CH 06: Attitudes and Attitude Change

What are attitudes, according to social psychologists?

Attitudes are evaluations of people, objects, or ideas, involving positive or negative reactions toward them. They represent how we like or dislike aspects of our world (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005; Olson & Zanna, 1993).

What are the three main components of an attitude?

1. Affective component – emotional reactions toward the attitude object.

2. Cognitive component – thoughts and beliefs about the object.

3. Behavioural component – actions or observable behaviours toward the object.

What is ambivalence in attitudes?

Ambivalence refers to having mixed feelings toward an attitude object—simultaneous positive and negative evaluations (e.g., attitudes toward feminists, Indigenous peoples, or abortion).

What are affectively based attitudes?

These are attitudes rooted in emotions and feelings rather than logical evaluation of pros and cons. People form them from emotional experiences, values, or aesthetics rather than objective analysis.

Give an example of an affectively based attitude.

Liking a car brand despite poor gas mileage, or falling in love with someone despite knowing they’re untrustworthy.

What are common sources of affectively based attitudes?

• Personal values (e.g., moral or religious beliefs).

• Sensory experiences (liking the taste of chocolate).

• Aesthetic reactions (admiring art or design).

• Emotional conditioning and cultural influences.

What are the three main characteristics of affectively based attitudes?

1. They don’t result from rational evaluation.

2. They’re not governed by logic.

3. They’re often linked to core values, making them resistant to change.

What are cognitively based attitudes?

Attitudes grounded in beliefs and factual knowledge about an object’s properties—based on reasoning about its pros and cons (e.g., cost, function, performance).

What is a typical example of a cognitively based attitude?

Evaluating a vacuum cleaner based on price, effectiveness, or durability, rather than emotional appeal.

What are behaviourally based attitudes?

Attitudes formed by observing one’s own behaviour toward an object. According to Bem’s (1972) self-perception theory, people sometimes infer how they feel from their actions.

Give an example of a behaviourally based attitude.

Someone who frequently exercises may conclude, “I guess I like working out,” based on their behaviour rather than emotional or cognitive assessment.

What are explicit attitudes?

Attitudes we consciously endorse and can easily report—our deliberate evaluations of people or issues (e.g., supporting diversity in hiring).

What are implicit attitudes?

Involuntary, unconscious evaluations that may differ from explicit ones. They can influence automatic behaviours like tone, eye contact, or comfort level in interactions.

How can someone have both explicit and implicit attitudes that differ?

A person may consciously reject racism (explicit) but still experience automatic negative reactions to minority groups (implicit) due to cultural conditioning.

How are implicit attitudes typically measured?

Through the Implicit Association Test (IAT), which measures the strength of automatic associations between concepts (e.g., race, gender) and evaluations (good/bad).

How are implicit and explicit attitudes related?

They tend to be correlated when people reflect on feelings but not when focusing on cognitions or reasons. Each can independently predict behaviour.

How do implicit and explicit self-esteem differ?

Explicit self-esteem is conscious self-evaluation (e.g., survey responses), while implicit self-esteem is unconscious and automatic. They’re often not correlated.

What did Jordan and colleagues (2013) find about people with low explicit but high implicit self-esteem?

They experience greater emotional swings—feeling uplifted by success but strongly discouraged by failure.

Where do implicit and explicit attitudes come from?

Implicit attitudes stem mainly from childhood experiences, while explicit attitudes are shaped more by recent experiences (Rudman et al., 2007).

What did LaPiere’s (1934) study reveal about the attitude–behaviour relationship?

It showed a major disconnect: businesses served a Chinese couple in person but later reported they would not serve Chinese guests—demonstrating that attitudes don’t always predict behaviour.

What did Wicker (1969) conclude about attitudes predicting behaviour?

Across many studies, attitudes were poor predictors of behaviour, meaning what people say doesn’t always match what they do.

What factor determines whether attitudes predict spontaneous behaviour?

Attitude accessibility—how quickly an attitude comes to mind. Highly accessible attitudes are more likely to guide immediate, spontaneous actions.

What increases attitude accessibility?

Direct experience with the attitude object (e.g., volunteering with homeless people) makes attitudes more accessible and predictive of behaviour.

What is the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980)?

It proposes that deliberate behaviours are best predicted by behavioural intentions, which are influenced by:

1. Attitudes toward the specific behaviour

2. Subjective norms

3. Perceived behavioural control

According to the theory, what type of attitudes best predict behaviour?

Specific attitudes toward the exact behaviour (e.g., using birth control pills in the next two years) predict behaviour better than general attitudes (e.g., views on birth control overall).

What are subjective norms in the theory of planned behaviour?

Beliefs about how important others view the behaviour—e.g., whether friends or family approve of it.

What is perceived behavioural control?

