Attitudes, attitude and the attitude-behaviour link_LMS_2023.pptx

Weeks 9 – 12 Attitudes and behavior Relationships Helping and Harming Morality and Evolutionary Social Psychology Simon Laham: [email protected] General introductory comments • Approach: schematic and integrative • Readings: best done after lectures Attitudes and behaviour Attitudes, attit...

Weeks 9 – 12 Attitudes and behavior Relationships Helping and Harming Morality and Evolutionary Social Psychology Simon Laham: [email protected] General introductory comments • Approach: schematic and integrative • Readings: best done after lectures Attitudes and behaviour Attitudes, attitude change and the attitude-behaviour link Simon Laham: [email protected] General Overview • Lecture A. Attitudes and attitude change Subject : individu al • Lecture B. Attitudes and behaviour evaluati on Object : Attitu de object predict Behavio ur Attitude shape Lecture a Attitudes and attitude change Overview and objectives • Attitudes: the basics • • • • • definitions measurement properties functions formation • Persuasion and attitude change Attitudes: the basics definitions, measurement, properties, functions, and formation Attitudes: conceptual definition • Attitude: mental representation of a summary evaluation of an attitude object (stored in memory) • Variety of attitude objects: • • • • Things, actions, events, ideas,… Self: self-esteem Groups: prejudice (-) Other people: global impression + • In various domains: politics, health, business, education… apple s Explicit and implicit attitudes • Explicit attitudes: attitudes that people openly and deliberately express: ‘I like apples’ • Consciously accessible • Revealed in explicit measures • Implicit attitudes: automatic, uncontrollable evaluations • Might be consciously inaccessible • Might be accessible but not willing to report • Revealed in implicit measures Measurement: Explicit measures • Explicit measures: asking a person to report on their attitudes • These assess explicit attitudes • Self-report scales • Likert scale: • Semantic differential (Thurstone): • Limitations: • Social desirability biases: people may distort their self-reports • Implicit attitudes – may not be consciously accessed, thus can’t be reported on Measurement: Implicit measures • Implicit measures: assess implicit attitudes • Overcome motivated response biases and limits of introspection • There are a variety • Some use physiological responses • Some use fake physiological responses (bogus pipeline) • Most common use response (reaction) time (RTs) paradigms • Response time paradigms assume that patterns of response times to stimuli can reveal underlying attitudes • Based on spreading activation accounts of mental processes Attitude properties (I) • Structure/components/bases: • Affective: emotions, feelings about att. object (e.g., fear, anger, nausea,…) • Behavioural: interactions with att. object (e.g., frequent use of att. object) • Cognitive: beliefs about att. object (e.g., att. object is good for my health) • Most attitudes have mix of ABC bases; however different bases may carry more weight in determining the overall summary evaluation • E.g., political attitudes - emotions; utilitarian product attitudes - cognitive • What are your attitudes based on? Exercise? Trump? Your fridge? Attitude properties (II) • Function • Knowledge function: • Have/express attitudes to make sense of the world – to ‘summarize’ our experiences with attitude objects • Instrumental/utilitarian function: • Have/express attitudes to help guide behaviour; achieve rewards and avoid punishments • Social identity/ value expressive function: • Have/express attitudes to express one’s identities and values • Impression management function: • Have/express attitudes to fit into groups or relationships • Self-esteem/defensive function: • Have/express attitudes that protect the self (from low self-esteem; anxiety) • Variation: object; group/culture and individual differences • What function(s) do your attitudes serve? Exercise? Trump? Your fridge? Attitude properties (III) • Strength: • Strong attitudes: • held with confidence, certainty • Usually based on lots of one-sided info (A, B, C) • Are persistent, resistant and predictive of intentions and behaviour Attitude formation • Multiple routes to attitude formation • Often multiple processes at play • Broadly • Affective processes • Behavioural processes • Cognitive processes Affective routes to attitude formation • Affective: • Mere exposure: familiarity breeds liking • Repeated exposure increases ease of processing attitude object; ease feels good/positive; this positivity becomes attributed to attitude object Eas e + Behavioural routes to attitude formation Behavio ur • Behavioural: • Direct behavioural influences (more later) + • Self-perception (Bem): we learn what we like from observing what we do (more in the self lecture) Behavio ur Observe • Cognitive dissonance reduction (more later) + Infer Behavio ur Cognitive routes to attitude formation • Cognitive: • Reasoned inference: think through facts about object and draw evaluative inferences (more later in the ELM) Beliefs + Interim summary • Attitudes are stored representations of evaluations of attitude objects • They can be considered explicit and/or implicit and can be measured in a variety