LivingstonPSYB10Lect ure3 09 24 2007

The Social Psychology of Attitudes: 

1 The Social Psychology of Attitudes PSYB10 (Fall Term 2007) Lecture Date: September 24, 2007 Course Instructor: Steve Livingston

Slide2: 

2

What are “attitudes”?: 

3 What are “attitudes”? Summary evaluations of targets/objects Attitude objects can be abstract or concrete Attitude objects can be general or specific

Slide4: 

4

Slide5: 

5

Slide6: 

6

Slide7: 

7

Slide8: 

8

Slide9: 

9

Slide10: 

10

Slide11: 

11

Slide12: 

12

Slide13: 

13

Slide14: 

14

Slide15: 

15

Slide16: 

16

Slide17: 

17

Slide18: 

18

Slide19: 

19

Components of Attitudes: 

20 Components of Attitudes Three components (or bases): Affective (feelings) Behavioral (past actions and future intentions) Cognitive (thoughts)

Slide21: 

21

Components of Attitudes: 

22 Components of Attitudes Three components (or bases): Affective (feelings) Behavioral (past actions and future intentions) Cognitive (thoughts) Following this tripartite model, Breckler (1984) showed existence of separate components Not all components are present in all attitudes

Explicit and Implicit Attitudes: 

23 Explicit and Implicit Attitudes Explicit attitudes: object evaluations that can be consciously reported Implicit attitudes: object evaluations that occur automatically and (potentially) without conscious awareness Note: difference between explicit/implicit attitudes and explicit/implicit measures

Why Consistency Matters: 

24 Why Consistency Matters “I enjoy the taste of mint chip ice cream, and I eat it quite often, and I know that it is rich in calcium.” vs. “I enjoy the taste of mint chip ice cream, and I eat it quite often, but I know that it is quite high in fat and calories.” Consistency implies stronger attitudes!

Katz’s (1960) Functionalist Theory: 

25 Katz’s (1960) Functionalist Theory Suggested attitudes serve multiple functions: Instrumental (maximize reward/minimize danger) Object appraisal (knowledge and organization) Value-expression (reinforce self-image) Ego-defense (e.g., “reaction formation”) One attitude might serve multiple functions

Slide26: 

26

Measuring Attitudes: 

27 Measuring Attitudes

Direct Attitude Measures: 

28 Direct Attitude Measures Useful for consciously reportable attitudes Self-report measures Likert type scales (unipolar or bipolar) Semantic-differential scales Open-ended responses Bogus pipeline technique

Unipolar Attitude Scales: 

29 Unipolar Attitude Scales 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Do not support it at all Support it completely “How much do you support the tuition increase?”

Bipolar Attitude Scales: 

30 Bipolar Attitude Scales -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Dislike it very much Like it very much “How do you feel about the tuition increase?”

Open-Ended Attitude Response: 

31 Open-Ended Attitude Response “In the space below, list your thoughts and feelings about the tuition increase.”

Direct Attitude Measures: 

32 Direct Attitude Measures Problems with direct attitude measures: Social desirability response bias Attitudes may not be available to awareness People may not be able to articulate attitude Inadequacy of response scales Biasing effects of response scales Coding problems (for open-ended scales)

Evaluative Priming Paradigm: 

33 Evaluative Priming Paradigm (1) Present a “prime” (e.g., faces or names) either subliminally or supraliminally (2) Present a supraliminal “target” (e.g., letter string) for judgment (e.g., word/non-word) (3) Examine response latencies to target words as a function of exposure to primes

Slide34: 

34

Slide35: 

35 GOOD

Slide36: 

36

Slide37: 

37 BAD

Slide38: 

38

Slide39: 

39 GOOD

Slide40: 

40

Slide41: 

41 BAD

Will the Real Attitude Please Stand Up?: 

42 Will the Real Attitude Please Stand Up? Controversy persists concerning: (a) how we can best measure attitudes (b) whether people can simultaneously hold more than one attitude about the same object Showing convergence with multiple attitude measures is the best approach Remember: no single operational definition (measure) can fully capture the construct of interest

Attitude Formation: 

