interest to them, and often they will find it necessary tointerest to them, and often they will find it necessary touse more than one type of measure.use more than one type of measure.



Intra-attitudinal Structure Matters: The allure of Intra-attitudinal Structure Matters: The allure of

“safer” tobacco products “safer” tobacco products

“ “The more successfully a cigarette reducesThe more successfully a cigarette reduces

risk, the more it might encourage smokersrisk, the more it might encourage smokers

not to quit. Or lure ex-smokers to resumenot to quit. Or lure ex-smokers to resume

their habit. Or make kids smokers. Ittheir habit. Or make kids smokers. Itmight, in other words, do exactly themight, in other words, do exactly the

opposite of what it is intended to do. In aopposite of what it is intended to do. In a

worst-case scenario, it could reverse aworst-case scenario, it could reverse ahalf-century of antismoking education,half-century of antismoking education,

policy and litigation in a flash.” (Gertner,policy and litigation in a flash.” (Gertner,

2005, p.46)2005, p.46)



Tobacco harm reductionTobacco harm reduction

•• Availability of “low-yield cigarettes” has led to Availability of “low-yield cigarettes” has led to

public perceptions of “safer” cigarettes, butpublic perceptions of “safer” cigarettes, butwith no resultant decrease in morbiditywith no resultant decrease in morbidity((Fairchild & Cosgrove, 2004,Fairchild & Cosgrove, 2004, American Journal of Public Health American Journal of Public Health , “Out of , “Out of

the Ashes”; Myers, 2000, NEJM).the Ashes”; Myers, 2000, NEJM).

•• Similar concerns have been raised about theSimilar concerns have been raised about themarketing of reduced harm products, underscoringmarketing of reduced harm products, underscoringneed for science to fill the information gap onneed for science to fill the information gap onattitudes toward harm reduction and federalattitudes toward harm reduction and federal

regulation of reduced harm productsregulation of reduced harm products (H.R. 140, “Title V –(H.R. 140, “Title V –FDA Regulations of Tobacco Products, referred to House Subcommittee on Health,FDA Regulations of Tobacco Products, referred to House Subcommittee on Health,2/14/03)2/14/03)



Two Key Background ConceptsTwo Key Background Concepts

Harm reductionHarm reduction: relates to actually seeing a: relates to actually seeing areduction in mortality or morbidity with the usereduction in mortality or morbidity with the useof a product.of a product.

Potentially reduced-exposure products (PREPsPotentially reduced-exposure products (PREPs):):tobacco products that have been modified ortobacco products that have been modified ordesigned in some way to reduce users’ exposuredesigned in some way to reduce users’ exposureto tobacco toxins.to tobacco toxins. Two categoriesTwo categories – variants of – variants of traditional tobacco cigarettes (e.g., smokelesstraditional tobacco cigarettes (e.g., smokeless

tobacco; new cigarettes that heat rather thantobacco; new cigarettes that heat rather thanburn tobacco), or pharmaceutical agents that areburn tobacco), or pharmaceutical agents that aremeant to aid in smoking cessation (e.g., nicotinemeant to aid in smoking cessation (e.g., nicotinegum, lozenges, nicotine patch).gum, lozenges, nicotine patch).



The Psychology of Attitudes: Role of The Psychology of Attitudes: Role of

Attitude Structure Attitude Structure::

Cognitive versus affective basesCognitive versus affective basesExperience with smoking / harm reductionExperience with smoking / harm reduction

Knowledge about smoking / harm reductionKnowledge about smoking / harm reduction

Stark, Borgida, Kim, & Pickens (2006): TheStark, Borgida, Kim, & Pickens (2006): The

psychological bases of attitudes may influencepsychological bases of attitudes may influence

the way consumers respond to ads aboutthe way consumers respond to ads about

reduced harm/reduced risk products. Consistentreduced harm/reduced risk products. Consistent

with prior research in other social issue domains.with prior research in other social issue domains.



MethodMethod

Survey: Minnesota Center for Survey ResearchSurvey: Minnesota Center for Survey Research

••sent to 1,300 randomly selected households in 5-statesent to 1,300 randomly selected households in 5-stateUpper Midwest region (Minnesota, Iowa, NorthUpper Midwest region (Minnesota, Iowa, North

Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin); Fall 2003Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin); Fall 2003

••438 adult participants returned the survey (38% return438 adult participants returned the survey (38% returnrate)rate) 58.9% Male, 95.7% Caucasian58.9% Male, 95.7% Caucasian

Mean age: 54.2 yearsMean age: 54.2 years

21.9% smoked in last 30 days.21.9% smoked in last 30 days.



Predicting attitudes toward harm reductionPredicting attitudes toward harm reduction::

Affective score and experience significantly Affective score and experience significantly

predictpredict – More positive feelings, being a smoker, lead toMore positive feelings, being a smoker, lead to

more positive harm reduction attitudesmore positive harm reduction attitudes

Affective Score Affective Score: b=.394, p<.0001: b=.394, p<.0001 Cognitive Score: b=.163, p<.099Cognitive Score: b=.163, p<.099

Knowledge: b=.055, p<.346Knowledge: b=.055, p<.346

Consistency: b=.163, p<.099Consistency: b=.163, p<.099

ExperienceExperience: b= -.551, p<.006: b= -.551, p<.006



Predicting attitudes toward harm reductionPredicting attitudes toward harm reductionby level of experienceby level of experience::

– Smokers’ attitudes are best predicted by theirSmokers’ attitudes are best predicted by theirfeelings, non-smokers’ attitudes are bestfeelings, non-smokers’ attitudes are bestpredicted by their thoughts and beliefspredicted by their thoughts and beliefs

Smokers:Smokers:

Affective score: b=.477, p<.0001 Affective score: b=.477, p<.0001 Cognitive score: b= -.122, p<.44Cognitive score: b= -.122, p<.44

Non-smokers:Non-smokers: Affective score: b=.079, p<.534 Affective score: b=.079, p<.534

Cognitive score: b=.414, p<.0001Cognitive score: b=.414, p<.0001



Does structure matter and for whom?Does structure matter and for whom?

ForFor smokerssmokers, their feelings about harm reduction, their feelings about harm reduction

were the primary predictor of overall attitudeswere the primary predictor of overall attitudes

toward harm reduction; fortoward harm reduction; for non-smokersnon-smokers,,

thoughts and beliefs were the primary predictor.thoughts and beliefs were the primary predictor. Feelings associated with smoking (taste,Feelings associated with smoking (taste,

reduction of cravings, relaxation) may createreduction of cravings, relaxation) may create

positive attitudes that are difficult to counterpositive attitudes that are difficult to counter

with information on the health risks of thesewith information on the health risks of theseproducts.products.

attitude concept measurement 07

Documents