of ways • Attitudes have a variety of bases, functions and properties • They are formed via a variety of processes Attitude change: dual process models Processes of attitude change • Many processes can result in attitude change • • • • Social influence (conformity, obedience) Perceived norms (descriptive and injunctive) Cognitive dissonance reduction (more later) … • Much research and application focuses on persuasion: • change of an attitude via processing of a message about an attitude object • The standard persuasion frame: • Source – message – recipient – context/situation • Amount/nature of attitude change depends on attributes of each of these elements • In conjunction with…depth of processing Persuasion framework Context/situation Source Message Recipient Dual process models of attitude change (via persuasion) • Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM; Chaiken et al., 1989) and Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) • Two processing routes: deep or superficial • Really a continuum shallo w • Two important implications: • Amount and kind of attitude change (e.g., persistent, predictive of behaviour) depends on processing route • Factors influencing attitude change and manner of influence are contingent on processing route deep ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) • Attitudes can be changed by processes that involve more or less attitude object-relevant elaboration or thinking • Low elaboration characterizes the peripheral route of persuasion • High elaboration characterizes the central route of persuasion • NB. Attitude change can occur via both routes • via different processes • with different consequences Consequences of route-specific attitude change • Central route persuasion: • Attitudes formed (or changed) based on more elaboration are: • • • • Stronger More persistent over time (stable) Resistant to further change Predictive of intentions and behaviour • Cf. peripheral route persuasion ELM in schematic Central route 1. What influences route selection? Source Message High message elaboration Attitude change 2. What influences attitude change Peripheral in each route? route Low message elaboration Recipient Attitude change 1. What influences route selection? • If one is motivated and capable, one will process message deeply (central route) • What influences adoption of processing route? • Motivation • Goal, value or self relevance • Accountability • Need for cognition: desire and enjoyment of thinking • Capacity • Ability • Distraction •… 2. What influences attitude change in each route? • Different factors matter in central vs peripheral route • Message • Source Central route factors • Because people are thinking deeply, argument quality matters • Petty & Cacioppo (1984) • Present message containing strong or weak arguments • To participants that had high or low involvement • Low = peripheral; high = central • Argument quality influences persuasion in the central route Peripheral Central Peripheral route factors: message characteristics • Because people are thinking superficially, they rely on heuristics • Message heuristics • Not argument quality, but quantity • More is better (‘length equals strength’) • Argument quantity influences attitude change in the peripheral route Low High involveme involveme nt nt Central Peripheral • Familiarity: repeated exposure to a message increases liking • Repetition facilitates ease; ease of processing feels good; attributed to attitude object ELM in schematic Central route 1. What influences route selection? Source Message High message elaboration Attitude change 2. What influences attitude change Peripheral in each route? route Low message elaboration Recipient Attitude change Overview and objectives (revisited) • Attitudes: the basics • • • • • definitions measurement properties functions formation • Persuasion and attitude change Lecture b Attitude-behavior links Overview and objectives • Attitude and behaviour links: bi-directionality • When and how can behaviours shape attitudes? • When and how can attitudes predict behaviour? Attitude and behaviour links: bi-directionality Attitudes and behaviour • Attitudes ≠ Behaviours • LaPiere (1934) • But, attitudes and behaviours are linked in various ways Attitudes can predict behaviours Behaviours can shape attitude formation When and how can behaviours shape attitudes? Direct behavioural bases of attitudes • Acting on the attitude object • If attitude object is acted upon with a valenced behaviour, this can shape attitude formation and change • Laham et al (2014) • Pull (‘collect’) or push (‘discard’) novel stimuli in a ‘foraging task’ • More positive implicit attitudes formed to pulled stimuli than to pushed stimuli + Cognitive dissonance and the maintenance of cognitive consistency • Sometimes our behaviours are inconsistent with our attitudes • Yet people are generally motivated to maintain cognitive consistency • Inconsistencies among attitudes, beliefs and behaviours may be experienced as unpleasant • Cognitive dissonance: experienced negative arousal resulting from such inconsistency • People may be motivated to reduce dissonance via a number of strategies • One of which is modifying attitudes to restore consistency • Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) Experimental paradigms