Attitudes - PSY2001

Methods for measuring Attitudes

Self-report measures

Covert measures

Self report measures

Interviews and Focus Groups

Attitude scales

Covert measures

Behavioural measures

Affective measures - Implicit association test

Physiological measures - Facial Electromyography, Pupil Dilation

Mere-Exposure effect (Zajonc, 1968)

Repeated exposure increases liking (e.g., Fang et al., 2007 - more frequent banter and exposure increased positive ratings)

Evaluative Conditioning

Attitudes form by pairing neural stimuli with positive / negative ones

(e.g. Biegler & Vargas, 2016 - flu drug rated more positively when paired with pleasant imagery)

Self Perception Theory

People infer attitudes by observing their behaviour (e.g., Strack et al., 1988 - pen-in-teeth posture led to rating cartoons as funnier).

Facial Feedback Hypothesis

Expressions (like smiling) can influence emotional experiences and attitude formation.

Explicit Attitudes

Deliberate and conscious evaluations

Measured via self reports, questionnaires

Implicit Attitudes

Unconscious, automatic associations not accessible through introspection

Measured via IAT, physiological responses, EMG

Katz' 4 key functions of attitudes

Utilitarian

Ego-Defensive

Value-Expressive

Knowledge/Cognitive economy

Utilitarian

Attitudes help gain rewards and avoid punishment

E.g., Positive attitude toward a political party that promises economic benefits.

Ego-Defensive

Protects self-esteem and defends against internal/external threats

E.g., Students devalue information inconsistent with their self-image (Knight Lapinski & Boster, 2001).

Value-expressive

Reflects personal values and self-concept

E.g., Positive stance on LGBTQ+ rights to reflect value of equality.

Knowledge/Cognitive Economy

Simplifies decision-making categorisation of social information

E.g., "I like fruit. Durians are fruit, so I'll probably like them."

Yale approach to persuasion

Developed by Hovland et al., 1953

focuses on "Who says what to whom with what effect"

Source (who)

Attractiveness -> more persuasive

Credibility -> greater persuasion

Message (what)

Fear appeals -> often effective but can backfire due to psychological resistance

Audience (whom)

Need for Cognition (Cacioppo et al., 1983) - high scorers more influenced by strong arguments.

Self-monitoring - high self-monitors respond to attractive packaging (DeBono et al., 2003).

Regulatory Fit - persuasion enhanced when message matches promotion/prevention focus (Cesario et al., 2004).

Elaboration-Likelihood Model (ELM), Petty & Cacioppo

Dual-Process Model:

Central route - involves thoughtful, high effort processing, requires motivation, leads to lasting attitude change

Peripheral route - Low-effort, based on superficial cues (e.g. source attractiveness), used when motivation/ability is low, attitude change less stable

Example of ELM

Janey (busy and disinterested) → likely persuaded via peripheral route (e.g., attractive model).

Motivated and focused individual → persuaded via central route (e.g., sustainability evidence).

Real life applications - Public health campaigns

Fear appeals in smoking cessation ads (strong message + emotional imagery).

Must avoid reactance by using autonomy-supportive language.

Real life - Marketing and Advertising

Evaluative conditioning - pair products with positive imagery to shape attitudes.

Mere exposure - repeat exposure to logos or jingles increases liking.

Real life - Social Change Movements

Value-expressive function - campaigns align with personal values (e.g., equality, sustainability).

Central route persuasion - used in policy debates or documentaries to present evidence-based arguments.

Real life - Education and Messaging

Tailoring messages to audience traits (e.g., high vs. low need for cognition) can enhance impact.