Week 6 - Attitudes Flashcards
(27 cards)
What is an attitude?
Evaluation of an object or behavior in a positive or negative way
Tripartite (”ABC”) View of Attitudes
Affect: Emotional reactions to an attitude object
Behavior: Knowledge about interactions with an attitude object
Cognition: Thoughts about the attitude object
Components of attitude
Coffee:
Affect: I love it
Behavior: I drink it everyday
Cognition: It wakes me up
But, components are not always consistent
Affect: I love it
Behavior: I drink it everyday
Cognition: It gives me insomnia
Measuring attitudes: Explicit methods
Explicit methods involve self-reports
Pros:
Easy to write the questions and tailor to a specific attitude object
Easy to administer
Cons:
Prone to social desirability bias (tendency of survey respondents to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others)
May not capture everything we want
E.g., How accessible an attitude is - Ask something sensitive (racial issues) and people might not be willing to answer
Measuring attitudes: Implicit methods
Implicit methods involve things other than self-reports
- Implicit association task (IAT)
- > Assesses response latency—time taken to respond to a stimulus.
- > A common way of measuring implicit attitudes towards various racial, gender, religious, etc. groups
- Non-verbal (behavioural) measures
E.g., Sitting far away or close to a person/object. - Physiological measures
- > Increased heart rate, sweaty palms, brain event-related potentials (ERPs)
Implicit association task (IAT) - measuring prejudicial attitudes
Each race category is paired with stereotype consistent or inconsistent words
Categorization time and accuracy indicates implicit racial attitudes.
Implicit racial bias when:
- Faster and more accurate categorization when “good + White”, and “bad + Black” (Stereotype consistent)
- Slower and less accurate categorization when “good + Black”, and “bad + White” (Stereotype inconsistent)
Measuring Attitudes: Implicit methods
Pros:
- Response time can indicate attitude accessibility
- Less prone (but not completely immune) to social desirability bias
Cons:
- More difficult to administer
- > Time intensive
- > Requires a computer
- They still do not tell the full story behind one’s attitudes (Knowing a stereotype is different from endorsing a stereotype – being fast at identifying doesn’t mean you have this attitude issue of inference with this approach)
Attitudes & Behavior: A Two-Way Street
Previous behavior towards a target contributes to current attitude
However, current attitudes also cause future behavior
Sometimes attitudes and behavior don’t allign
LaPiere (1934)
Traveled across the U.S. with a Chinese couple in the 1930s, when anti-Chinese prejudice was very high
Contacted 250 restaurants to ask if they would serve Chinese customers—90% said that they would not.
However, when they actually visited these restaurants, they were only denied service at 1 of the 250 restaurants.
The link between attitudes and behavior have traditionally been weak in the literature
LaPiere’s study was among the first few research documenting a major puzzle in attitude research: Expressed attitudes don’t always predict actual behavior!
Four Reasons:
- Other powerful determinants of behaviour
- Inconsistent attitude components
- Inaccurate attitudes from introspection
- General attitudes vs. Specific behaviours
1: Other powerful determinants of behaviour
The Power of the Situation!
- Time pressure overrides positive attitudes toward helping
Darley & Batson (1973): “Good Samaritan Study” - Authority figure overrides negative attitudes toward shocking people
Milgram Study - LaPiere (1934): Social norms against “causing a scene” overrode negative attitudes toward Chinese
2: Inconsistent attitude components
Ambivalent Attitudes: Affective and cognitive components of attitudes may conflict (i.e., liking and disliking something at the same time)
example:
Negative Cognition: The restaurant owners might have been focusing on their prejudices when answering the surveys
Positive Affect: But when the couple was actually in front of them, they were overwhelmed by their pleasantness, making them want to be compassionate and helpful as well.
3: Inaccurate Attitudes From Introspection
Introspection (examining one’s own thoughts) can lead to inaccurate attitudes.
Introspection leads to more accurate attitudes that are more cognitive-based, because the actual reasons are more easy to pin down and articulate (e.g., I support shops that charge plastic bag usage because plastics are bad for the environment.)