for studying cognitive dissonance • Induced compliance paradigm (insufficient justification effect; Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959) • Boring task (creates negative attitude to task) • Paid $1 or $20 to lie about it (say it was fun; behaviour) Inconsistent • Subsequent attitudes to task measured (attitude modification) • Those paid $1 reported liking the task more than those paid $20 • Those paid $20 have sufficient justification for behaviour (lying) • Those paid $1 do not (insufficient justification) - this creates dissonance • Attempt to reduce via modifying attitude • Attitudes modified to reduce dissonance caused by attitude-discrepant behaviour that cannot be attributed to an external reward or punishment Experimental paradigms for studying cognitive dissonance • Effort justification (Aronson & Mills, 1959) • Initiation and liking • Three conditions: control, mild effort/initiation, high effort/initiation • How interesting was the discussion? • Attitudes are changed to reduce dissonance caused by choosing to exert considerable effort or suffering to achieve a goal Experimental paradigms for studying cognitive dissonance • Post-decisional dissonance (‘free-choice paradigm’; spreading of alternatives; Brehm, 1956) + Spreading of alternatives Evaluate Choose Evaluate • Attitude change to reduce dissonance caused by a freely made decision • Amplify positives of chosen option; amplify negatives of unchosen option When will dissonance lead to attitude change? • Attitude change is most likely to occur when: • Action is perceived as inconsistent with attitude • Action is perceived as freely chosen • Individual experiences physiological arousal • Arousal is attributed to perceived inconsistency between attitude and the action When and how can attitudes predict behaviour? Attitudes as predictors of behaviour • Attitudes don’t always predict behaviour • Wicker (1969) – seldom > r = .3 • More recent reviews: r = .4 • Range from small negative to large positive… • When and how do attitudes predict behaviour? • It depends on the kind of: • Behaviour • Attitude • Attitude-behaviour compatibility First…some important distinctions… kinds of behaviours • Oullette and Wood (1998) • Intentional behaviour • Behaviour that requires conscious intention • Enacted via application of behavioural intentions • Intentions guided by attitudes, norms and efficacy beliefs (as modelled in TPB) • Habitual behaviour • Behaviour that does not require conscious intention, that is repeated often, in stable contexts • Enacted via automatic repetition of established routines • Triggered by environmental cues • Also uncontrolled, spontaneous (but not habitual) behaviour • Behaviour that does not require conscious intention, but is not frequently repeated in similar contexts • Enacted via automatic processes (although not established routines) Attitude effects depend on behaviour type • Attitudes can affect behaviours directly or indirectly (or not at all) • Spontaneous behaviours • Attitudes directly impact behaviour • Implicit attitudes are most relevant here • Intentional behaviours • Attitudes indirectly impact behaviour (via intentions – see below; TPB) • Explicit attitudes are most relevant here • Habitual behaviours • Attitudes have little impact • Past behaviour is a better predictor here Intentional vs spontaneous behaviours • Dovidio, Kawakami & Gaertner (2002) • White American undergraduate participants • Measured implicit and explicit attitudes (prejudice) towards White and Black targets • Interracial interactions (with confederates of different ethnicities) • Verbal friendliness • Non-verbal friendliness What kinds of attitudes? • Accessible, strong, stable attitudes tend to influence behaviour • What is accessibility? • How easily does the attitude come to mind; how easy is it to retrieve from memory? • Strong attitudes are more likely to come to mind (i.e., be accessible) • What increases accessibility, strength and stability? • • • • • Elaboration (motivation and capacity) Repeated expression Direct experience with attitude object One-sidedness of informational base Confidence Attitudes aren’t the only thing that predict behaviour • Attitudes can predict intentional behaviour via intentions • Intention: a commitment to reach a desired outcome or perform a desired behaviour • But attitudes aren’t the only thing that can predict intentions • Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) • Attitudes and norms combine to predict intentions, which in turn predict actions Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB; Ajzen, 1985) TRA Match: principle of compatibility (correspondence) • Increased match between properties of action and attitude increase prediction Summary • Attitudes have complex and bi-directional relationships with behaviours • Attitude = behaviour is too simple a conception • Behaviours can directly and indirectly (via dissonance reduction) influence attitude formation and change • Attitudes can directly and indirectly predict a variety of behaviours • Intentional behaviour, via intentions, in conjunction with norms and efficacy beliefs (TPB) • Spontaneous behaviours directly • Attitude behaviour correlations are usually larger for accessible attitudes and when attitudes correspond in some way with the behaviour