Attitudes and stereotypes and attributions

Attitude

A learnt, stable and relatively enduring evaluation of a person, object, event or idea that can affect an individuals behaviour (±).

Explicit attitudes

Where people openly state their attitude and behave in a way that reflects this attitude.

Implicit attitudes

Involuntary, uncontrollable and sometimes unconscious. It is possible for individuals to be unaware that they hole a particular attitude until their actions reveal it.

Tripartite model

Proposes that any attitude has 3 related components (ABC’s of attitudes).

Affective: feelings and emotions.

Behavioural: past and future activity.

Cognitive: thoughts and beliefs.

Affective (tripartite model)

Emotional reactions/feelings towards a person, object, event or idea. Can be +, - or neutral.

Behavioural (tripartite model)

The way in which an attitude is expressed through actions.

Cognitive (tripartite model)

Beliefs we have about a person, object, event or idea. (the reasoning).

Consistency (tripartite model)

Propes that all 3 components must be present before it can be said that an attitude exists.

Inconsistency (tripartite model)

Sometimes a persons behaviour will not reflect the attitude they held.

Theory of cognitive dissonance

Leon Festinger (1957).

Cognitive dissonance is the unpleasant feeling of psychological tension that comes when we perceive that are attitudes are inconsistent with behaviour. (contradictory).

Effect of cognitive dissonance

Leads to the motivation to reduce the dissonance. The stronger the discrepancy, the stronger the motivation.

• rationalisation can reduce discomfort by explaining away the discrepancy.

Strong attitudes

Well thought about, well known and easily accessible. The stronger the attitude, the more stable & consistent it will be. They are more likely to predict behaviour that weaker attitudes.

Responses to cognitive dissonance

1. changing beliefs - AVOIDANCE

2. change behaviour - RATIONALE

3. reducing the importance of the beliefs - REDUCTION

Limitations/criticisms

• is testable

• cannot physically observe

• cannot objective measure it

• ambiguity around term ‘dissonance’

• individual differences in behaviour

Cognitive consequences of forced compliance

• experiment

Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)

AIM: investigated if dull tasks would create cognitive dissonance through forced compliance behaviour.

METHOD: 71 male student performed dull tasks for an hour (turning pegs). They were paid either $1 or $20 to tell a waiting participant that the tasks were really interesting. Almost all agreed.

RESULTS: the participants paid $1 rated the task as more fun than those paid $20.

CONCLUSION: being paid $1 is not sufficient incentive to lie, therefore they experienced dissonance. They could only overcome the dissonance by believing the tasks really were enjoyable. Being paid $20 provides a reason for the dull tasks, and there is no dissonance.

Attributions

Influences that we make about the causes of events, the behaviour of others on our own behaviour.

Either internal or external.

Attribution theory

Fritz Heider (1958)

Formed around the idea that people have an innate need to try and understand why things happen the way they do.

Observing others actions leads us to make decisions about the intention of the action and the responsibility (actor-observer bias).

Dispositional (internal) attributions

Internal factors of their personality (usually observing others. - traits, ability, motivation, attitude, mood and effort.

Situational (external) attributions

Environment/external factors (usually observing ourselves).

Social identity theory (SIT)

Tajfel and Turner (1979).

Humans tend to compare themselves to another person (or group vs group). This forms your identity. Social identity is based on group memberships.

Groups are a source of pride and self esteem (sense of belonging).

Social categorization (SIT)

Sorting people/objects so we can understand and identify them.

Social identification (SIT)

We adopt the behaviour, attitudes and beliefs of our groups.

Social comparison (SIT)

We compare our groups with others to affirm our identity.