Attitudes and Persuasion Final Exam

Reason for attitude-behavior gap

because people are inconsistent

Self-perception theory

An individual's attitude statements may be viewed as inferences from observations of his own behavior and its accompanying stimulus variables. As such, his statements are functionally similar to those any outside observer could make about him. Simply stated, parents teach their children (intentionally or not) that attitudes can be inferred from behavior. Another reason is logical fallacy of because they approach things they like, they like the things they approach subjects who were cued that their attitudes might have caused them to act as they did were more likely to report attitudes that were consistent with their behavior

Definitions of Attitudes

Attitude - An enduring positive or negative evaluation of about a person, object, issue, or event. Attitude has 3 components: 1. Affective: The emotions that are connected with the attitude object. (I'm scared of clowns.) 2. Behavior: The behavior that occurs when the attitude object is encountered. (When I see a clown, I cover my eyes.) 3. Cognitive: The thoughts and beliefs that come to mind when the attitude object is encountered. (I believe that clowns are mean and dangerous)

Classical and operant conditioning

C. C. process of association. In simple terms two stimuli are linked together to produce a new learned response in a person or animal. O.C. behavior which is reinforced tends to be repeated (i.e. strengthened); behavior which is not reinforced tends to die out-or be extinguished

ELM

Central - One route—the central one—is taken when persuasion results from thinking about the issue or arguments under consideration. peripheral - one—results when persuasion results from non-issue-relevant concerns such as impression management motives, the attractiveness of the message's source, or one's social role. if the new attitude results from effortful issue-relevant cognitive activity (central route), the new attitude is likely to be relatively enduring. But if the new attitude results from various persuasion cues in the situation (peripheral route), the attitude change is likely to exist only so long as the cues remain salient. active cognitive involvement of the person in the persuasion situation is crucial for the production of enduring attitude changes. In studies where issue-relevant cognitive activity was likely to be intense (e.g., role-playing studies, experiments employing personally relevant issues, etc.), the attitude changes produced have been found to be relatively enduring. On the other hand, in studies where issue-relevant cognitive activity was likely to be weak (e.g., experiments employing issues of little personal relevance), the initial attitude changes produced have been relatively short-lived. two main factors: motivation and ability - people become more motivated to think about a message that has high personal relevance (Petty & Cacioppo, 1979b). - people could become more motivated to think about the content of a message if they were told that they were going to be subsequently interviewed about the issue (Chaiken, 1980). - people would sometimes be more motivated to think about incongruent than congruent information

Fazio et al Dissonance vs Self-perception

Fazio, Zanna, and Cooper (1977) then proposed that both theories were accurate, but that each applied to different domains. According to their analysis, self-perception processes are operative when a person's behavior is generally consistent but not in total agreement with the initial attitude—that is, when the behavior falls within the person's latitude of acceptance (see chap. 4). Fazio et al. reasoned that, in these instances, the person does not experience the unpleasant internal sensations postulated in cognitive dissonance theory. Hence, the person is not motivated to reduce any internal tension, but rather is able to employ the calm, detached reasoning process of self-perception to deduce his or her attitude toward the issue. Cognitive dissonance theory applies, however, when a person acts without sufficient external justification in a manner opposite to what would be expected from the relevant (prior) attitude—that is, when the person's behavior falls within his or her latitude of rejection. In these instances, the person experiences an unpleasant internal state of tension that initiates rationalizing (rather than inferential) processes and attitude change.

Impression management

Impression management theory deals with how people present an image to others in order to achieve a particular goal. Most analyses of impression management assume that a primary goal in presenting oneself to others is the attainment of social approval. The type of public image presented to people clearly affects the material and social rewards obtained in social interactions is not produced by dissonant cognitions but rather by people's knowledge that they appear inconsistent to others. people want to convey, given social constraints, as positive and consistent a public image as possible in order to obtain social rewards.

Function of Attitudes

Katz (1960) presented 4 functions that attitudes might serve: 1. Ego-Defensive: attitudes that help people feel better about themselves. 2. Value-Expressive: attitudes that allow you to express a value that is important to you. 3. Knowledge: attitudes that help you understand the people/social interactions around you. 4. Utilitarian: attitudes that help you gain a reward or avoid a punishment.

