Defining Attitude Concept Defining Attitude Concept Eagly & Chaiken (1993): emphasize the tripartite Eagly & Chaiken (1993): emphasize the tripartite (multicomponent) classification. (multicomponent) classification. •”•”tendencies to evaluate an entity with some tendencies to evaluate an entity with some degree of favor or disfavor, ordinarily expressed degree of favor or disfavor, ordinarily expressed in cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses”in cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses”and formed on the basis of cognitive, affective, and formed on the basis of cognitive, affective, and behavioral processes. and behavioral processes. Evaluating = refers to all classes of evaluative Evaluating = refers to all classes of evaluative responding, whether overt (verbal) or covert responding, whether overt (verbal) or covert (nonverbal), cognitive, affective, or behavioral. (nonverbal), cognitive, affective, or behavioral.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Eagly & Chaiken (1993): emphasize the tripartiteEagly & Chaiken (1993): emphasize the tripartite(multicomponent) classification.(multicomponent) classification.
•” •” tendencies to evaluate an entity with sometendencies to evaluate an entity with some
degree of favor or disfavor, ordinarily expresseddegree of favor or disfavor, ordinarily expressedin cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses” in cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses” and formed on the basis of cognitive, affective,and formed on the basis of cognitive, affective,and behavioral processes.and behavioral processes.
Evaluating = refers to all classes of evaluativeEvaluating = refers to all classes of evaluativeresponding, whether overt (verbal) or covertresponding, whether overt (verbal) or covert(nonverbal), cognitive, affective, or behavioral.(nonverbal), cognitive, affective, or behavioral.
Tripartite (“trilogy of mind”) originally linked toTripartite (“trilogy of mind”) originally linked to
“Faculty Psychology” “Faculty Psychology”
Tripartite view of attitudinal responding: doTripartite view of attitudinal responding: do
attitudes have all three aspects?attitudes have all three aspects?Grounded in 18Grounded in 18thth C. Enlightenment view of attitudeC. Enlightenment view of attitude
(Cognition, Affection, Conation – act of striving).(Cognition, Affection, Conation – act of striving).
Kant, Leibniz, Scottish School: interest inKant, Leibniz, Scottish School: interest inconsciousness and introspection. Debates aboutconsciousness and introspection. Debates about
how many innate “faculties” of mind existed.how many innate “faculties” of mind existed.
Preceded development of experimental psy in 19Preceded development of experimental psy in 19thth C., and faded with its rise of latter in earlyC., and faded with its rise of latter in early1920’s.1920’s.
Wundt, late 19Wundt, late 19thth
C in Germany, associationism wasC in Germany, associationism wasanti-introspection and discredited Facultyanti-introspection and discredited FacultyPsychology.Psychology.
But trilogy of mind remained in Psychology’sBut trilogy of mind remained in Psychology’s
vocabulary.vocabulary.William McDougall (1923),William McDougall (1923), Outline of Psychology Outline of Psychology
(wrote 1(wrote 1stst social psy text in 1908)social psy text in 1908)
Ajzen. Ajzen.Influenced Allport (1935): “An attitude is a mentalInfluenced Allport (1935): “An attitude is a mental
or neural state of readiness, organized throughor neural state of readiness, organized through
experience, exerting a directive or dynamicexperience, exerting a directive or dynamic
influence on the individual’s response to allinfluence on the individual’s response to allobjects and situations to which it is related.” objects and situations to which it is related.”
Zanna & Rempel (1986) evaluative appraisalZanna & Rempel (1986) evaluative appraisalmodel. Do attitudes have to have all 3 aspects?model. Do attitudes have to have all 3 aspects?
Z&R: categorization of a stimulus object along anZ&R: categorization of a stimulus object along anevaluative dimension based upon 3 generalevaluative dimension based upon 3 general
classes of information: cognitive,classes of information: cognitive,affective/emotional, past behaviors or behavioralaffective/emotional, past behaviors or behavioralintentions.intentions.
Model suggest that attitudes are separate cognitiveModel suggest that attitudes are separate cognitive
entities which may be accessed from memoryentities which may be accessed from memoryindependent of the affective, cognitive, orindependent of the affective, cognitive, orbehavioral information on which they are based.behavioral information on which they are based.
