Week 6 - Attitudes Flashcards
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.
