Ch. 7 - Attitudes, Behaviour and Rationalization

Question 1

Define attitude

Answer 1

Individual’s evaluation of a target

Can be positive, negative, ambivalent or neutral

Question 2

Why do we evaluate? 2 functions

Answer 2

Object appraisal = determine whether object is positive or negative, has adaptive value
Value expressive = allows us to convey our identity to others

Question 3

Measures of attitudes (5)

Answer 3

Likert scale = numerical scale, response options to questions are labeled with anchors at each extreme
Response latency = amount of time it takes to respond to stimulus, faster response time indicates stronger attitude
Attitude centrality = measure of how strongly attitudes towards subjects within a domain are linked
Implicit attitude measures
Physiological indicators

Question 4

Affective reactions

Mere exposure effect

Answer 4

Tend to be more controversial, not governed by logic, often linked to values
Context can influence affective reactions
Explained by classical conditioning (Krosnick et al, subliminal priming and participants evaluations)

Tendency to like a target due to repeated exposure
Moreland & Beach - 4 female confederates attended class in different frequencies
Doesn’t work if target initially causes negative effect

Question 5

Cognitive appraisals

Answer 5

Mostly involve utilitarian objects

Question 6

Assessment of past behaviour - self perception theory

Role playing

Answer 6

People come to know their own attitudes by looking at the context in which it occurs and inferring what their attitudes must be
Argues that no ousal occurs
More likely to be activated for vaguely held attitudes
Role playing = if you behave a certain way, your attitude will eventually change to match it

Question 7

Attitudes and physiology

Answer 7

If we are induced to make the bodily movements associated with certain attitudes/beliefs/emotions, we might find it easier to have those same attitudes/beliefs/emotions (we subconsciously draw on physical cues to figure out what we are feeling)
This challenges the idea that our cognitions are abstract representations in the brain → instead, they support the idea that these cognitions are partly embodied in physical movements

Question 8

When attitudes don’t predict behaviour
Introspection
Matching

Answer 8

Lapiere - tested if restaurants would refuse service to a Chinese couple after they said that they would on the phone
Attitudes can conflict with other determinants of behaviour –> e.g. the person’s understanding of the norms of appropriate behaviour
Introspection causes rift between attitude and behaviour (mostly for affective reactions)
Sometimes general attitudes don’t predict specific behaviours

Question 9

When do attitudes predict behaviour (4)? SMIC

Answer 9

When attitude is strong (it is extreme, it is important/relevant, and it is based on direct experience)
When behaviour is controllable
When measures match (specific to specific, general to general)
When attitudes are implicit

Question 10

Define cognitive dissonance theory

Answer 10

Attempts to explain how behaviour influences attitudes
We want our cognitions to be consistent with one another
Cognitive inconsistencies results in aversive arousal which motivates us to eliminate those inconsistencies
Influence of behaviour on attitudes shows that we are likely to rationalize behaviour to resolve inconsistencies between behaviour and attitude

Question 11

When does inconsistency produce dissonance? (4)

Answer 11

Behaviour was freely chosen
Behaviour wasn’t sufficiently justified
Behaviour had negative consequences
Negative consequences were foreseeable

Question 12

Counterattitudinal advocacy/induced compliance

Answer 12

Give people the illusion that they have freely performed a counterattitudinal behaviour to test if dissonance occurs
Festinger & Carlsmith - paid $20 or $1 to lie to someone about a task, $1 group showed more dissonance because $1 wasn’t enough justification for lying, they resolved dissonance by changing their attitude about the task
Forbidden toy paradigm - mild v.s. severe punishment conditions

Question 13

Effort justification paradigm

Answer 13

Tendency to reduce dissonance by justifying the time/effort/money devoted to something that turned out to be unworthwhile
Aronson & Mills - female participants underwent mildly vs severely embarrassing initiation to join boring discussion group, severe condition showed more dissonance because they spent more effort, ended up changing their attitudes about the boring discussion
E.g. hazing rituals, IKEA effect
Commitments can become entrenched even if it’s for a lost cause due to effort justification

Question 14

Free choice paradigm

Answer 14

Allow people to choose 1 of 2 equally positive alternatives to induce dissonance with their choice
Brehm - participants showed more dissonance and rationalization when asked to make difficult choice between 2 equal objects than when they were asked to choose between 2 obviously unequal objects

Question 15

Dissonance and the brain

Answer 15

Westen = fMRI shows prefrontal cortex activity when people experience dissonance
Prefrontal cortex is involved in decision making and reasoning
When dissonance is reduced, pleasure circuits are activated

Question 16

Self affirmation and dissonance

Answer 16

People try to reduce dissonance not only by dealing directly with specific threat but also indirectly taking stock of their other qualities and core values
Self affirmation can sometimes reduce the need to reduce dissonance

Question 17

Hypocrisy paradigm

Answer 17

Arouse dissonance by having people promote a socially desirable behaviour, then reminding them that they have not always exhibited that behaviour in the past
Stone - social desirable behaviour = safe sex, reminder = asked participants all the times they didn’t use a condom
Participants were extremely likely to buy condoms after the experiment, effects of changed behaviour to reduce dissonance were long lasting
Works between with individuals with high self esteem

Question 18

Dissonance across cultures

Answer 18

Canadian participants showed reduced dissonance in free choice paradigm when self affirmations were applied, Japanese participants showed little dissonance with or without self affirmations
However, in induced compliance study Japanese participants showed dissonance if they thought other students were watching their behaviour

Question 19

System justification theory

Answer 19

People are motivated to see the existing sociopolitical system as desirable, fair and legitimate
Typically an easier way of reducing dissonance than going out and bringing about change

Question 20

Terror management theory

Answer 20

People deal with the potentially crippling anxiety associated with the inevitability of death by striving for symbolic immortality (e.g. preserving cultural views, living up to their culture’s standards)
Often achieved by thinking of their parental role or embracing their culture and worldview more