43 Attitude Formation

Attitude Formation: 

44 Attitude Formation Genetic components

Slide45: 

45

Slide46: 

46

Slide47: 

47

Olson, Vernon, Harris, & Jang (2001): 

48 Olson, Vernon, Harris, & Jang (2001) Tested 195 monozygotic (“identical”) twin pairs and 141 dizygotic (“fraternal”) twin pairs Assessed attitudes toward a variety of objects, ideas, and behaviors (e.g., smoking, sweets, roller coaster rides, playing chess, public speaking, death penalty, etc.) Found that attitudes were generally more similar in MZ pairs than in DZ pairs However, non-shared environmental experiences accounted for the most variance in each attitude

Attitude Formation: 

49 Attitude Formation Genetic components Learning processes: Classical, operant, vicarious conditioning “Negativity bias” (e.g., Ito et al., 1997, JPSP) Cultural influences Mere exposure effect

Slide50: 

50 Robert Zajonc

Attitude Formation: 

51 Attitude Formation Genetic components Learning processes: Classical, operant, vicarious conditioning “Negativity bias” (e.g., Ito et al., 1997, JPSP) Cultural influences Mere exposure effect Self-perception theory

Attitude Strength: 

52 Attitude Strength

Features of Stronger Attitudes: 

53 Features of Stronger Attitudes Resistant to change Hard to effectively persuade the person Persistent over time Attitude is consistent at T1, T2, … ,TX Influential in cognition and judgment Directs the types of thoughts that come to mind Predictive of behavioral outcomes Attitude strength  attitude-behavior correspondence

Does Attitude Extremity Equal Strength?: 

54 Does Attitude Extremity Equal Strength? Extremity of attitudes and strength of attitudes are related but not equivalent Why aren’t they equivalent?

Extremity ≠ Strength: 

55 Extremity ≠ Strength

Attitude Change and Persuasion: 

56 Attitude Change and Persuasion

Attitude Change: 

57 Attitude Change Elaboration likelihood model “Elaboration” = deep thinking about message Two routes to attitude change

Slide58: 

58 John Cacioppo Richard Petty

Elaboration Likelihood Model: 

59 Elaboration Likelihood Model Persuasive Message Central Route Peripheral Route Attitude Change (if any) Argument Quality “Cues” in Message

Slide60: 

60

Slide61: 

61 Possible response under low elaboration “She recommends Maybelline, and she’s attractive. Therefore, I feel good about Maybelline cosmetics.”

Slide62: 

62 Possible response under high elaboration “She recommends Maybelline, and she’s attractive. Using Maybelline products probably contributes to her attractiveness. Therefore, I feel good about Maybelline cosmetics.”

Slide63: 

63

Attitude Change: 

64 Attitude Change Elaboration likelihood model “Elaboration” = deep thinking about message Two routes to attitude change Likelihood of elaboration is determined by… Factors related to motivation (e.g., personal involvement; Need for Cognition) Factors related to ability (e.g., available cognitive resources; knowledge about topic)

Why Does Elaboration Matter?: 

65 Why Does Elaboration Matter? Attitude change achieved via central route processing tends to be long-lasting and more resistant to further change Attitude change achieved via peripheral route processing tends to be transitory and less resistant to further change

Raise Your Hand If…: 

66 Raise Your Hand If…

Slide67: 

67

Slide68: 

68 Ben Franklin: Publisher, scientist, philosopher, inventor, librarian, humorist, statesman, bon vivant, and lapsed vegetarian

Slide69: 

69

Slide70: 

70

Slide71: 

71

Slide72: 

72 Leon Festinger

Relationships between Cognitions: 

73 Relationships between Cognitions Consonant: “I believe safer sex is important, and I always use condoms.” Dissonant: “I believe safer sex is important, and I rarely use condoms.” Irrelevant: “I believe safer sex is important, and I like horror movies.”

Cognitive Dissonance: 

74 Cognitive Dissonance Occurs when thoughts (cognitions) are in conflict with each other (dissonance) Causes unpleasant tension/arousal How do we reduce dissonance, and what are the consequences?