A person’s belief about how easy or difficult performing the behaviour will be—strong control increases the likelihood of intention and action.

Give an example of perceived behavioural control affecting behaviour.

Someone may value exercise but won’t form strong intentions to do it if they believe their schedule makes it impossible.

What kinds of behaviours have been predicted successfully using the theory of planned behaviour?

Health-related behaviours (e.g., quitting smoking, exercising), pro-environmental actions, and social decisions (e.g., hiring people with mental illness).

How can cultural context affect predictors in the theory of planned behaviour?

In individualist cultures, personal attitudes are stronger predictors of intention. In collectivist cultures, social norms (group approval) may play a greater role—though some studies show both matter across cultures.

What is the main goal of persuasive communication when it comes to attitudes and behaviour?

The goal is to change people’s attitudes with the expectation that their behaviour will follow — advertisers aim to boost sales through attitude change toward products, while politicians seek positive attitudes to translate into votes.

What key question do social psychologists study about persuasion?

They study what makes persuasive communication effective — specifically, who says what to whom — focusing on the source (speaker), message (content), and audience (recipients).

What is the Yale Attitude Change Approach, and who developed it?

Developed by Carl Hovland and colleagues (1953) at Yale University, it examines the conditions under which people are most likely to be influenced by persuasive communications — emphasizing the roles of the source, message, and audience.

What are the three key factors in the Yale attitude change approach?

1. Source: Credibility, trustworthiness, attractiveness, or likeability of the communicator.

2. Message: Quality of arguments, inclusion of both sides, emotional tone.

3. Audience: Personality, mood, and pre-existing attitudes (e.g., hostile vs. friendly).

How does the credibility of a speaker influence persuasion?

Messages from credible speakers (perceived experts or trustworthy individuals) are more persuasive and better remembered. For instance, in a University of Waterloo study, students were more influenced by “Dr. James Rundle” (a credible source) than a local activist.

What limitation does the Yale attitude change approach have?

While it identifies many persuasive factors, it doesn’t clarify which factors are most important or when to emphasize one over another — leaving uncertainty for practical applications like designing ads.

What does the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) explain?

It explains when people are influenced by logical argument content (central route) versus superficial cues like attractiveness or credibility (peripheral route).

What characterizes the central route to persuasion?

• People are motivated and able to pay attention.

• They engage in careful analysis of arguments.

• Persuasion occurs because the content is strong and logical.

• Leads to more lasting attitude change and behaviour consistency.

What characterizes the peripheral route to persuasion?

• People are not motivated or able to process the message deeply.

• Focus is on surface characteristics (length, attractiveness, fame).

• Persuasion depends on superficial cues, not logic.

• Attitude change is temporary and unstable.

What determines whether someone takes the central or peripheral route?

Their motivation and ability to pay attention to facts.

• Central route: High motivation and no distractions.

• Peripheral route: Low motivation or cognitive load (e.g., tired, multitasking).

How does language complexity affect the route to persuasion?

When messages are clear and simple → central route. When jargon-filled or hard to follow → peripheral route (Hafer, Reynolds, & Obertynski, 1996).

What happens under cognitive load in persuasion?

People rely more on peripheral cues (likeability, attractiveness) rather than argument quality (Sinclair et al., 2010; White & Willness, 2009).

Why does the route to persuasion matter for long-term effects?

Attitudes formed via the central route are more enduring, consistent with behaviour, and resistant to counter-persuasion than those formed via the peripheral route.

What is a fear-arousing communication?

A persuasive message designed to scare people into changing attitudes or behaviour (e.g., anti-smoking, seatbelt, or drug-use campaigns).

How does Canada use fear in anti-smoking campaigns?

By using graphic warning images covering 75% of cigarette packages, plain packaging, and standardized fonts to reduce brand appeal.

What did research by Droulers et al. (2017) find about fear-arousing images?

High-threat, graphic images caused more arousal, disgust, and fear, and increased the desire to quit smoking, especially with plain, larger packaging.

When does fear effectively change attitudes?

When it’s combined with clear instructions on how to reduce the fear (e.g., how to quit smoking). Fear alone often backfires by causing avoidance or denial.

What study demonstrated the power of combining fear with solutions?

Leventhal et al. (1967): Smokers who saw a fear-inducing film and received a pamphlet on quitting smoked less than those who saw only one of these.

What happens if a fear message is too strong?

It can overwhelm people, causing defensiveness or denial rather than attitude change (Feinberg & Willer, 2011; Lewis et al., 2007).

How can humour interact with fear in persuasion?

Humour can reduce distress and defensiveness among highly threatened audiences, making fear-based messages more effective (Conway & Dubé, 2002).

What are two key guidelines for using fear in persuasive messages?

1. Use moderate fear to grab attention but not paralyze the audience.

2. Provide specific, actionable steps to reduce the threat (e.g., call helplines, quit plans).

What is attitude inoculation?

