Attitudez & Persuasion Week 5
objective self-awareness
-focusing of attention on self -more self-awareness -> less cheating (Diener & Wallbom, 1976)
Self-Esteem View
-Aronson -diss aroused when ppl engage in behavior that violate expectations of the kind of ppl they r
Self-Perception Theory
-Bem (1972) -ppl have poor insight into int states -perceivers of our own behaviors: no direct access but mem of past behavior *change attitudes to match behaviors when situational demands do not appear to be controlling behavior -DOESN'T claim that attitudes have CHANGED -simply inferring what attitudes must be based on behavior
New Look model
-Cooper & Fazio (1984) -dissonance occurs when person accepts RESPONSIBILITY for bringing about aversive, unwanted event -> attitude change -not every behavior that prod unwanted consequence leads to diss/attitude change -> ppl need to feel personally responsible -> consequence must be unwanted & forseeable -> behavior that leads to consequence needs to be chosen freely
social comparison processes
-Festinger, 1954 -intrinsically driven to compare opnions & abilities w/ others -> strong motivations to have attitudes consis w/ others = consis w/ balance theory -> expand interpersonal consis to address intra-indiv consis between person's own attitudes & behaviors
theory of cognitive dissonance
-Festinger, 1957 -mentally rep lives in terms of cog elements (feelings, thoughts behaviors, perceptions) -> affected by relationships among cogs -consonant rel: 1 cog follows another -dissonant rel: 1 cog follows from obverse of another -motivated to avoid dissonant cogs -cog diss: aversive, uncomfortable state of arousal when we perceive dissonant rel -> driven to red -choice -> relinquish something in order to gain selected alt -can add cog elements consis w/ choice behavior -change importance of cog elements -change valuation put on cog elements (attractive -> unattractive) -indep cultures: diss from personal choices -interdep cultures: diss from interpersonal choices -behavioral expression that contradicts attitude creates unpleasant diss state -> drives person toward red -change cog that's least resis to change -make public statement that contradicts attitude -> attitude is least resis -> change to conform to behavior
Reasoned Action Approach
-Fishbein & Ajzen (2010) -intention = most direct predictor of behavior -based upon 1) behavioral beliefs about + & - consequences of behavior (attitudes about behavior) 2) normative beliefs about what other relevant ppl in envi might want them to do (judgment of subjective norms) -Integrative model: importance of descrip norms (what ppl actually do) *Theory of planned behavior: beliefs about ability to control behavior 3) control beliefs -background factors: construe beliefs -behavioral, normative, control beliefs -> intention -> behavior -applications: condom use, health, high school completion rates -challenges: not psych realistic; heavily cog; demphasizes affective predictors & moderators; moral beliefs have special status...additionally moderating variables
Action Based Model
-Harmon-Jones -func approach to motivation behind cog diss -proximal motivation: red - arousal caused by inconsis cog -distal motivation: prepare for unequivocal (unambig) action by changing cogs -attitude change: immed func of red arousal; arousal functionally rel to serving distal purpose of orientation to unconflicted action
balance theory
-Heider -wired to prefer balanced rel in eval of ppl & objects -strain to restore balance
MODE Model
-Motivation & Opportunity as Determinants of behavior -Fazio -delib & spontaneous ways attitudes influence behavior -attitude: assoc in mem between object & eval -applications in racial prejudice & discrim attitude object primes judgments of adjectives as good/bad -> reaction time reveals implicit attitudes towards Afr Am -criticism: 1) problematic to infer that attitude accessibility is primary predictor of behavior in spontaneous processing 2) attitude accessibility necess for eval? auto eval stim of which we have no prior experience
vicarious dissonance
-Norton, Monin, Cooper, Hogg -participants observe another person behaving in way that contradicted attitude -> create diss in observer IF they share common group & if observer felt highly attracted to group -> observer also changes attitude -occurred even when ppl didn't hear speech & attitude change highest when speaker known to disagree w/ issue -supp for disliked issue greater when 1) speaker has high choice 2) aversive consequences = foreseeable 3) more vicarious psych discomfort experienced 4) one reduces vicarious discomfort
Self-Affirmation theory
-Steele (1988) -cog diss arousal actually part of broader concern w/ estab goodness of self-concept -threat to self-concept -> use any means avail to restore integrity -if other avenues provide way for ppl to feel good about themselves -> don't need to change attitudes ex: remind self of personal values -> don't change attitude
Self-Standards Approach
-Stone & Cooper (2001) -diss arousal dep on adopted judgment std -diss created by behavior whose consequences r judged to be unwanted (like New Look) -normative vs. personal std -judgment std to assess consequence of behavior can be altered by situational interventions -personal std: high self-esteem -> changed atitudes low self-esteem -> behavior met low expectations for themselves -> didn't change attitudes -normative std: self-esteem made no diff; caused diss
misattribution procedure
-Zanna & Cooper (1974) -pill that makes u tense/uncomfortable (actually placebo) -attitude change elim when ppl thought arousal due to pill's side effects -Cooper, Zanna, Taves (1978) -ppl believed pill was placebo but actually stimulant -> inc arousal attributed to counterattitudinal behavior -> more attitude change -sedative -> red arousal -> red attitude change -counterattitudinal behavior -> INC skin conductance (SCR): aroused auto nervous sys
mere association of attitude object w/ bodily response
-approach (+) behavior: bring items toward self; flex arm; nod head; smile -avoidance (-): move items away; extend arm; shake head; frown -ppl didn't think mvmts was rel to eval -attitudes formed by assoc between object & embodied responses
