U2 - Attitudes

Attitudes

long lasting evaluations we hold about ourselves, other people, objects and issues

Explicit attitudes

Consciously held beliefs and opinions that individuals are aware of and can self report

Functions of explicit attitudes

1. Utilitarian function: serve as practical purpose by helping us gain rewards or avoid punishments
2. Knowledge function: help us organise and structure our knowledge about the world, making it easier to understand and predict
3. Ego-defensive function: can be used to protect our self esteem and maintain a positive self image
4. Value-expressive function: allow us to express our values and beliefs to others, helping us create and maintain social identity

Implicit attitudes

Unconscious and automatic evaluations that are difficult to self report

Functions of implicit attitudes

1. Adaptive function: help us navigate our environment quickly by automatically guiding our behaviour and responses
2. Implicit bias: can lead to implicit biases, influencing our judgements and actions without our conscious awareness
3. Influence on behaviour: have been found to have a stronger impact on spontaneous behaviours compared to explicit attitudes
4. Unconscious influence: influence our perceptions, preferences, and decision-making processes without our explicit knowledge

Implicit association test (IAT)

Test that measures the strength of associations between concepts and evaluations

Affective component of tripartite model

Feelings and emotions about the attitude object

Behavioural component of tripartite model

behavioural or action-oriented aspect of an attitude

* predictable - if an individual has already acted in a specific manner to a similar experience or object, it is likely his behaviour will be consistent when the person is faced with the item again

Cognitive component of tripartite model

Our beliefs and knowledge about the attitude object

* Driven by knowledge and information

Application of the Tripartite model

• Helps us understand attitude change, formation and persuasion

• Allows researchers to examine how different components of attitudes can be influenced and altered

• Psychologists can design interventions to modify attitudes for various purposes

Limitation of the Tripartite model

* Does not indicate the strength of an attitude, it can only be used to indicate the direction of an attitude
* Can be a difference between what a person thinks and feels, and their behaviour
* Two components of the model (thoughts and feelings) cannot be observed directly. We rely on observing behaviour

Cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1957)

The mental discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes.

Signs of cognitive dissonance

* Feeling uncomfortable before doing something or making a decision
* Trying to justify or rationalise a decision you've made or action you've taken
* Feeling embarrassed about something you've done, or trying to hide your actions from other people
* Experiencing guilt or regret about something you've done in the past
* Doing things because of social pressure even if it wasn't something you wanted to do

effect of forced compliance on cognitive dissonance

engaging in behaviours that are opposed to your own beliefs due to external expectations at work, school or in social situations

effect of new information on cognitive dissonance

If you engage in a behaviour that you later learn is harmful it can lead to feelings of discomfort. People deal with this by finding ways to discredit or ignore new information

effect of decisions on cognitive dissonance

when faced with two similar choices we are often left with feelings of dissonance because both options are equally appealing

Behaviour avoidance

tendency to avoid situations or actions that create cognitive dissonance

Behaviour reduction

minimising the frequency or intensity of a behaviour that conflicts with our attitudes or beliefs

Rationalisation

creating justifications or alternative explanations to reduce cognitive dissonance

magnitude of cognitive dissonance

the strength or importance of the conflicting elements involved

factors influencing magnitude

1. Importance of the belief or attitude

2. Consequences of the behaviour

3. Number of dissonant beliefs

Aim of Festinger and Carlsmith

To investigate if making people perform a dull task would create cognitive dissonance through forced compliance behaviour

Method of Festinger and Carlsmith

71 male students were given dull tasks such as turning pegs in a peg board for an hour. They were paid either $1 or $20 to tell a waiting participant that the tasks were really interesting

Results of Festinger and Carlsmith

Participants who were paid only $1 rated the tedious task as more fun and enjoyable than the participants who were paid $20 to lie.

Conclusion of Festinger and Carlsmith

$1 is not a sufficient incentive for lying, so those who were paid $1 experience dissonance. They could overcome that dissonance by believing that the tasks were interesting and enjoyable.

Being paid $20 provides a reason for turning pegs, therefore there is no dissonance.

