When do Attitudes Predict Behavior? (6 Answers)
- Absence of Situational Constraints
- Same Level of Specificity
- attitude and behavior on same level = high predictor
- not same level = lower predictor
- Attitude is Potent
- Formed via Direct Experience
- direct experience will lead to one behaving much more accordingly
- Attitudes Assessed Right Before Behavior
- They're stronger than otherwise; likely to predict accurately
- ex: voters will have stronger attitudes the day before election than month ago
- For Low Self-Monitors
- introspects self, ponders what self would do based on what they want
Cognitive Dissonance theory
- Consistency in Cognitions of People is Desired
- cognitions = thoughts, wants, behaviors
- provides comfort
- Perceived Inconsistency in Cognitions----Dissonance
- produces discomfort
- ex: cognition about smoking
- A = it's good
- B= causes cancer
- Cognition A and B Conflict
- Reduce Dissonance via various means
- Festinger and Carlsmith (1959)
- Experimenter asks subject who did dull peg turning task to set expectation for next subject
- Conditions: A) Control: tell truth B) Insufficient justification: $1 to tell lie C) Sufficient justification: $20 to tell lie
- At end asked how much did they enjoy the task
- Question: Did the Conditions change the subject's attitude?
- Result: Group A = Very much disliked task ; Group B = Greatly Favored ; Group C = Indifferent
- Take Home Message: Group B members had Dissonance because they sold out for an Insufficient Justification - changed attitude for comfort as result of prior behavior
- Counterattitudinal behavior
- Change attitude = make it more consistent with behavior
- example:
- write an essay that you did not want to write but someone convinced you'
- chose to write freely
- change attitude toward writing
- Decision justification
- Justify your decision by not acknowledging pros of other choice
- example:
- pick one from two choices you like
- classify positive and negative of the one you did not choose
- suddenly, your choice becomes less favorable
- as result, dissonance sets in
- purposely forget the positives of the one you didn't choose for justification
- Effort justification
- Reduce Dissonance to justify the effort spent in the activity
- study example:
- people join discussion group about sex
- put effort to go to the group and spend time there
- turned out to be boring talk about beetle sex
- result: tell friends that discussion was awesome
- Other ways to reduce dissonance
- change attitude
- add cognitions:
- alter importance
- reduce perceived choice
- change behavior
- Alternatives to Dissonance Theory
- Self-perception theory
- self-perceive from behavior your attitude
- attitude change is rational and emotionless
- Bem (1965)
- subjects read and Festinger and Carlsmith experiment and guessed results
- reasoning: if predict results then inferred attitudes from behavior
- results: most successfully guessed results
- does not work for imbedded attitudes ; does work for unimportant ones
- Impression Management theory
- People want to APPEAR consistent rather than be consistent
- what looks like attitude change isn't
- ex: Subjects from Festinger and Carlsmith experiment in $1 grouo
- Self-affirmation theory
- Do ANYTHING to restore positive view of self( need not be related to the inconsitency)
- maintain general, positive view of oneself; win battle not war
- give an opportunity to feel better about themselves unrelated from the inconsistency and they'll take it
- Summary of Theories
- Is the attitude change motivated by a desire to reduce discomfort?
- Cognitive Dissonance = Yes
- Self-Perception = No
- emotionlessly infer attitude
- Impression Management
- Self-affirmation
- Does a person's private attitude really change?
- Cognitive Dissonance = Yes
- Self-Perception = Yes
- create attitude
- Impression Management = No
- act like you have a different attitude than the one you have
- Self- Affirmation = Yes
- Must the change be directly related to the attitude-discrepant behavior?
- Cognitive Dissonance =Yes
- Self-Perception = Yes
- Impression Management = Yes
- Self-Affirmation= No
- if you can do something irrelevant to inconsistency to make yourself feel good (money to charity etc.) than that suffices
- Theories' Relevance Today
- Cognitive Dissonance = highly regarded
- Self- Perception = somewhat relevant
- Impression Managemnet = not great alternative
- Self-Affirmation = real challenge to Cognitive Dissonance
- Elaboration Likelihood Model: theory stating that there's two ways that people can change their attitude and they differ in the way you elaborate and think about the persuasive appeal
- Central Route
- logical, rational, careful and straightforward; make up mind based on weight of evidence
- reason-based
- Peripheral Route
- people don't think carefully but influenced by cues that are often irrelevant but have importance in attitude change
- emotion-based
- What determines Central vs Peripheral Route in ELM?
- Motivation: Yes for Central
- Ability: (time/attention): Yes for Central
- Central:
- NEEDS BOTH MOTIVATION and ABILITY
- Compelling factor = Argument
- Info, the facts
- Peripheral:
- Lack of Motivation and/or Ability
- Compelling factor = Cues
- Accentuate the Perks, say its cool parts
- Peripherally vs Centrally-based attitudes
- Peripherally-based
- Weaker Foundation
- More Easily Changed
- Less Predictive of Actual Behavior
- Source characteristics
- Credibility
- expert
- trustworthy
- best is the one that argues against self-interest
- ex: people don't know they're being taped/not being paid to say
- Likeability
- physical attractiveness
- fame
- similarity
- breeds attraction, relatable
- Message Characteristics
- Amount of Info ---more = better
- better argument, more persuasive
- better for central = info aspect
- better for peripheral = heuristic of there must be something to do this
- backfire- too much, lose audience
- Repetition---- more = better
- breeds familiarity
- backfire- bombardment breeds boredom; mainly con to peripheral
- solution - repetition with variation
- 1 vs 2 sided ---- depends
- key- audience initial perspective
- no knowledge
- 1 side
- because want focus on info, no getting lost
- knowledge
- 2 side
- argue against opposing side
- Reason vs Emotion------ depends
- well-educated and interested audience
- rational argument works best - central
- not well-informed, uninterested
- appeal to their emotion- peripheral
- Positive and Negative emotion----- positive = better
- no limits on positivity
- negativity used sparingly based on topic, work or doesn't
- Resistance to Persuasion
- Reactance: negative reaction to perceived threat to one's personal freedom which increases resistance to persuasion leads, to attitude change in opposite direction
- negative reaction to perceived threat-----opposite attitude
- e.g. someone tells you can't __, you do ___
- Inoculation- develop counter arguments to attacks and will be less likely to change your mind
- exposure to some persuasive appeals over time then,
- develop immunity to persuasive appeals
- Forewarning- told ahead of time that someone will try to persuade you, less likely to be convinced
- guard is up, ready to counterattack
- Selective Avoidance- selectively avoid info that challenges personal beliefs
- e.g. republican won't listen to democrat speeches
No comments:
Post a Comment