Role-playing

Our review of the role-playing effect indicated that if people were specifically asked to play a certain role and to argue for a particular position, their attitudes would probably change as a result. As we noted in the introduction to this chapter, however, sometimes our attitudes about something will change simply as a result of thinking to ourselves. When we think about something, we may generate information that we did not consider when our initial attitudes were formed In sum, we can conclude that: (1) role playing is an effective procedure for changing attitudes because people engage in a biased information search when asked to role-play,(2) role playing is more effective than passive exposure because people tend to value the arguments that they generate more than the arguments generated by others, and (3) role playing produces more persisting attitude change than passive exposure because people can better remember the arguments that they generate than the arguments generated by others.

Perspective theory

distinguishes between the content of an attitude and the judgmental language a person uses to describe his or her attitude. The content of an attitude refers to all of the various ideas, beliefs, images, and other elements associated with the attitude object or issue. The rating of an attitude refers to how the person presents his position on an evaluative dimension (e.g., pro-con; favorable-unfavorable; positive-negative). Mediating the relationship between the content and the rating of one's attitude is one's perspective, which refers to the range of content alternatives that an individual takes into account when an attitude object is rated. For any attitude issue, then, an individual's perspective would be defined by what he considers to be the most positive and the most negative content positions that are reasonable. These extreme content points serve as the endpoints (and anchors) of the person's attitude rating scale. An interesting feature of perspective theory is that two people can describe their attitudes in an identical manner on an attitude rating scale, but they can have different content positions in mind when they do so (see box 4.3). This is possible because different people may have different perspectives and may take a different range of content positions into account when making attitudinal judgments.

Theory of planned behavior

emphasizes that human behaviors are governed not only by personal attitudes, but also by social pressures and a sense of control. This model, when coupled with a few modifications, can generate some fascinating predictions. For example, individuals are more likely to execute rather than neglect their intentions, such as a plan to refrain from alcohol, if they express these plans on more than one occasion (Cooke & Sheeran, 2004). Description of the model • The theory of planned behavior assumes that rational considerations govern the choices and behaviors of individuals (Ajzen, 1985; Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005). Specifically, according to a precursor of this theory, called the theory of reasoned action, behavior is determined by the intentions of individuals--their explicit plans or motivations to commit a specific act. For example, intention to quit smoking refers to an explicit commitment to this abstinence. • These intentions partly, but not entirely, reflect the personal attitudes of individuals, which is the extent to which they perceive this act as desirable or favorable. These attitudes reflect both cognitive beliefs about the act, such as whether they believe that smoking is harmful, as well as affective evaluations, such as whether they feel that smoking is unsuitable. • In addition, the degree to which significant individuals, such as relatives, friend, or colleagues, condone this act, called subjective norms, also affects intentions (Ajzen, 1985, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005). The perceived importance or relevance of these relatives, friends, or colleagues affects the extent to which their approval will shape intentions. Furthermore, these weightings might vary across contexts. For example, the beliefs of relatives are likely to shape the intentions to engage in behaviors that relate to family life. In contrast, the beliefs of managers might be more likely to shape intention the intentions to engage in behaviors that relate to work life. • Finally, according to the theory of planned behavior, which represented a refinement to the theory of reasoned action, the extent to which individuals feel they can engage in these behaviors, called perceived behavioral control also impinges on their intentions and behaviors (Ajzen, 1991). Perceived behavioral control comprises two main facets. First, perceived behavioral control depends on the degree to which individuals conceptualize themselves as sufficiently knowledgeable, skillful, disciplined, and able to perform some act, called internal control (Kraft, Rise, Sutton, & Roysamb, 2005), which overlaps with the concept of self efficacy. Second, perceived behavioral control depends on the extent to which individuals feel that other factors, such as the cooperation of colleagues, resources, or time constraints, could inhibit or facilitate the behavior, called external control (Kraft, Rise, Sutton, & Roysamb, 2005). • Furthermore, intentions to perform some act do not always culminate in this behavior. Perceived behavioral control is partly, but not absolutely, related to actual behavioral control (Armitage & Conner, 2001), which in turn affects the extent to which intentions are associated with the corresponding behaviors. Perceived and actual behavioral control can sometimes diverge, such as when individuals are oblivious to factors that obstruct or facilitate the intented behavior.

