PSYC 2245 Chapter 6

Attitudes

Evaluations of people, objects or ideas, positive, negative or neutral. Made up of 3 components, an affective component (emotional reactions towards the attitude object), a cognitive component (thoughts and beliefs about the attitude object) and a behavioural component (actions or observable behaviour towards the attitude object).

Affectively based attitude

An attitude based primarily on people's emotions and feelings about the attitude object. Rooted more in emotions and feelings. (ex. falling in love someone even though they have a past of being untrustworthy, think of topics that shouldn't be discussed at a dinner party like politics, sex and religion)

Cognitively based attitudes

An attitude based primarily on a person's belief about the properties of an attitude object. Based on relevant facts, allowing us to classify the pros and cons of an object. (Ex. attitude towards your vacuum cleaner, based off the cost or how effective it is)

Behavioural based attitudes

An attitude based primarily on observations of how one behaves toward an attitude object. Self-perception theory, don't know your attitude until you evaluate your past behaviours. (Ex. attitude towards exercising, "I guess I like it because I'm always at the gym")

Ambivalent attitudes

Attitudes that are both positive and negative at the same time. People in this state feel more uncertain or indecisive and are more open to persuasion

Explicit Attitudes

Attitudes that we consciously endorse and can easily report. Consciously aware of how you feel

Implicit Attitudes

Attitudes that are involuntary, uncontrollable, and at times unconscious. Automatic reactions we are not aware of.

Where do attitudes come from?

Classical conditioning, operant conditioning, observational learning

Mere Exposure Effect

The tendency for liking to increase with the frequency of exposure. We like what is familiar to us even when it is through a subliminal exposure (Even when we don't consciously remember seeing the stimuli). The more familiar the stimuli is, the more they are positively perceived.

Predicating Spontaneous Behaviours

Attitudes can only predict when they are highly accessible to people. When it is high, your attitude comes to mind whenever you think about or see the attitude object, when it isn't accessible, the attitude comes to mind more slowly. Also depends on the degree of experience, first hand experience (ex. persons attitude toward homeless people after volunteering), minimal experience like reading a newspaper, the more direct the more accessible it will be and the more likely behaviour will be consistent with the attitude.

Theory of planned behaviour

A theory that the best predictors of people's planned deliberate behaviours are their attitudes towards specific behaviours, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. When people have time to contemplate how they are going to behave, the best predictor of their behaviour is their intention which in turn is determined by their attitudes towards the behaviour, their subjective norma and their perceived behavioural control

Attitude toward the behaviour

People's specific attitude toward the behaviour, not their general attitude. The more specific the attitude toward the behaviour, the more likely that the attitude will predict behaviour.

Subjective norms

People's beliefs about how other people they care about will view the behaviour in question.

Perceived behavioural control

The ease with which people believe they can perform the behaviour. If people think it is hard to stick to a behaviour they will not form a strong intention to do it. If people think it is easy to perform like remembering to buy milk they are more likely to form a strong intention.

Persuasive Communication

Communication advocating a particular side of an issue. How attitudes can be changed.

Yale Attitude Change Approach

The study of the conditions under which people are most likely to change their attitudes in response to persuasive messages; it focuses on the source of the communication, the nature of the communication and the nature of the audience.

Source of communication (Source Variable)

Speakers who are credible, trustworthy, attractive or likeable are more persuasive

Nature of the communication

Messages that do not aim to influence others, presenting two sides of an argument and when it is delivered (primacy and recency effect) make the message more likely to persuade.

Nature of the audience

An audience that is distracted, less educated, emotional or they generally have weaker attitudes are more likely to be persuaded.

Elaborative Likelihood Model

A theory explaining that there are two ways in which persuasive communications can cause attitude change: the central route (people are motivated and have the ability to pay attention to the arguments in the communication) and the peripheral route (when people do not pay attention to the arguments but are instead swayed by surface characteristics)

Central route to persuasion

The case in which people have the ability and the motivation to elaborate on a persuasive communication, listening carefully to and thinking about the arguments. If you are effortfully processing the information.

Peripheral Route to Persuasion

The case in which people do not elaborate on the arguments in a persuasive communication but are instead swayed by more superficial cues. Usually includes all the source variables like how likable, attractive, popular, or trustworthy the presenter might be. Gathering info through other sources that aren't the actual message like asking others about their attitudes.

When are the routes used?

Depends on motivation and ability.

High motivation and high ability = Central route

High motivation but low ability = Peripheral route

Low motivation but high ability = Peripheral route

- Want to use peripheral when your argument is weak

- Want to use central usually because it is longer lasting

- If you are persuaded or not you are still being influenced

Motivation to pay attention

Affected by personal relevance, if it affects you in some way you are more likely to be motivated to listen.

Ability to pay attention

When people are unable to pay close attention to the arguments, they are swayed more by peripheral cues. If we are under cognitive load or don't have enough knowledge (like a knowledge of cars) we are more likely to take the peripheral route.

Fear-Arousing Communication

A persuasive message that attempts to change people's attitudes by arousing their fears.

Does fear-arousing communication work?

