Chapter 5

Attitudes and Attitude Change

Attitudes Attitudes are evaluative responses

to stimuli

Attitudes They are based on “ABC” information

affective component the person’s emotions and affect towards the object

behavioral component how person tends to act towards the object

cognitive component consists of thoughts and beliefs the person has

about the object These are not always highly related to each

other.

Attitudes Attitudes are often cognitively complex

but evaluatively simple. Attitudes make it possible to access

related information and to make decisions quickly.

Attitudes are one determinant of behavior but not the only one; conversely behavior also determines attitudes.

Theories of Attitudes Learning Approach Consistency Approach Expectancy-Value Approach Cognitive Approach

Theories of Attitudes The learning approach

Yale Attitude Change program (Hovland et al., 1950s)

Attitudes are acquired in the same way as other habits: association reinforcement and punishment imitation.

Theories of Attitudes Transfer of affect involves

transferring emotions from one object (e.g., a sexy model) to another (e.g., the car the model is standing by).

Theories of Attitudes Evaluation of Learning Approach:

The learning approach views people as passive recipients of external forces.

Message learning is critical to this perspective but memory is uncorrelated with attitude change.

This model appears to work well when people are unfamiliar with the material.

Theories of Attitudes Cognitive consistency approaches

depict people as striving for coherence and meaning in their cognitions.

Theories of Attitudes Heider’s balance theory considers

the consistency between evaluations in a simple system the mutual evaluations of two people

towards each other, and of each towards an attitude object.

Theories of Attitudes Balance among such a system exists

when all evaluations are positive, or when one is positive and two are negative.

Imbalance exists when one, or all three, evaluations are negative.

Imbalanced systems are unstable, and the system will tend to change into a balanced one, generally by changing as few elements as possible.

Theories of Attitudes Evaluation of Balance Theory”

Research generally supports predictions.

However, balance pressures are much weaker when we dislike a person than when we like him or her.

Theories of Attitudes Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger,

1957) is concerned with discrepancies between people’ s attitudes and their behaviors.

Dissonance is an aversive motivational state that results when our behavior is inconsistent with our attitudes It is greatest when the attitudes and behavior

are important to the self. Dissonance creates psychological tension

that people are motivated to reduce.

Theories of Attitudes Three ways of reducing dissonance

changing our behavior (often difficult) trivializing the dissonance changing the attitude.

Theories of Attitudes Decision making usually arouses

dissonance that is resolved by increasing liking for the chosen alternative and decreasing liking for the non-chosen alternative.

Theories of Attitudes Brehm (1956) had students rank several

common products and were then given a choice of what to keep between two.

High dissonance condition: choice between two closely ranked alternatives

Low dissonance condition: choice between a high-ranked and a low-ranked alternative

No-dissonance condition: students were simply given a product.

When asked to re-rate their preferences, only students in the high dissonance condition increased their rating for the product they had been given.

Theories of Attitudes Dissonance can occur when we commit

ourselves to a single course of action. Festinger and his colleagues

documented the behavior of members of a doomsday cult. When the world failed to end as had been

predicted, cult members claimed that their faith had helped save the world and began active recruiting. Finding additional supporters helped justify their original behavior.

Theories of Attitudes Attitude-discrepant behavior

(counter-attitudinal behavior) also induces dissonance, which is typically relieved by changing the attitude (since behaviors are difficult to “undo.”)

Theories of Attitudes Insufficient Justification

The less incentive one has for performing a counterattitudinal behavior, the more dissonance is experienced.

Theories of Attitudes Factors increasing dissonance for

performing counterattitudinal behavior

Small threat of punishment Behavior is freely chosen There is an irrevocable commitment Negative consequences were foreseeable Person feels responsible for

consequences Effort is expended

Theories of Attitudes Bem’s self-perception theory

argues that we infer our attitudes from our behavior and the circumstances in which this behavior occurs.

Theories of Attitudes Self-perception theory and cognitive

dissonance theory make similar predictions but for different reasons.

Both theories may be correct: Self-perception theory seems more applicable

when people are unfamiliar with the issues or the issues are vague, minor, or uninvolving

Cognitive dissonance theory seems more applicable to explaining people’s behavior concerning controversial, engaging, and enduring issues.