Forewarning and attitude inoculation

forewarning an audience of an upcoming discrepant communication on an involving topic produces resistance to persuasion by stimulating counterarguments in anticipation of the message. forewarning per se that induces resistance but the anticipatory thinking about the topic. The forewarning apparently elicits thoughts consistent with the person's negative attitude about the issue. The fact that warned subjects generate various negative thoughts in anticipation of the message suggests that an attitude measure taken after the warning but prior to the message would show evidence of attitude polarization (recall Tesser's work on "mere thought"). Subjects would become more extreme in the direction of their initial tendency prior to receiving the message. This anticipatory polarization effect has been obtained in several studies attitude inoculation - or resistance to persuasion; people could be made more resistant to a discrepant message by inoculating their initial attitudes. The inoculation treatment consists of exposing people to a few pieces of counterattitudinal propaganda prior to exposure to the threatening message and showing them how to refute this initial discrepant information. The presentation of refuted weak counterarguments presumably produces resistance to subsequent stronger attacks, because the inoculation poses a threat that motivates people to develop bolstering arguments for their somewhat weakened attitude, and it helps them counterargue the attacking message. This practice in generating supportive cognitive responses and refuting attacks enables people to resist subsequent propaganda more effectively than can nonpracticed (or noninoculated) people.

Internal, external, and insufficient justification

information that disconfirms a personally significant belief or expectation can cause a person to seek justification for the initial belief. When social support is available, the person may actually become a more ardent believer than he or she was before the disconfirming event ("my belief must be true if others still agree with me"). internal justification - external justification - insufficient justification - means that a cognition following from another cannot be explained or justified by either the preceding or any other apparent cognition

Attribution (models, external, internal)

is an inference made about why something happened, why someone did or said something, or why you acted or responded in a particular way. The crux of the attributional approach is that people infer underlying characteristics—such as attitudes and intentions—from the verbal and overt behaviors they observe. When there appears to be an obvious reason for some behavior, people confidently attribute that behavior to that cause. internal - dispositional external - situational

Foot in the Door phenomenon

that people become more likely to perform a large and costly favor for you if they have previously agreed to perform or have performed a smaller favor factors: (a) Size of the initial request— the larger the initial favor to which someone accedes, the more likely that they will comply to a second, larger request. This is because larger requests are presumably more likely to induce thought about why the behavior was performed. The evidence suggests support for this prediction except for very large initial requests (b) Agreement versus actual performance of the initial request—Consistent with self-perception theory, agreement is sufficient, but actual performance of an initial favor, which makes one's agreement to do the favor more salient, increases the strength of the foot-in-the-door effect. (c) Effect of noncompliance with the initial request—People who refuse to do the initial favor generally become less likely to perform the second, larger favor than people not asked to perform the initial request. This occurs because the people who refuse the initial request presumably come to view themselves as people who do not aid strangers. Of course, if the first request is so large that people would not attribute their refusal to help to something about themselves, then the refusal does not undermine their likelihood to help later. This is because their initial refusal to help can be attributed to the outrageously large initial request rather than to their unhelpful nature. (d) Effect of explicit social labels—In some studies, people are explicitly told following their compliance to the initial request that they are generous and helpful (positive label) or that they are miserly and unhelpful (negative label). People become more likely to comply with the second, larger request when their initial compliance is positively labeled and when their initial compliance is negatively labeled, if by performing the request they can refute the claim they are unhelpful.

Dissonance theory

two elements are consistent (consonant) when one follows from the other. First, the person can change one of the elements to make two elements more consonant. The addition of consonant cognitions is a second way to reduce dissonance. The person who decides to continue smoking despite evidence that smoking causes cancer may seek out information that is critical of the research. Finally, a person can reduce cognitive dissonance by changing the importance of the cognitions. (a) there must be a firm conviction; (b) there must be public commitment to this conviction; (c) the conviction must be amenable to unequivocal disconfirmation; (d) such unequivocal disconfirmation must occur; and (e) social support for the changed beliefs must be available to the believer after the disconfirmation. In sum, information that disconfirms a personally significant belief or expectation can cause a person to seek justification for the initial belief. When social support is available, the person may actually become a more ardent believer than he or she was before the disconfirming event ("my belief must be true if others still agree with me"). How might cognitive dissonance be identified? Festinger (1957, p. 3) described dissonance as a motivational tension that is unpleasant. This description points to three dimensions along which dissonance might be characterized: the motivational, physiological, and phenomenological (subjective) dimensions. three ways to reduce dissonance: - change behavioral element - addition of consonant cognitions - change importance of cognitions