Attitude inoculation is the process of making people immune to persuasion by exposing them to small doses of arguments against their position beforehand. Like a vaccine, these weak counterarguments help people build “resistance” so that when stronger persuasive messages appear, they can more easily refute them (McGuire, 1964).

How did McGuire (1964) demonstrate attitude inoculation?

Participants first received weak arguments against a common belief (e.g., brushing teeth after every meal). Later, when exposed to a strong attack on that belief, those who had been “inoculated” resisted persuasion better than those who hadn’t, because they had already generated counterarguments.

Why does prior exposure to weak counterarguments strengthen resistance to persuasion?

Because it encourages mental rehearsal—people think about flaws in weak arguments, which prepares them to refute stronger ones later.

What did Bernard, Maio, & Olson (2003) find about defending attitudes?

Participants who generated arguments supporting equality were later more resistant to persuasive attacks on equality, compared to a control group. Formulating one’s own defenses strengthens commitment to an attitude.

What happens to attitude certainty after resisting persuasion?

People who successfully resist persuasion often hold their attitudes more strongly and with greater certainty afterward (Tormala & Petty, 2002).

What is product placement, and why is it persuasive?

Product placement occurs when companies pay to have their products integrated into media content (e.g., movies, shows). It’s effective because viewers are not consciously aware of the persuasive intent, so they don’t form counterarguments.

What example illustrates the scale of product placement in films?

Man of Steel (2013) featured over 100 product placement contracts with brands like Nikon, Hershey’s, and Walmart, generating around $170 million—almost covering the film’s production costs.

What evidence shows that product placement benefits companies?

A study of 2002 film product placements found that companies’ market value increased by an average of $296.5 million after their products appeared in successful movies (Wiles & Danielova, 2009).

Why are people more easily influenced by product placement compared to traditional ads?

Because they are focused on the storyline rather than the persuasive intent—our defenses are down, and we don’t generate counterarguments (Burkley, 2008; Wheeler et al., 2007).

Why are children especially vulnerable to product placement?

They are less aware of persuasive intent. Studies show children exposed to smoking in movies developed more positive attitudes toward smoking (Heatherton & Sargent, 2009).

What public concern arises from product placement in children’s media?

Many parents find product placements for harmful products (e.g., cigarettes, alcohol, fast food) more objectionable than traditional TV ads (Hudson et al., 2008).

How can forewarning reduce susceptibility to persuasion?

When people are warned that persuasion attempts are coming, they process information more critically and resist attitude change (Knowles & Linn, 2004; Sagarin & Wood, 2007).

What practical advice can help parents reduce persuasion effects on children?

Warn children before movies that they may encounter attempts to influence their attitudes—this awareness helps activate cognitive defenses.

What is cognitive dissonance?

A psychological discomfort that occurs when a person’s behaviour conflicts with their attitudes, or when they hold contradictory beliefs (Festinger, 1957).

What motivates people to reduce cognitive dissonance?

The discomfort threatens one’s self-esteem and self-consistency, motivating people to restore internal harmony (Aronson, 1969, 1998).

What was demonstrated in the “6:30 a.m. class” study at the University of Alberta (Wright et al., 1992)?

Students who wrote essays in favour of 6:30 a.m. classes—contrary to their true beliefs—later shifted their attitudes to see early classes more positively, showing attitude change to reduce dissonance.

How did the drug manipulation in the Alberta study support dissonance theory?

Students told a pill would make them tense did not change their attitudes because they attributed their discomfort to the pill, not dissonance—proving the discomfort drives attitude change.

What are the main strategies for reducing cognitive dissonance?

1. Change behaviour to match attitudes.

2. Change attitudes to justify behaviour.

3. Add new cognitions to justify behaviour.

When are people more likely to change their attitudes rather than behaviour?

When the attitude isn’t deeply important or central to self-concept (Starzyk et al., 2009).

How does cognitive dissonance apply to smoking?

Smokers who know smoking is harmful may reduce dissonance by downplaying risks (“the data are inconclusive”), adding justifications (“it relaxes me”), or distorting beliefs (“it improves my health”).

What general principle does the smoking example illustrate?

People will go to extreme lengths—distortion, denial, rationalization—to justify behaviour that conflicts with self-image or beliefs.

What is post-decision dissonance?

The discomfort that follows making a decision between attractive alternatives, since the chosen option has drawbacks and the rejected one has appealing features.

How do people reduce post-decision dissonance?

They increase the attractiveness of the chosen option and devalue the rejected one to feel more confident about their decision.

What did Brehm’s (1956) consumer study show?

After choosing between two equally liked appliances, women later rated their chosen item higher and the rejected item lower—classic post-decision dissonance reduction.

What does the permanence of a decision have to do with dissonance?