Theories of Attitudes Consistency seems to be a more

important concern in Western cultures than elsewhere.

Theories of Attitudes Expectancy-value theory assumes

that people develop an attitude based on their thoughtful assessment of pros and cons:

Subjective Utility = Expectancy x Value

Expectancy-value theory treats people as calculating, active, rational decision-makers.

Theories of Attitudes Dual Processing Theories

People process a message systematically when they have both the motivation and the ability to do so; when they do not have the motivation or the ability, they process messages heuristically.

Theories of Attitudes Cognitive response theory seeks to

understand attitude change by understanding the thoughts (“cognitive responses”) people produce in response to persuasive communications. This theory assumes that people are active

processors of information and generate cognitive responses to messages.

Theories of Attitudes Attitude change depends on how

much and what kind of counter-arguing a message triggers.

Persuasion can be induced by interfering with a person’s ability to counter-argue.

Theories of Attitudes Petty and Cacioppo’s elaboration

likelihood model draws a key distinction The central route to persuasion involves

detailed information processing and evaluation of arguments

The peripheral route to persuasion involves reliance on superficial cues without thoughtful consideration of the arguments.

Theories of Attitudes People use the central route when they

are involved in the issue concerned about accuracy aware that others are trying to change their

attitudes. People are more likely to use the

peripheral route when they are uninvolved in the issue distracted by the source or context overloaded with other things to do.

Theories of Attitudes Chaiken has similarly distinguished

systematic processing (careful review and consideration of arguments) from heuristic processing (using simple decision rules).

However, systematic processing does not always give the right answer; defensive motivations can lead to processing that is extremely biased.

Persuasion The more favorably people

evaluate the communicator, the more favorably they are apt to evaluate the communication. This idea reflects transfer of affect.

Persuasion Several aspects of a communicator

affect whether he or she is evaluated favorably. Credibility

Expertise Trustworthiness

Liking

Persuasion We are persuaded by the opinions

of our reference groups, those we like or identify with. This occurs both because of the

motivational factors of liking and perceived similarity, and because messages from in-groups are more likely to be processed using the central route.

Persuasion Source derogation involves

deciding the source is unreliable or negative in some way. It can make all future as well as current arguments from that source less powerful.

Persuasion The message content clearly

influences whether or not people will accept it.

Persuasion The greater the discrepancy

between the listener’s position and the message presented, the greater the potential for change.

Discrepancy

Att

itud

e

Chan

ge

Persuasion Sources who are more credible can

advocate more discrepant opinions successfully. For example, Bochner and Insko (1966)

presented participants with a message on the number of nightly hours of sleep required

The message ostensibly came either from a Nobel Prize winner or a YMCA instructor.

The YMCA instructor produced the most change when advocating three hours sleep; the Nobel Prize winner, when advocating only one.

Persuasion When message discrepancy is low, it is

assimilated into the audience’s opinion (perceived as closer than it really is)

When message discrepancy is high, it is seen as even further away (message contrast).

Discrepancy may be reduced by distorting or misperceiving the message, or even rejecting it altogether.

Persuasion People are most affected by the

strength of arguments when they are motivated to pay attention and able to think carefully about them (central route processing).

Persuasion When people are not motivated or

able to think about message content, peripheral cues become important in determining attitude change. source characteristics message length number of arguments

Persuasion Repetition and familiarity tend to

increase liking, but only up to a point. Repetition may help people process

strong arguments more completely but expose the flaws in weak arguments.

Repetition may lead to tedium; this can be dealt with by having ads that provide slight variations on a theme.

Persuasion Matching the Persuasive Message

to the Nature of the Attitude Attitudes that are highly emotional

may be more easily changed by emotional appeals.

Messages that address the functional basis of an attitude (what the attitude does for the person) may be more persuasive.

Persuasion Attitudes that are high in ego

involvement are resistant to change.

Kinds of ego involvement include Commitment Issue Involvement Response Involvement

Persuasion People high in authoritarianism or

dogmatism (closed-mindedness) tend to respond to the expertise of the

source first and to argument strength only when the source is non-expert.

