Social Psych Chapter 7

Attitudes

evaluations of people, objects, and ideas

3 components of attitude

cognitive: the thoughts and beliefs that people form about the attitude object

affective: people's emotional reactions toward the attitude object

behavioral: how people act toward the attitude object

cognitively based attitude

an attitude based primarily on people's beliefs about the properties of an attitude object

affectively based attitudes

an attitude based more on people's feelings and values than on their beliefs about the nature of an attitude object (than on an objective appraisal of pros and cons)

ex. Sometimes we simply like a car, regardless of its gas mileage or safety data. Occasionally we even feel strongly attracted to something—such as another person—in spite of having negative beliefs about them (e.g., knowing the person is a "bad influence").

They can stem from people's values, such as basic religious and moral beliefs. People's feelings about such issues as abortion, the death penalty, and premarital sex are often based more on their sense of value than on a cold examination of the facts.

Although affectively based attitudes come from many sources, we can group them into one family because they (1) do not result from a rational examination of the issues, (2) are not governed by logic, and (3) are often linked to people's values, so that efforts to change them challenge those values

classical conditioning

the phenomenon whereby a stimulus that elicits an emotional response is repeatedly paired with a neutral stimulus that does not, until the neutral stimulus takes on the emotional properties of the first stimulus

For example, suppose that when you were a child you experienced feelings of warmth and love when you visited your grandmother. Suppose also that her house always smelled faintly of laundry detergent and chicken soup. Eventually, either of those smells alone will trigger the emotions you experienced during your visits, through the process of classical conditioning

Operant conditioning

the phenomenon whereby behaviors we freely choose to perform become more or less frequent, depending on whether they are followed by a reward or punishment

Ex. Imagine that a 4-year-old White girl goes to the playground with her father and begins to play with a Black girl. Her father expresses disapproval, telling her, "We don't play with them." Unfortunately, it won't take long before the child associates interacting with Black people with disapproval, and therefore adopts her father's racist attitudes. Attitudes can take on a positive or negative affect through either classical or operant conditioning,

behaviorally based attitudes

an attitude based on observations of how one behaves toward an object

For example, suppose you asked a friend how much they like to exercise. If they reply, "Well, I guess I like it, because I always seem to be going for a run or heading over to the gym to work out," we would say they have a behaviorally based attitude. Their attitude is based more on an observation of their own behavior than on their cognitions or affect.

explicit attitudes

attitudes that we consciously endorse and can easily report

Consider Robert, a White college student who genuinely believes that all races are equal and abhors the very idea of any kind of racial bias. This is Robert's explicit attitude, in the sense that it is his conscious evaluation of members of other races that governs how he chooses to act. For example, consistent with his explicit attitude, Robert recently signed a petition in favor of hiring a more diverse faculty at his university. Robert has grown up in a culture in which there are many negative stereotypes about minority groups, however, and it is possible that some of these negative ideas have seeped into him outside of his awareness. When he is around Black people, for example, perhaps some negative feelings are triggered automatically. If so, he has a negative implicit attitude toward Black people, which is likely to influence those behaviors he is not monitoring or attending to, such as whether he makes good eye contact or how nervous he appears to be.

implicit attitudes

attitudes that exist outside of conscious awareness

involuntary, uncontrollable, and at times unconscious evaluations

Laurie Rudman, Julie Phelan, and Jessica Heppen (2007)

found evidence that implicit attitudes are rooted more in people's childhood experiences, whereas explicit attitudes are rooted more in their recent experiences. In one study, the researchers measured college students' implicit and explicit attitudes toward overweight people. They also asked the students to report their current weight and their weight when they were growing up. Participants' implicit attitudes toward overweight people were predicted by their childhood weight but not their current weight, whereas their explicit attitudes were predicted by their current weight but not their childhood weight. An additional finding from this study was that people whose mother was overweight (and who also had a good relationship with her) had positive implicit attitudes toward overweight people, even if their explicit attitudes were negative. In short, people can often have different implicit and explicit attitudes toward the same thing, one rooted more in childhood experiences and the other based more on their adult experiences.

attitude accessibility

The strength of the association between an attitude object and a person's evaluation of that object, measured by the speed with which people can report how they feel about the object - Attitudes will predict spontaneous behaviors only when they are highly accessible to people

When accessibility is high, your attitude comes to mind whenever you see or think about the attitude object. When accessibility is low, your attitude comes to mind more slowly. It follows that highly accessible attitudes will be more likely to predict spontaneous behaviors because people are more likely to be thinking about their attitude when they are called on to act.