Resolving Cognitive Dissonance: 

75 Resolving Cognitive Dissonance Changing behavior to bring it in line with dissonant cognition: “I’m going to start using condoms!” Justifying behavior by changing one of the dissonant cognitions: “Having safer sex really isn’t all that important to me.” Justifying behavior by adding new cognitions: “I’m in a committed relationship, so there is no need.”

Slide76: 

76

Resolving Cognitive Dissonance: 

77 Resolving Cognitive Dissonance It is often hard to change our behavior -- especially after the fact! -- so we tend to change our cognitions instead Examples: The Livingstons buy electronic equipment Abusive domestic relationships The Fox and the Grapes (Aesop)

Slide78: 

78 Aesop’s Fables

Festinger, Schacter, & Riecken (1956): 

79 Festinger, Schacter, & Riecken (1956) Participant observation of a UFO cult (“The Brotherhood of the Seven Rays”) that predicted the end of the world in 1954 Their leader “received a message from an alien intelligence” that a cataclysmic flood that would destroy the world on Dec. 21st Luckily, the cult members would be saved!

Slide80: 

80

Festinger, Schacter, & Riecken (1956): 

81 Festinger, Schacter, & Riecken (1956) The flood never happened (obviously!) Leader then received new message… Due to the faith and prayers of the cultists, God had spared the world from the flood! The group then began to actively proselytize, but dissolved when that was unsuccessful

Festinger & Carlsmith (1959): 

82 Festinger & Carlsmith (1959) Movie time! Note: You can read the original journal article online! http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Festinger/

Slide83: 

83

Aronson & Mills (1959): 

84 Aronson & Mills (1959) Women underwent a mild or severe initiation process to gain admission to a discussion group about sexuality It turned out that the “discussion group” was dull (recorded conversation on animal mating behavior) Those who underwent a severe initiation rated the discussion group experience more favorably

Aronson & Carlsmith (1963): 

85 Aronson & Carlsmith (1963) Children told not to play with an attractive toy, under threat of either mild or severe punishment No children played with the attractive toy Children in mild threat condition rated toy as less attractive than those in severe threat condition

Aronson & Carlsmith (1963): 

86 Aronson & Carlsmith (1963) Replication by Freedman (1965) used a follow-up visit by children to lab The attitude effect persisted 3 weeks later! Importantly, no threat presented at follow-up

Dickerson et al. (1992): 

87 Dickerson et al. (1992) Experimenter had young women sign a publicly-displayed poster saying that they supported water conservation Some women then asked about average length of showers (hypocrisy induction) Hypocrisy induction after public commitment led to much shorter showers (on average, 7 minutes less!!) Those who only signed poster or who were only asked about average shower did not take shorter showers

Spreading of Alternatives: 

88 Spreading of Alternatives After choosing between two similar choice alternatives, each with relative advantages and disadvantages, dissonance should be produced Why? Because making a choice means incurring some disadvantages (from the option we chose) and forgoing some advantages (from the option we do not choose) How can a person then resolve this dissonance?

Slide89: 

89

Brehm (1956): 

90 Brehm (1956) Demonstrated post-decisional “spread” for ratings of things that were initially rated very similarly Participants ranked a series of 8 household items as to their desirability; then given a choice to keep one of two similarly-ranked items; then asked to rank all items again The chosen item is usually ranked higher (i.e., as more desirable) than before, the other item is rated lower (i.e., as less desirable) than before

Slide91: 

91 Daryl Bem

Self-Perception Theory: 

92 Self-Perception Theory Suggests that people infer their attitudes from their behavior toward an object Challenges the idea that motivating arousal is necessary for attitude change Especially likely when attitudes are weak (e.g., not much experience with the object)

Is Dissonance a Universal Experience?: 

93 Is Dissonance a Universal Experience? Some people seem to have a higher tolerance for dissonant cognitions (Newby-Clark, McGregor, & Zanna, 2002) “Western” societies emphasize consistency in behavior more than do many others May derive from different philosophical traditions

Summary: 

94 Summary Tripartite model of attitude structure Challenges of measuring attitudes (validity!!) Attitude-behavior relationship is bidirectional Consistency motive and cognitive dissonance