People who are high in the need for closure typically more resistant to persuasion.

Persuasion Aggression Arousal

Personal frustrations may make a person more vulnerable to persuasive communications advocating aggressive actions.

Fear Arousal Fear usually increases the effectiveness of a

persuasive appeal, but if too much fear is aroused, the effect may be disruptive.

Fear appeals are more effective if they not only arouse fear but also provide information about how to reduce the fear.

Persuasion People committed to an attitude

position who are forewarned of an attempt to change their attitudes will be more resistant to persuasion They can generate more counterarguments. Those who are not committed to an attitude

position are actually more likely to change their attitudes after a forewarning.

Persuasion Distraction makes it harder to

counter-argue and thus tends to enhance the effectiveness of a persuasive message. Too much distraction, however, will

prevent a message from being heard at all and will reduce persuasion to zero.

Persuasion McGuire suggested that

inoculation (building resistance to persuasion by arguing against weak forms of a persuasive argument) helps people resist persuasion.

Attitude Change over Time Thinking about an attitude object

tends to make the attitude more extreme thinking allows people to generate

more consistent attitudes (if they have a preexisting schema for the issue).

Attitude Change over Time The sleeper effect refers to a

rebound in persuasiveness of messages delivered by low-credibility sources. separation in memory of the source

and the message Separation in memory of the message

and discounting cues

Attitudes and Behavior First study of attitude-behavior

consistency: La Piere (1934) toured the United States

with a Chinese couple, stopping at hotels and restaurants along the way.

They were refused service at only one establishment.

However, 92% of the institutions later said in a letter that they would refuse to accept Chinese people as guests.

Attitudes and Behavior Later studies have shown higher

degrees of attitude-behavior consistency especially for attitudes that are

stable important certain consistent between cognition and affect easily accessed formed through direct experience

Attitudes and Behavior Strong attitudes are typically

stable, personally relevant, held about personally important issues

about which one feels extreme and certain. They are often “embedded” or tied to

other beliefs. They are often formed through direct

experience and become highly accessible as a result.

Attitudes and Behavior Stable attitudes that are accessible

in memory are most likely to predict behavior

Attitudes and Behavior Maximum attitude-behavior

consistency occurs when attitudes and behaviors are measured at about the same time. Longer time intervals diminish

attitude-behavior correlations because attitudes, people, and situations change.

Attitudes and Behavior Attitudes that are more accessible

in memory influence behavior more strongly. Attitudes that are expressed more

frequently are more accessible and tend to become more extreme.

Attitudes and Behavior Attitudes are often automatically

activated when the attitude object is present. We may have a pervasive tendency

to non-consciously classify most stimuli as good or bad, and almost immediately tend to approach or avoid them.

Attitudes and Behavior The more relevant an attitude is to

a behavior, the more attitude-behavior consistency there will be.

Attitudes and Behavior In most situations, several

attitudes are relevant to behavior. The attitude that is most salient is most likely to influence behavior especially when the attitude is not a

strong one.

Attitudes and Behavior When an attitude is based heavily

on affect, persuasive appeals to emotion are more successful

When attitudes are based more on cognition, cognitively based appeals are more successful.

Attitudes and Behavior Wilson and his colleagues have

found that introspecting about the reasons one likes or dislikes an attitude object can disrupt attitude-behavior consistency Causes the attitude temporarily to

change. Especially true for attitudes that have

little cognitive support.

Attitudes and Behavior When situational pressures are strong,

attitudes (especially weak attitudes) are not as strong determinants of behavior.

People sometimes have completely different attitudes towards the same attitude object in different situations. For example, Minard (1952) found that

white coal miners treated black coworkers as equals in the mines but as social inferiors in the outside world.

The Reasoned Action Model The model has been widely used to

predict a variety of behaviors. E.g., birth control use, decision to

breast feed

The Reasoned Action Model The theory of planned behavior adds an

additional variable to the model: Perceived behavior control = people’s belief

in their ability to control their outcomes. Other factors not included in the model

may also be important: external constraints and opportunities, fear habit