Theory of planned behavior

the idea that people's intentions are the best predictors of their deliberate behaviors (A deliberative behavior is the opposite of a spontaneous behavior), which are determined by their attitudes toward specific behaviors, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control

According to this theory, when people have time to contemplate how they are going to behave, the best predictor of their behavior is their intention, which is determined by three things:

- their attitude toward the specific behavior (Peoples specific attitude towards their behavior, not their general attitude)

- subjective norms (Peoples beliefs about how other people they care about will view the behavior in question)

- perceived behavioral control (The ease with which people believe they can perform the behavior)

LaPiere (1934) study

first study to demonstrate inconsistency between attitudes and behaviors

Traveled with a Chinese couple and they were served at 251 establishments except for 1. When he wrote letters to these establishments asking if they would serve a Chinese couple over 90% said no

Subjective Norms

people's beliefs about how others they care about will view the behavior in question. Knowing these beliefs can be just as important as knowing the person's attitudes when it comes to trying to predict someone's intentions.

For example, suppose we want to predict whether Deepa intends to go to a violin concert and we know that she doesn't like classical music. We would probably say that she won't go. But suppose we also know that Deepa's best friend, Kristen, is playing in the concert, and that Deepa assumes that Kristen will be disappointed if she is not in the audience and will view her failure to show up as a slap in the face. Knowing this subjective norm—Deepa's belief about how a close friend will view her behavior—we might predict that she will go.

Perceived behavioral control

people's intentions are influenced by the ease with which they believe they can perform the behavior

If people think it is difficult to perform a behavior—such as remembering to purchase condoms, taking the time to find one when needed, and then stopping to put it on oneself or a partner before having sex—they will not form a strong intention to do so. Anything that makes people think it is easy to perform the behavior makes them more likely to form a strong intention to do so. This is why peer and public health groups seek to make birth control readily available. It is why schools, restaurants, and other public locations put out hand sanitizer in common areas during the COVID-19 crisis. It is why one of the best ways to increase recycling is to put recycling bins in as many visible locations as possible

persuasive communication

a message advocating a particular side of an issue

Cark Hovland

conducted many studies over the years on what makes a persuasive communication effective. Drawing on their experiences during World War II, when they worked for the United States Army to increase the morale of soldiers, Hovland and his colleagues conducted many experiments on the conditions under which people are most likely to be influenced by persuasive communications. In essence, they studied "who says what to whom," looking at the source of the communication (e.g., how expert/credible or attractive the speaker is), the communication itself (e.g., the quality of the arguments, whether the speaker presents both sides of the issue), and the nature of the audience (e.g., whether the audience is hostile or friendly to the point of view in question). Many aspects of persuasive communications turned out to be important, but it was not clear which were more important than others—that is, it was unclear when one factor should be emphasized over another.

Yale Attitude Change Approach

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

primacy effect

the first speech is usually more persuasive.

recency effect

it is then better to give the last speech, if there is a delay between the speeches and people will make up their minds right after the second one,

Elaboration Likelihood model

a model explaining two ways in which persuasive communications can cause attitude change: centrally, when people are motivated and have the ability to pay attention to the arguments in the communication, and peripherally, when people do not pay attention to the arguments but are instead swayed by surface characteristics

specifies when people will be influenced by what the speech says (i.e., the logic of the arguments)

and when they will be influenced by more superficial characteristics (e.g., who gives the speech or how long it is).

central route to persuasion

when people have both the ability and the motivation to elaborate on a persuasive communication, listening carefully to and thinking about the arguments presented.

under certain conditions, people are motivated to pay attention to the facts in a communication, which means that the more logically compelling those facts are, the more persuasion occurs. That is, sometimes people elaborate on the messages they hear, carefully thinking about and processing the content of the communication.

peripheral route to persuasion

when people do not elaborate on the arguments in a persuasive communication but are instead swayed by more superficial cues

people are not motivated to pay attention to the facts; instead, they notice only the surface characteristics of the message, such as how long it is and who is delivering it. Here, people will not be swayed by the logic of the arguments, because they are not paying close attention to what the communicator says. Instead, they are persuaded if the surface characteristics of the message—such as the fact that it is long or is delivered by an expert or attractive communicator—make it seem like a reasonable one.

Fear-Arousing Communication

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

Heuristic-Systematic Model of Persuasion

An explanation of the two ways in which persuasive communications can cause attitude change: either systematically processing the merits of the arguments or using mental shortcuts or heuristics

Why do people take the central or the peripheral route?