perceived norm
-assessment of injunctive & descrip norms -usually attitudes r more predictive of behavior BUT dep on weight ascribed to norm (self-monitoring, culture)
inc attitude-behavior correspondence
-attitudes that serve value-expressive func (ex: voting) -more stable & accessible -int consis -knowledge about our attitude (analyzing) -older age -lower self-monitoring
behavioral beliefs
-beliefs about consequences of certain behavior & value attached to each consequence
Festigner & Carlsmith (1959)
-boring task: rotate pegs -> - eval -participant hired to convince confed that task was fun -> speech had + eval -> attitude change in + direction -dissonance has MAGNITUDE -diss magnitude inc as discrepancy between attitude & behavior inc in magnitude & importance -diss magnitude dec as consonant cog inc in magnitude & importance -$20: larger, more important cog -> red magnitude of dissonance -> elim need for attitude change -$1: low inducement -> greater dissonance -> more attitude change
limiting conditions to dissonance
-commitment: no diss if u can "take it back" -freedom: no diss in absence of decision freedom; only diss if given freedom to turn down request -unwanted/undesirable consequences: need to occur; otherwise no attitude change
~implicit
-committed non-consciously -ppl not aware of connection to partic attitude -feedback from body mvmts -bogus feedback (inc HR) -> rate women as more attractive & eval persists (Valins, 1966)
control beliefs
-confidence in ability to enact behavior -> influences behavioral intention -Banrdura's self-efficacy -perceived behavioral control (psych var; influences intention to behave) vs. actual control (skills/abilities; envi factors)
Wicker (1969)
-cum impact of attitudes across behavior across 45+ studies -avg correl of attitudes & behavior: r = 17 -less than 3% of behavioral variance is reliably due to attitudes
LaPiere (1934)
-discordance between ppl's reports & actual behavior -Chinese couple only denied service once even though businesses said they wouldn't accept
injunctive norm
-doing what others think u should do in situation
effort justification
-engaging in effortful, unpleasant activities in order to join group only to find group wasn't worth effort -> diss -> red by adopting more + attitude toward group -Aronson & Mills (1959): sex screening test high effort cond: more + eval of discussion & group mem
deliberative pathway
-exertion of cog effort -need motivation (for accuracy, self-esteem) & opportunity
spreading of alternatives
-hypotheses: 1) chosen alt: more attractive rejected alt: less attractive 2) closer in eval before choice -> more cog diss 3) more important decision -> eval of alt will spread more -attitude changes motivated by needing to red cog diss -Brehm (1956): home appliance gift choice make choice -> attitudes toward chosen alt became more + & vice versa provided that choice was difficult free item w/o choosing -> no distortion of attitudes
Cooper & Worchel (1970)
-identical to peg experiment BUT confed either convinced (unwanted consequence) or unconvinced -more attitude change w/ low incentive -BUT no attitude change for either incentive when confed unconvinced
spontaneous pathway
-lack motivation & opp -quick attitude accessibility -> attitude-behavior correspondence bc guides behavior w/o conscious reflection -accessibility determined by strong assoc between attitude & mental rep of attitude object -auto eval responses -> downstream consequences -guides behavior by prod immed eval impression or indirectly influencing cog
principle of compatability
-matching level of specificity of attitude measure to specific behavior -> high level of attitude-behavior correspondence -attitudes will predict behavior to extent that it's specific to time, soc context, target object, partic type of behavior -Ajzen & Fishbein (1977): r = .83 between attitude-behavior correspondence & principle of compatibility satisfaction -Davidson & Jaccard (1979): specific attitude measures more strongly rel to behavior (r = .57)
Kraus (1995)
-meta-analysis of 88+ attitudes & behavior studies -greater attitude-behavior consis if: 1) more certain attitudes 2) attitudes from direct experiences 3) more accessible attitudes 4) principle of compatibility: attitudes measured at same level of specificity as behaviors
Aronson & Carlsmith (1963)
-motivated to behave but induced to refrain -> still impacts attitudes -didn't actually do anything but inconsis exists -less sig reason for refraining -> greater diss -attractive toy -> told kid not to play w/ -severe vs. mild threat -refraining from playing w/ toy -> cog inconsis -severe threat -> big, important cog consis w/ decision not to play w/ toy -> no need for further justification -mild threat -> no consonant cog -> genuine devaluation -> cease to play when permitted & eval lower -mild threat -> greater internalization & attitude change; persis
embodied responses & thought confidence
-nodding: confidence in reaction -> more persuaded by strong args & less persuaded by weak args -shaking head: non-confidence -> less persuaded by strong args & less skeptical of weak args; not greatly influenced -no diff in # or valence of thoughts
mixed processes
-parallel activation of spontaneous & delib mixing
situational self-awareness
-see self in mirror -> behavior more likely to correspond to attitude -speak to audience -> behavior more likely correspond to norms/beliefs about attitude
crystallized
-stable, non-ambig, non-ambiv -attitudes become more crystallized w/ age
expectancy-value index of behavior
-summing gain/loss of each possible outcome weighted by its subjective probability
descriptive norm
-what u think ppl really do in situation
inferring attitudes from behaviors w/o cog diss
1) non-attitudes for objects w/ v little pre-formed eval 2) behavior only mildly inconsis w/ attitudes write essays mildly discrep from attitude -> attitudes changed in direction of essays but NO arousal/discomfort; changed attitude for selfperception