6 implications of this view:6 implications of this view:
1.1. That these classes of information canThat these classes of information candetermine evaluations separately or indetermine evaluations separately or in
combination.combination.2.2. When evaluations are based primarily onWhen evaluations are based primarily on
utilitarian beliefs about an attitude object, theutilitarian beliefs about an attitude object, themodel is belief based.model is belief based.
3.3. When evaluations are based primarily on affectWhen evaluations are based primarily on affectproduced by the object, the model becomesproduced by the object, the model becomessingle component (evaluative, preferences)single component (evaluative, preferences)
4. When evaluations based on inferences from4. When evaluations based on inferences from
past behavior, model is like self-perception.past behavior, model is like self-perception.
5. If attitudes are based on different sources of 5. If attitudes are based on different sources of
information, do equivalent evaluations based oninformation, do equivalent evaluations based ondifferent sources differentially predict and guidedifferent sources differentially predict and guide
behavior? (Priming)behavior? (Priming)
6. Are such attitudes differentially susceptible to6. Are such attitudes differentially susceptible to
different methods of persuasion?different methods of persuasion?
Attitudes as “tendencies to evaluate” - -there is an Attitudes as “tendencies to evaluate” - -there is animplicit or explicit response to an entity based onimplicit or explicit response to an entity based onthe “evaluative residue” of past experience (orthe “evaluative residue” of past experience (orbeliefs or feelings) that predisposes the personbeliefs or feelings) that predisposes the personto a favorable or unfavorable response.to a favorable or unfavorable response.
Attitudes can have varied antecedents on the input Attitudes can have varied antecedents on the inputside, and varied consequences on the outputside, and varied consequences on the outputside. But the attitude is not the response per se.side. But the attitude is not the response per se.
Attitude is the tendency or latent property of the Attitude is the tendency or latent property of theperson that gives rise to judgments andperson that gives rise to judgments andcategorizations.categorizations.
Attitudes as Enduring or temporary constructions. Attitudes as Enduring or temporary constructions.
Some attitudes are relatively enduring (formedSome attitudes are relatively enduring (formedearly in life and carry through life; others areearly in life and carry through life; others areformed then changed; some formed but fade)formed then changed; some formed but fade)
N. Schwartz:N. Schwartz: Attitudes-as-construction view Attitudes-as-construction view..Most if not all attitudes are unstable, constantlyMost if not all attitudes are unstable, constantlyemerging anew in specific situations. Equatesemerging anew in specific situations. Equatesvariability in the expression of attitudes withvariability in the expression of attitudes with
variability in the evaluative tendency thatvariability in the evaluative tendency thatconstitutes attitudes. Not same asconstitutes attitudes. Not same as contextcontexteffects – latent construct can be stable buteffects – latent construct can be stable butsensitive to context.sensitive to context.
actions…if, as we act, we areactions…if, as we act, we are conscious conscious of ourof our
attitudes” (p.90). Bias toward the consciousattitudes” (p.90). Bias toward the conscious
operation of attitudes, not automatic activation.operation of attitudes, not automatic activation.Greenwald & Banaji (1995) onGreenwald & Banaji (1995) on implicit attitudes implicit attitudes ::
“Implicit attitudes are introspectively unidentified “Implicit attitudes are introspectively unidentified
(or inaccurately identified) traces of past(or inaccurately identified) traces of past
experience that mediate favorable orexperience that mediate favorable orunfavorable feeling, thought, or action towardunfavorable feeling, thought, or action toward
Dual Attitude Model (Wilson, Lindsey, & Schooler,Dual Attitude Model (Wilson, Lindsey, & Schooler,2000)2000)
●●Model proposes that people can have “dualModel proposes that people can have “dual
attitudes,” which are different evaluations of theattitudes,” which are different evaluations of thesame attitude object (one is automatic, implicitsame attitude object (one is automatic, implicitattitude; other is explicit attitude).attitude; other is explicit attitude).
