Social Psychology: Nature and Formation of Attitudes

Evaluation and Nature of Attitudes

  • Definition: An attitude is an association in memory between an object and a summary evaluation of that object. It is not a general mood or outlook on life.

  • Attitude Objects: Can include people, animals, things, places, or abstract concepts like "FREEDOM."

  • Key Properties:     * Valence: Whether an attitude is positive, negative, neutral, or mixed (ambivalent).     * Extremity: How far the evaluation deviates from neutral (e.g., "a little" versus "a lot").     * Strength (Accessibility): How quickly an attitude comes to mind. Strong attitudes are highly accessible, more extreme, resistant to change, persistent over time, and predictive of behavior.

  • Asch (1948) Insight: Objects change across time and context; as objects change, so do their evaluations.

Attitude Formation: The ABC Model

  • Affect (Feelings):     * Mere Exposure Effect: Zajonc (1968) found that repeated exposure to an object increases liking up to a point, after which boredom or annoyance may occur. This is driven by processing fluency.     * Evaluative Conditioning: Attitudes form by associating an object with something already liked or disliked (e.g., Staats & Staats, 1958; sex appeal in advertising).

  • Behavior (Observation):     * Self-Perception: Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett (1973) demonstrated that we observe our own behavior to infer our attitudes (e.g., interest in markers based on whether an award was expected).

  • Cognition (Beliefs):     * Learning: Hovland et al. (1953) proposed that attitudes form as we learn about the positive and negative qualities of an object (e.g., coffee is "warm" and "tasty" but "expensive").

Attitude-Behavior Consistency

  • The LaPiere (1934) Study: Despite current anti-Chinese racism in the U.S., where 92%92\% of restaurant/hotel owners claimed they would not serve Chinese people, LaPiere and a Chinese couple were only refused at 11 out of 6666 hotels and 00 out of 184184 restaurants.

  • Specificity Principle: General attitudes do not predict specific behaviors well. Correlations (rvaluesr-values) for birth control use illustrate this:     * Attitude toward birth control: 0.0830.083     * Attitude toward birth control pills: 0.3230.323     * Attitude toward using birth control pills: 0.5250.525     * Attitude toward using birth control pills during the next two years: 0.5720.572

  • Theory of Planned Behavior: Behavior is determined by intentions, which are influenced by three factors:     1. Specific Attitude: Evaluation of the specific behavior.     2. Subjective Norms: Perceptions of social pressure from others.     3. Perceived Control: One's belief in their ability to perform the behavior.

Measurement of Attitudes

  • Direct Measures (Self-Report):     * Likert Scales: Example range from 11 (Strongly Disagree) to 77 (Strongly Agree).     * Semantic Differential: Rating an object on scales like bad/good or gross/tasty (ranging 3-3 to +3+3).

  • Indirect Measures: Used to reduce socially-desirable responding regarding sensitive topics (race, narcissism, etc.).     * Physiological: Facial EMG (muscle activity), EEG (brain activity).     * Nonverbal: Eye contact, seating distance.     * Implicit Measures: Evaluative Priming Procedure (EPP) and the Implicit Association Test (IAT).

Questions & Discussion

  • Practice Scenario 1 (Ambivalence): Damien loves Legos but steals them. He feels bad about stealing but enjoys the thrill. His attitude toward Lego theft is Ambivalent.

  • Practice Scenario 2 (Subjective Norms): Franzl likes yodeling and is at a funeral with great acoustics. Will he yodel? Likely no, because the subjective norms of a funeral service override his positive attitude toward yodeling.

  • Practice Scenario 3 (Perceived Control): Robert supports a charity but cannot afford his own bills. Will he donate? Likely no, because his perceived control (financial ability) is too low to form an intention to donate.

  • Demonstration Message: When participants were shown a quote about protest, their attitudes varied because they were shown different "attitude objects" (e.g., attributing the quote to different sources), proving that evaluations change when the object of focus changes.