Ch. 7 - Attitudes, Behaviour and Rationalization Flashcards
(20 cards)
Define attitude
Individual’s evaluation of a target
Can be positive, negative, ambivalent or neutral
Why do we evaluate? 2 functions
Object appraisal = determine whether object is positive or negative, has adaptive value
Value expressive = allows us to convey our identity to others
Measures of attitudes (5)
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
Affective reactions
Mere exposure effect
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
Cognitive appraisals
Mostly involve utilitarian objects
Assessment of past behaviour - self perception theory
Role playing
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
Attitudes and physiology
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
When attitudes don’t predict behaviour
Introspection
Matching
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
When do attitudes predict behaviour (4)? SMIC
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
Define cognitive dissonance theory
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
When does inconsistency produce dissonance? (4)
Behaviour was freely chosen
Behaviour wasn’t sufficiently justified
Behaviour had negative consequences
Negative consequences were foreseeable
Counterattitudinal advocacy/induced compliance
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
Effort justification paradigm
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
Free choice paradigm
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
Dissonance and the brain
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
Self affirmation and dissonance
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
Hypocrisy paradigm
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
Dissonance across cultures
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
System justification theory
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
Terror management theory
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
