Attitudes and Attitude Change Social Psychology Lecture 3 Dr Amanda Rivis

Learning Outcomes By the end of this lecture, and with independent study, you should be able to: Discuss the origins, structure and functions of attitudes Evaluate methods for measuring attitudes Discuss the link between attitudes and behaviour Discuss theories of attitude change

The different origins of Attitudes: Classical Conditioning Stimulus 1 (Moth Balls) Stimulus 2 (Visits to Grandmother) Pleasurable Feelings Stimulus 1 (Moth Balls) Pleasurable Feelings (B)

The Different Origins of Attitudes: Instrumental Conditioning Behaviour toward Attitude Object (e.g., playing with child of another Race) Positive or Negative Reinforcement (+ive = parents approval Ive = parents’ Disapproval) Positive or Negative Attitude Toward Attitude Object

The Different Origins of Attitudes: Imitation Social Learning Theory (Bandura 1977): Attitudes are learned through imitation and modelling. Parents and society influence attitude

Attitude Structure Three-component model views attitudes as having three components: Affective = feelings about the attitude object Behavioural = predisposition to act towards the attitude object in a certain way Cognitive = beliefs about the attitude object Any given attitude may be based in lesser or greater amounts on any of these components

Functions of Attitudes Value-Expressive function enable us to express who we are and what we believe in Ego-defensive function enable us to project internally-held conflicts onto others (e.g., homophobia) Knowledge function enable us to know the world Utilitarian Function Enable us to gain rewards and avoid punishment

How are attitudes measured? Overt Attitude Measures Self-report (single-item) attitude measures Advantages: Easy and quick to administer Relatively cheap Disadvantages: Responses may not be reliable, e.g., Question wording Mood Social desirability (but see bogus pipeline technique) Assume people have an attitude! (cf. “spontaneous” attitudes)

How are attitudes measured? Overt Attitude Measures Attitude scales Multiple items are used to measure the same construct Eliminate some of the problems of single-item measures (e.g., reliability) Some of the more popular scales include: Likert scale Osgood’s Semantic Differential Scale Expectancy-Value Scale (Fishbein, 1971)

How are attitudes measured? Example of Expectancy-Value Approach My using birth control pills… Belief Strength Outcome Evaluations Product Is convenient +3 +1 Causes me to gain weight -2 -6 Gives me guilt feelings +2 -1 Enables me to regulate the size of my family +4 Total

How are attitudes measured? Covert Measures Covert Attitude Measures (CAM). These measures use physiological arousal to infer attitudes: Electro-myograph (EMG). (Petty & Cacioppo 1981) which may include heart rate & pupil dilation Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) : measures physiological arousal detected through skin resistance (Porier & Lott 1967)

How are attitudes measured? Evaluation of Covert Measures More objective than self-report measures Physiological measures (e.g. GSR) can be caused by fear or anger Physiological measures cannot assess the direction of affective responses

How Well Do Attitudes Predict Behaviour? Early research evidence suggested a weak to moderate link between attitudes and behaviour (e.g., LaPiere, 1934; Wicker, 1969) More recent research has examined moderators of the attitude-behaviour relationship, e.g., Attitude strength Direct experience with the attitude object Attitudinal ambivalence Correspondence of attitudinal and behavioural measures

How Well Do Attitudes Predict Behaviour How Well Do Attitudes Predict Behaviour? Correspondence of Attitudinal and Behavioural Measures Attitude Measure Attitude-Behaviour Correlation Attitude toward birth control Attitude toward birth control pills Attitude toward using birth control pills during the next two years .08 .32 .53 .57 Source: Davidson & Jaccard (1979)

How Well Do Attitudes Predict Behaviour: Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) This model posits an important mediator of the attitude-behaviour link, namely behavioural ‘intention’ The TPB holds that attitudes combine with other important factors in predicting intentions and, in turn, behaviour:- Perceived social pressure Factors that may facilitate or inhibit performance of the behaviour

Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) Perceived Social Pressure Behaviour Intention Attitudes Perceived Behavioural Control

Theories of Attitude Change: The Yale Attitude Change Approach (Hovland, et al. 1953) According to this approach, attitude change/persuasion influenced by 3 factors:- Source – originator of communication Message – features of communication itself Audience – characteristics of who is receiving the message

Characteristics of Source Theories of Attitude Change: The Yale Attitude Change Approach (Hovland, et al. 1953) Characteristics of Source Credibility Expertise Trustworthiness Attractiveness Similarity Appearance

Theories of Attitude Change: The Yale Attitude Change Approach (Hovland, et al. 1953) Message Factors One-sided vs. Two-sided messages Order of messages Primacy Effects –v- Recency Effects Repetition

Characteristics of Audience Theories of Attitude Change: The Yale Attitude Change Approach (Hovland, et al. 1953) Characteristics of Audience Distraction Intelligence Self-Esteem (?) Age (18-25 year olds most susceptible) Problem: what conditions determine the relative importance of these factors?

ELM holds that there are two ‘routes’ to attitude change: Petty & Cacioppo’s (1986) Elaboration Likelihood (dual-process) Model of Persuasion (ELM) ELM holds that there are two ‘routes’ to attitude change: Central route to persuasion occurs when we think critically about message content and are swayed by the strength and quality of its arguments. Peripheral route to persuasion occurs when we do not do much thinking but are swayed by employing heuristics on the basis of non-content cues (e.g., “experts know best”)

The Elaboration-Likelihood Model of Persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) Whether persuasion results from the central or the peripheral processing route depends upon: Ability e.g., attention, ‘receptive’ Motivation Personal Involvement

The Elaboration-Likelihood Model of Persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) Central Route to Persuasion Yes Attitude Change Persuasive Communication Ability & Motivation to pay attention? Peripheral Route To persuasion No

Theories of Attitude Change: Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger, 1957) This theory of self-persuasion holds that: Cognitive inconsistency creates a state of psychological tension (i.e., “dissonance”) Such tension is aversive and motivating (where it poses a threat to the self) Easiest form of dissonance reduction will be adopted

Cognitive Dissonance Theory and Attitude Change: Justifying Attitude-Discrepant Behaviour Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)

Theories of Attitude Change: Bem’s (1965) Self Perception Theory According to Bem, attitude change does not need to result from dissonance People infer their attitudes from their behaviour Cognitive dissonance when attitude-behaviour discrepancy large self-perception when not so large (Fazio, et al. 1977)

Reading Hogg, M. & Vaughan, G. (2005) Social Psychology (4th Edition) Prentice Hall: London - chapter 5 Brehm, S, Kassin, S. & Fein, S. (2002) Social Psychology. Houghton Mifflin: London - Chapter 6 Aronson, E., Wilson, T., & Akert, R. (2005) Social psychology (5th Edition) - chapter 7 Morgan, C, King, R. & Robinson, N. (1979) Introduction to Psychology. McGrw-Hill: London- Chapter 14