Attitude-Behavior Process
Testing the MODE model by manipulating motivation AND opportunity Sanbonmatsu and Fazio 1990 Decision task
"Imagine that you specifically need a new camera. What store?" IV's -opportunity -no time pressure— instructed to take their time -time pressure — instructed they had only 15 seconds -motivation -high fear of invalidity — told would have to explain decision to other Ps in the group and the experimenter -low fear of invalidity — no special instructions 2x2 design
Schematic diagram of Fazio's attitude-to-behavior process model
Attitude activation-> selective perception-> definition of the event-> behavior Norms-> definition of the situation-> definition of the event-> behavior
Mean attitude-behavior correlations
High attitude accessibility: .61 Moderate attitude accessibility: .59 Low attitude accessibility: .51 -more favorable= more likely to choose it as plus 5
Are the two attitude-behavior processes similar?
No, are very different
Davidson and Jaccard (1979) Family planning Overview
found women's general attitudes toward birth control did not predict their use of the contraceptive pill as well as specific attitudes towards using the contraceptive pill within the next two years -sample of 270 women 18-38 survey + follow up 2 yr -behavioral intention "i intend to have a child in next 2 years" -predictor of behavior -correlations with birth = .53 -correlations with birth or attempted conception = .62 -attitudinal and normative components as multiple predictors of behavior -multiple R with birth = .51 -multiple R with birth or attempted conception = .60 -behavior intention did predict behavior
Deliberative attitude-behavior process
-analyze costs and benefits of engaging in a particular behavior -exemplified by Azjen and Fishbein's theory of reasoned action
Spontaneous attitude-to-behavior process additional relevant evidence
-can use a priming measure to directly assess attitude that is automatically activated -predicts "spontaneous" behaviors (deliberation doesn't take place) -black targets ratings of interaction -more eye-blinking and less direct eye-contact while interacting with black interviewer -distance seated from an obese woman
Testing the MODE model by manipulating opportunity Hofmann, Rauch and Gawronski 2007
-candy consumption (m&ms eaten during taste test) examined as a function of 3 variables -attitudes towards m&ms (measured via an IAT) ^those who score high like m&ms -motivation — dietary restraint (I often stop eating when i am not really full as a conscious means of limiting the amount I eat) ^those who score high here are motivated to stop eating -opportunity — resource depletion (Watch 7 min film clip under instructions to suppress emotions, control was told to watch it like they would regular in a theater) ^opportunity gate is closed -suggesting that emotion suppression depletes our resources and leaves mentally and emotionally fatigues ^opportunity gate is open *manipulate opportunity measure motivation
Position effects Average proportion of selecting the products
-front high: .55 moderate: .59 low: .59 -back high: .40 moderate: .46 low: .40 The location/position of thinks can impact the attitude accessibility -row effect height: .05 moderate: .13 low: .19
Spontaneous attitude-behavior process
-little active reflection or thinking; behavior "flows" from definition of event -exemplified by Fazio's process model
Deliberation in daily life?
-make big deliberate decisions at times in life but would be exhaustive to do with everything
Moderating role of attitude accessibility Fazio and Williams 1989 Product selection study overview
-measure attitudes and accessibility regarding variety of consumer products -can choose 5 of 10 products as bonus -arranged in 2 rows on a table -shown 100 objects on a screen then rated one at a time including thos 10 objects -for each of 10 products, divide sample into those with high moderate and low accessibility -calculate correlation between attitudes and whether product selected -look at how well they rated and and if they chose it and how quickly they did (attitude accessibility)
Moderating role of attitude accessibility Fazio and Williams 1986 election study Overview
-more accessible attitudes, more biased perception of campaign info, such as debates -more attitudinally-biased perception, more stable attitudes over time -more stable the attitude, more likely that attitude measured months earlier is same as attitude that determines vote
Relationship status as a function of Auto Activated racial Attitudes
-more negative AAA more likely to fail relationship -opportunity gate isn't consistently open while sharing the room (ex: bad mood, fatigue, can't motivate self to control for prejudice AAAs)
Modern racism scores as a function of attitude and low vs. high concern with acting prejudiced
-more prejudice meant more automatically activated attitude led to their judgment or behavior (motivation is absent) -lower prejudice meant AAA was more corrected and motivation(opportunity) work to counter their AAA
The "how" question of attitude-behavior process
-need for a process approach -length catalig of qualities that moderate attitude-behavior relation -why does this happen? -have to understand how attitudes guide behavior, why these variables are influential
What are the 2 different attitude-behavior process?
1- deliberative 2-spontaneous
Attitudes can influence behavior via: (MODE model)
1- spontaneous process initiated by automatic activation of the attitude 2- a deliberate reasoning process, given sufficient motivation and opportunity 3- mixed process that involves a combination of automatic and controlled components; controlled component again requires motivation and opportunity
Testing the MODE model by manipulating opportunity Hofmann, Rauch and Gawronski 2007 Correlations with Candy Consumption
Attitudes control: -.09 Motivation control: -.48 Motivation outweighs their liking for m&m's More motivated to control eating, less eat no matter how much you like Attitudes depletion: .34 Motivation depletion: .29 Even with motivation when depleted eat more. Attitudes play bigger role here because if they like it, don't have resource to stop eating
MODE model of attitude to behavior process
Automatically activated attitude -> judgment or behavior Motivational factos -> judgement or behavior (with AAA) Opportunity overlap the motivational factors-> judgement or behavior (will AAA) -opportunity gate must be open to override AAA
Schematic diagram of Ajzen and Fishbein's theory of reasoned action
Beliefs that the behavior leads to certain outcomes and eval of those outcomes -> attitude towards the behavior-> intention-> behavior Beliefs that specific individuals or groups think they should/shouldn't perform the behavior and their motivation to comply with the specific referents -> subjective norm-> intention-> behavior -beliefs + motivation to accept/comply with beliefs by doing or not doing behavior -> intention -> behavior
The MODE model
Motivation and Opportunity as DEterminants
Testing the MODE model by manipulating motivation AND opportunity Sanbonmatsu and Fazio 1990
Process to see if they came to conclusion via deliberation or not -read statements abt 2 department stores -Smith's- 8/12 statements are favorable (clearly more favorable store) -Brown's- 8/12 statements are unfavored -Included are 2 statements about the camera department -Smiths— poor camera department -Browns — good camera department; both statements positive -statements presented in mixed order for 6 seconds each -at end of presentation, rate each of the stores on 7-pt. Scale -we know ppl prefer smiths over browns -18 min delay period to allow some fading of mem
Testing the MODE model by manipulating motivation AND opportunity Sanbonmatsu and Fazio 1990 Results
Time pressure low fear: 59 Time pressure high fear: 55 No Time pressure low fear: 67 No time pressure high fear: 100 No pressure and opportunity - deliberate Pressure and no opportunity - go with smiths because it was better store Pressure and opportunity - issue of not having time -motivation and opportunity are necessary in this process