Attribution theory

Psychological framework that seeks to explain how individuals interpret and explain the causes of behaviour

Attributions

inferences we make about the cause of an event, the behaviour of others or our own behaviour

Internal attributions

attributions that often blame personal factors, such as traits, attitudes, feelings, genetics and abilities of an even of a behaviour

External attributions

When people attribute the causes of events or behaviours to external factors, such as physical environment, outside of themselves

Actor observer bias

The tendency to explain our own actions by external factors, and explain the action of others by internal factors

Cognitive bias

a subconscious systematic error in thinking that occurs when people are processing and interpreting information in the world around them

Fundamental attribution error

when people place too much emphasis on dispositional attribution, and too little emphasis on situational attribution



 

Implications of fundamental attribution error

* Miscommunication and conflict


* Stereotyping and prejudice - contributes to the formation and reinforcement of stereotypes, leading to prejudice and discrimination
* Legal and justice systems - can influence judgments in legal and justice systems, potentially leading to unfair treatment

Social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979)

Theory that proposes a person’ sense of self is based on the group they belong to

Social categorisation

where we sort people and objects so we are able to understand and identify them

Social identification

the process of adopting the group’s identity and value as one’s own

Social comparison

comparing our in-group with other groups to affirm our identity

Stereotype

generalised and simplified belief about a group of people or a person based on their membership or perceived membership to a group

Self fulfilling prophecy

A prediction that directly or indirectly becomes true due to positive feedback between belief and behaviour

tri-component model of stereotypes

* Cognitive - assumptions are made about a group of people or person
* Affective - feelings are either friendly or hostile towards a group of people based on an assumption
* Behavioural - behaviour towards a group of people is influenced by the assumption

Prejudice

A preconceived opinion, belief or attitude held by individuals or groups towards others based on their perceived membership in another group

Three components of prejudice

1. stereotypes

2. negative feelings

3. tendency to act in a discriminatory way

Just world phenomenon

The assumption that people get what they deserve

* When a group has more power, group, status and money than another group, there is a tendency for the "haves" to consider that they are well-off due to their hard work and intelligence

Social categorisation (forming prejudice)

simply categorising people into groups is enough to trigger in-group favouritism and out-group rejection

Social influence

attitudes towards others, including prejudice can be learned from other people in their live

Inter-group competition

prejudice arises against groups that are seen to be a threat as competition leads to increased in-group cohesiveness and cooperation

Cognitive interventions

Strategies that try to change the way people think about members of out groups

Decategorisation

emphasises categories that cut across basic in-group/out-group divisions.

Individuation

involves seeking information about people as individuals, rather than accepting stereotypes about the group to which they may belong

Contact hypothesis

suggests that interpersonal contact between groups can reduce prejudice

Conditions for contact hypothesis to reduce prejudice

* Equal status


* Superordinate goal: goals that are worth completing but require two or more social groups to cooperatively achieve. The members of the two groups work together towards a common goal
* Mutual independence: two or more people must depend on one another to meet each person's needs or goals
* Institutional support - group leaders support the contact between the groups

Aim of the Robbers Cave Experiment

To investigate the causes and consequences of intergroup conflict and the conditions under which cooperation and harmony between groups could be achieved

Method of Robbers Cave Experiment

Researchers selected 22 eleven-year-old boys from similar backgrounds to participate in the study. They were sent to a remote summer camp in Oklahoma, Robbers Cave State Park. The study was divided into three main parts

Stage 1 of the Robbers Cave Experiment

Formation of groups - researchers divided the boys into two separate groups; the Eagles and the Rattlers

Stage 2 of the Robbers Cave Experiment

Intergroup competition - the two groups were introduced to each other and took part in a series of competitive activities

Stage 3 of the Robbers Cave Experiment

Intergroup cooperation - researchers attempted to reduce hostility and foster cooperation between the two groups by introducing situations that required both groups to work together

Results of the Robbers Cave Experiment

* During the second phase of intergroup competition, the boys developed strong in-group identities and exhibited hostility towards members of the out-group
* During the third phase (intergroup cooperation) the boys worked together towards common goals and started to form friendships and positive attitudes towards each other

Conclusion of the Robbers Cave Experiment

demonstrated how intergroup conflict can emerge even in arbitrary and minimal groupings, and how cooperation and positive intergroup attitudes can be fostered through the promotion of shared goals and interdependence

Ethical considerations of the Robbers Cave Experiment

* Informed consent - participants were deceived as they did not know the true aim of the study
* Psychological harm - participants were not protected from physical and psychological harm 

Generalisability of the Robbers Cave Experiment

Results can't be generalised to real life, because the research only used white, middle class boys. It excluded females, adults, different cultures and ethnicities