It does work but:

- It needs to evoke enough fear to cause a reaction

- Too much fear wouldn't work because they are too scared to process the information

It needs to be a moderate level of fear where the person does not get comfortable after repeatedly being exposed. Best way this can work is showing how the feared thing can be avoided, providing solutions.

Subliminal Messages

Words or pictures that are not consciously perceived but that supposedly influence people's judgements, attitudes, and behaviours

Do subliminal messages work?

Does not work, but could be connected to the mere exposure effect (seeing brand or logo frequently will create a positive attitude towards it, even if you are annoyed by it) and classical conditioning (pairing something we already like with a positive attitude, doesn't have to have a clear association)

Attitude inoculation

The process of making people immune to attempts to change their attitudes by exposing them to small doses of the arguments against their position. Like vaccines, exposing someone to a small dose of the virus so they become better prepared for the actual virus. Making people resistant to attitude change. (Ex. Pressure to smoke, weak argument is that it's cool, can easily come up with counter arguments against this)

Cognitive dissonance

A feeling of discomfort caused by the realization that one's behaviour is inconsistent with one's attitudes or that one holds two conflicting attitudes. Whenever we say or do something that is inconsistent with our prior attitudes or behaviour we experience dissonance.

Ways to reduce dissonance

1. Change our behaviour (Ex. start exercising, quit smoking)

2. Modify dissonant cognitions (Ex. changing your attitude, you agree less than before)

3. Add new cognitions to justify our behaviour (Adding new ideas or reasonings)

Post decision dissonance

Dissonance that is aroused after making a decision; such dissonance is typically reduced by enhancing the attractiveness of the chosen alternative and devaluing the rejected alternatives. Usually during harder decisions, trying to convince yourself you made the right choice. Changing your attitude about both options

Spreading of alternatives

People tend to downplay the item they did not choose and promote the item that they did choose. Changing attitude and eventually becoming more positive about the choice made.

Justification of Effort

The tendency for individuals to increase their liking for something they have worked hard to attain. Self-justification - we justify our actions in order to avoid dissonance and maintain self-esteem (Ex. performing difficult and embarrassing tasks to get into a club, because you put a lot of effort into it you justify your actions). The more effort you put in, the harder you will try to justify your effort. Results in increased commitment, greater satisfaction and resistance to change or leaving

External Justification

A person's reason or explanation for dissonant behaviour that resides outside the individual (to receive a large reward or avoid punishment)

Internal Justification

The reduction of dissonance by changing something about oneself (ones attitude or behaviour)

Counter attitudinal behaviour

Acting in a way that runs counter to a person's private belief or attitude. This inconsistency creates cognitive dissonance

Insufficient Punishment

The dissonance aroused when individuals lack sufficient external justification for having resisted a desired activity or object, usually resulting in individuals devaluing the forbidden activity or object (Ex. "I'm not beating up kids because I'll get kicked out of school" the less severe the threat, the less external justification, the higher the need for internal justification)

Self-perception theory and dissonance theory

Self-perception states that we infer our attitudes from our behaviours, if we look back at our past behaviours, it can explain all of the cognitive dissonance theories. Dissonance theory states that we want to reduce the uncomfortable state where self perception is looking at it objectively, not involving discomfort. The difference is the level of discomfort or aversion

Motivational component to dissonance

Physiological arousal state that energizes us to restore consistency, dissonance activates the body and reducing dissonance calms it down (Wright et al., 1992 experiment)

Aftermath of good or bad deeds

What happens when we do a favour for someone? - improves our attitude towards them, "if I did something for them I must like them"

If we harm someone - becomes a slippery slope, justifying harmful behaviours because others "deserve it"

Cheating scenario (decision to behave immorally)

Step by step you become more lenient towards these morally wrong behaviours, temptation to do something wrong. Start at the same place and end up in different places (Ex. "anyone would have cheated in my situation" or "cheating is terrible")

Hypocrisy induction

The arousal of dissonance by having individuals make statements that run counter to their behaviours and then reminding them of the inconsistency between what they are saying and their actual behaviour. Making people aware of the dissonance between what they are doing and what they are preaching.

Rationalization trap

A person keeps self-justifying their behaviour until their behaviour becomes increasingly immoral, can result in dehumanization, happens over time (Ex. "people deserve it" dehumanize people to rationalize what they are doing), self-perpetuating cycle

How to avoid - being self aware, taking responsibility, seeking feedback, practicing humility, engage in self-affirmation

Self-Affirmation Theory

A theory suggesting that people will reduce the impact of a dissonance-arousing threat to their self concept by focusing on and affirming their competence on some dimension unrelated to the threat. (Thinking about your capabilities, you can then accept when you do something bad because you know your abilities in other areas). Instead of justifying the wrongdoing, we affirm other positive aspects of ourselves, protecting our self-esteem without denying the mistake

Rationalization trap and self-affirmation

Rationalization happens when we repeatedly justify small wrongs to reduce dissonance, self-affirmation helps break this cycle by protecting our self-worth in a healthy way, we can admit mistakes without needing to rationalize them