Introspection leads to less accurate attitudes that are more affective-based, because the actual reasons are harder to pin down and articulate (e.g., I love my partner because…??????)
4: General Attitudes vs. Specific Behaviours
Attitudes can be quite broad, but behaviors are often specific
E.g. Attitude towards doing good (broad) vs. donation (specific)
When attitudes and behavior are at the same level of specificity, attitudes are better predictors of behavior
- Specific attitudes predict behaviors better then general attitudes!
e. g. The more specific your attitude is towards birth control, the more likely you will behave consistently with your attitude.
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Inconsistency between thoughts, feelings, and actions creates an aversive state known as dissonance.
- This aversive feeling leads people to attempt to restore consistency.
- We will change whatever is easiest in order to reduce dissonance and restore consistency.
When does Cognitive Dissonance typically occur?
- Post-Decision Dissonance: After deciding between two (or more) alternatives
- Effort Justification: After undergoing a lot of effort to do something
- Induced (Forced) Compliance: After being induced to behave in a way that does not match your beliefs, attitudes or values.
- Post-Decision Dissonance
Conflict between your choice and the forgone choice, especially when the forgone choice is equally or more attractive
E.g., I like SMU and NUS, but I chose to go to SMU
We rationalize our decisions to reduce dissonance and restore consistency.
Horse Race Betting (Knox & Inkster, 1968):
- While waiting in line to purchase their ticket, betters tended to say their horses had a fair chance of winning.
- After purchasing their tickets, betters said their horses had a good chance of winning.
- Effort Justification
When you have devoted time, effort, or money to something that has turned out to be unpleasant or disappointing, you tend to justify why you spent all that time, effort, and money.
i.e. Fraternity hazing tends to increase commitment.
- Induced (Forced) Compliance
After being induced to behave in a way that does not match your beliefs, attitudes or values.
e.g. the peg study
If you cant change your behaviour, you can only change your attitude -> change attitude to reduce dissonance
When Does Inconsistency Due to Forced Compliance Lead to Dissonance?
1) Choice
When the behavior is freely chosen (e.g., agreeing to lie), more dissonance is experienced.
2) Insufficient justification
The less incentive (e.g., $1 to lie) that someone has for performing an attitude-inconsistent behavior, the more dissonance is experienced.
3) Negative consequences
When the behavior does not result in any negative consequences, less dissonance is experienced.
4) Foreseeability
If the negative consequences of a behavior could not have been predicted or avoided, less dissonance is experienced.
When Rewards Backfire: The Over-Justification Effect
Over-justification effect: When rewards/external incentives decreases one’s intrinsic motivation to perform a task
Providing huge incentives (e.g., stickers) tend to make kids justify their reading behavior as tied to rewards, and be less likely to enjoy reading for its intrinsic benefits.
If you want to persuade people to engage in a behavior for the right reasons, provide as little incentive/coercion as possible (make them feel dissonance!)
Is Dissonance Universal?
The “Spreading of Alternatives” Effect
The chosen CD was ranked much higher while the foregone CD was ranked much lower. Alternatives were “spread” to justify decision and reduce dissonance.
Japanese participants did not “spread their alternatives”.
However, Japanese participants did show this effect when they thought they were observed by others, or if they had to choose the CD for a friend.
Self-Perception Theory
A rival to cognitive dissonance theory.
According to this theory, we don’t experience dissonance and we don’t change our attitudes.
People come to know their own attitudes by looking at their behavior and the context in which it occurred and inferring what their attitudes must be.
Example: I just donated to the SPCA… I guess I care about animal rights!
Dissonance vs. Self-perception
The two theories make the same predictions about attitudes, but differ the process involved: attitude change (from dissonance) vs. attitude inferred.
Cognitive Dissonance Theory:
I told them the task was fun -> inconsistent with my attitude -> dissonance & arousal -> change my attitude ->the task was fun!
Self-Perception Theory:
I told them the task was fun -> inconsistent with my attitude -> infer attitude from behaviour -> the task was fun!
Cognitive dissonance: Behaviour (inconsistent with strong attitude) -> Arousal/Dissonance -> Attitude
Self-perception: Behaviour (inconsistent with weak attitude) -> Attitude