The more permanent or irrevocable a decision, the greater the dissonance and the stronger the need to justify it.

What did Knox & Inkster (1968) find at a racetrack?

Bettors who had already placed their bets were more confident in their horse’s chances than those who hadn’t—finality increased justification and confidence.

How does cognitive dissonance apply to moral choices like cheating?

Whether someone cheats or not, they experience dissonance—between morality and behaviour—and reduce it by altering their moral attitudes to align with their decision.

What did Judson Mills (1958) find in his cheating experiment with children?

Children who cheated became more lenient toward cheating; those who resisted became stricter—showing dissonance changes moral attitudes.

What is the justification of effort?

The tendency to increase one’s liking for something they worked hard to achieve, even if it turns out disappointing (Aronson & Mills, 1959).

Describe Aronson & Mills’s (1959) “psychology of sex” study.

Participants underwent severe, mild, or no initiation to join a dull discussion group. Those who endured severe initiation rated the group as more interesting—demonstrating justification of effort.

How do parents’ attitudes toward childrearing illustrate justification of effort?

When reminded of the high costs of raising children, parents idealized parenthood (“nothing more rewarding than raising a child”) to reduce dissonance (Eibach & Mock, 2011).

What follow-up finding supported the parenthood study?

Parents reminded of high costs also expressed stronger desire to spend time with their children—further evidence of dissonance reduction through idealization.

How does cognitive dissonance explain hazing rituals?

People who endure painful or humiliating initiations justify their suffering by increasing their loyalty and affection for the group (as in military or sports hazing cases).

How did Dave Tremblay’s reaction to hazing reflect dissonance reduction?

Despite severe mistreatment, he remembered his teammates fondly—his mind reinterpreted the experience positively to justify the suffering.

What general lesson does justification of effort teach about human behaviour?

When we invest time, effort, or pain into something, we convince ourselves it was worthwhile—transforming even unpleasant experiences into valued ones.

What is counterattitudinal behaviour?

It occurs when people express an opinion or attitude that runs counter to their private beliefs. When external justification is low, they may change their internal attitudes to align with what they said (“saying becomes believing”).

In the example of lying to a friend about his bad band, why does the lie often not cause much dissonance?

Because there’s sufficient external justification (e.g., avoiding hurting your friend’s feelings) to explain the lie without changing your attitude.

What happens when you lie without sufficient external justification?

You experience dissonance and attempt to find internal justification—changing your private attitude to align with what you said.

What was the main goal of Festinger and Carlsmith’s 1959 study?

To test how much external justification affects attitude change after engaging in counterattitudinal behaviour.

Describe the procedure of Festinger & Carlsmith (1959).

• Participants performed boring tasks for an hour.

• They were asked to tell the next participant the tasks were fun.

• Half were paid $1 (small justification), half $20 (large justification).

• Later, they rated how much they actually enjoyed the tasks.

What were the results and implications of Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)?

• $20 group: no attitude change—they lied but didn’t believe it (high external justification).

• $1 group: reported enjoying the task more—changed their attitude (low external justification → internal justification).
  → Shows that minimal external rewards can produce genuine internal attitude change.

How did Leippe & Eisenstadt (1994, 1998) apply counterattitudinal behaviour to social issues?

White students wrote essays supporting scholarships for African-American students (reducing white scholarships). To resolve dissonance, they convinced themselves the policy was fair, and their racial attitudes became more positive.

How did Son Hing, Li, & Zanna (2002) use dissonance to address “aversive racism”?

• Participants wrote about treating minorities fairly, then reflected on times they’d acted unfairly toward Asians.

• This induced dissonance → reduced prejudice (they allocated more funding to Asian Student Associations).

What does this suggest about the power of counterattitudinal behaviour?

When people publicly advocate for equality, they may internalize these beliefs to reduce dissonance, leading to genuine attitude change.

What does dissonance theory predict about punishment and learning?

Harsh punishment produces compliance but not internal attitude change—people only behave when threatened. Mild punishment, by contrast, produces internal justification and lasting change.

What is insufficient punishment?

When mild punishment doesn’t provide enough external justification for obedience, causing the person to internally justify the behaviour change (e.g., deciding they didn’t want to misbehave after all).

Describe Aronson & Carlsmith’s (1963) toy experiment.

• Children rated toys, were forbidden to play with a favourite one.

• Half faced mild punishment threat, half severe.

• Both groups resisted playing, but later rated the toy differently.

What were the results of the toy experiment?

• Severe punishment: Children still liked the toy (external justification).

• Mild punishment: Children rated the toy as less desirable (internal justification).
  → Mild punishment led to genuine attitude change.

What did Freedman (1965) find about the long-term effects of mild punishment?

Weeks later, children who were mildly threatened continued to avoid the toy voluntarily; severely threatened children returned to playing with it.