The key is whether they have both the motivation and the ability to pay attention to the facts. When people are truly interested in the topic and thus motivated to pay close attention to the arguments, and if people have the ability to pay attention—for example, if nothing is distracting them—they are more likely to take the central route

Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman, 1981

tested how personal relevance shapes the way people are persuaded, using the Elaboration Likelihood Model. The more personally relevant an issue is, the more closely people scrutinize the arguments (the "central route").

The setup: College students heard a speech arguing that all seniors should pass a comprehensive exam in their major before graduating. Researchers varied three things:

Personal relevance: Half were told their university was seriously considering the exam (high relevance). The other half were told it wouldn't start for 10 years (low relevance).

Argument strength: Half heard strong arguments, half heard weak ones.

Speaker prestige (a peripheral cue): Half were told the speech was written by a Princeton professor, half by a high school student.

Results

High relevance: Argument strength was what mattered. Students who heard strong arguments agreed far more than those who heard weak ones, regardless of who the speaker was. A good argument was persuasive even coming from a high schooler. This is the central route.

Low relevance: Speaker prestige was what mattered. Students were much more swayed by the Princeton professor than the high school student, while argument strength made only a slight difference. This is the peripheral route.

Takeaway: When an issue matters to us, we judge the message on its merits. When it doesn't, we rely on shortcuts like the speaker's status.

Cooper and colleagues (1996)

showed mock jurors a video reenactment of a product liability trial. One of the critical witnesses was an expert biologist hired by the plaintiff to persuade the jury that the product in question had caused the plaintiff's illness. The researchers varied how qualified the expert seemed to be: Some mock jurors were told that the expert had published 45 research articles in peer-reviewed journals and his multiple advanced degrees came from prestigious universities; other jurors learned that the expert had published far fewer articles and his degrees came from relatively obscure schools. When his scientific testimony was relatively simple and easy to understand, participants paid little attention to the expert's apparent credentials, instead focusing on the strength of the arguments he offered. Able to understand the persuasive arguments, they engaged in a central route. But when his scientific testimony was complicated and conveyed in jargon that only a molecular biologist could fully grasp, mock jurors relied on the expert's credentials to determine how much stock to place in his testimony. Unable to attend carefully to the persuasive communication, they were influenced by peripheral cues

Brinol and Petty (2003)

onducted a study in which participants tried on headphones while listening to a persuasive editorial. Half of the participants shook their head side to side while listening; the other half nodded up and down while listening. The head-nodders who heard strong arguments in the editorial expressed the greatest agreement with the arguments expressed in the editorial at the end of the study

subliminal messages

Words or pictures that are not consciously perceived but may nevertheless influence people's judgments, attitudes, and behaviors

Ex. During the 2000 U.S. presidential race, George W. Bush aired a television ad about his prescription drug plan, during which the word RATS was visible on the screen for a split second. The Bush campaign denied any accusations of trying to portray a negative image of Al Gore

attitude inoculation

making people immune to attempts to change their attitudes by initially exposing them to small doses of the arguments against their position. The process functions much like a medical inoculation, in which patients are exposed to a small amount of a weakened version of a virus to protect them from developing the full-blown viral disease upon subsequent exposure. Here's how it works for protecting against attitude change: By considering "small doses" of arguments against their position, people become more resistant to later, full-blown attempts to change their attitudes. In other words, having thought about the counterarguments beforehand, people are relatively immune to the effects of the later persuasive communication. In contrast, if people have not thought much about the issue ahead of time—for example, if they formed their attitude via the peripheral route—they are particularly susceptible to an attack on that attitude that uses logical appeals.

cultural truism

beliefs that most members of a society accept uncritically, such as the idea that we should brush our teeth after every meal.

product placement

Putting products into TV shows and movies where they will be seen

ex. Heineken reportedly paid $45 million just for one movie, enough to convince James Bond to abandon his usual penchant for martinis and drink the Dutch beer instead in 2012's Skyfall

This can work because people do not always realize that someone is trying to influence their attitudes and behavior. Our defenses are down; when we see a character like James Bond drinking a certain brand of beer, we're often more focused on the movie itself than on the fact that someone is trying to influence our attitudes. As a result, we don't generate counterarguments

reactance theory

the idea that when people feel their freedom to perform a certain behavior is threatened, an unpleasant state of resistance is aroused, which they can reduce by performing the prohibited behavior (e.g., smoking, dating the person your parents told you to stay away from, refusing to wear a mask in public during a pandemic)

there is harm to administering strong prohibitions: The stronger they are, the more likely it is that they will backfire, actually causing an increase in interest in the prohibited activity