●●Proposes that the attitude people endorse at anyProposes that the attitude people endorse at any
point in time depends on whether they have thepoint in time depends on whether they have thecapacity to retrieve the explicit attitude, andcapacity to retrieve the explicit attitude, andwhether explicit overrides implicit.whether explicit overrides implicit.
“evaluations that have an unknown origin “evaluations that have an unknown origin
(people are unaware of the basis of their(people are unaware of the basis of their
evaluation), are activated automatically,evaluation), are activated automatically,and influence implicit responsesand influence implicit responses
(uncontrollable responses and ones that(uncontrollable responses and ones that
are not seen as an expression of attitudeare not seen as an expression of attitudeand therefore are not controlled)” and therefore are not controlled)”
1.1. A(e) and A(i) toward same attitude A(e) and A(i) toward same attitudeobject can coexist in memory.object can coexist in memory.
2.2. When dual attitudes exist, A(i) isWhen dual attitudes exist, A(i) isautomatically activated; A(e) requiresautomatically activated; A(e) requiresmore capacity and motivation to retrievemore capacity and motivation to retrieve
from memory. When able to retrievefrom memory. When able to retrieve A(e), it overrrides A(i) and A(e) is A(e), it overrrides A(i) and A(e) isreported.reported.
like nonverbal behaviors) or responses that theylike nonverbal behaviors) or responses that they
do not view as an expression of their attitudedo not view as an expression of their attitudeand do not attempt to control (e.g., neuraland do not attempt to control (e.g., neural
old habits, change more slowly. Attitude changeold habits, change more slowly. Attitude changetechniques target A(e) but not A(i).techniques target A(e) but not A(i).
5. Dual attitudes not same as ambivalent5. Dual attitudes not same as ambivalentattitudes or attitudes with discrepantattitudes or attitudes with discrepantaffective and cognitive components.affective and cognitive components.
People with dual attitudes report thePeople with dual attitudes report theattitude that is most accessible; don’tattitude that is most accessible; don’texperience a subjective state of conflictexperience a subjective state of conflictfrom holding dual attitudes.from holding dual attitudes.
Define attitudinal ambivalence vs. dualDefine attitudinal ambivalence vs. dualattitudes.attitudes.
Direct measuresDirect measures: rely on self-reported attitudes.: rely on self-reported attitudes.
Asked direct questions about their thoughts, Asked direct questions about their thoughts,
feelings, or behaviors toward attitude objects.feelings, or behaviors toward attitude objects.
Indirect measuresIndirect measures: do not alert respondents to the: do not alert respondents to theidentity of the object of the attitude beingidentity of the object of the attitude being
measured. Indirect measures rely on moremeasured. Indirect measures rely on more
circuitous methods of obtaining info. Assumecircuitous methods of obtaining info. Assume
that self-reports are of questionable validitythat self-reports are of questionable validitybecause people are frequently unaware of theirbecause people are frequently unaware of their
attitudes or unwilling to disclose them publicly.attitudes or unwilling to disclose them publicly.
Implicit-Explicit Measures (Hofmann, et al. 2005)mplicit-Explicit Measures (Hofmann, et al. 2005)
5 accounts for low5 accounts for low r’ r’ s between explicit and implicit:s between explicit and implicit:
1.1. Motivational biases in explicit self-reports (e.g.,Motivational biases in explicit self-reports (e.g.,prejudicial attitudes).prejudicial attitudes).
2.2. Lack of introspective access to implicitly assessedLack of introspective access to implicitly assessed
attitudes (introspection may increase awareness).attitudes (introspection may increase awareness).3.3. Factors influencing the retrieval of information fromFactors influencing the retrieval of information from
memory [dual attitudes model; A(e) that arememory [dual attitudes model; A(e) that arespontaneous correlate more highly with A(i)]spontaneous correlate more highly with A(i)]
4.4. Method-related characteristics of the two measuresMethod-related characteristics of the two measures(e.g., lack of “correspondence”).(e.g., lack of “correspondence”).
5.5. Complete independence of the underlying constructs.Complete independence of the underlying constructs.
••Moderators (e.g., research topic involved;Moderators (e.g., research topic involved;
awareness of A(i); effortful retrieval?awareness of A(i); effortful retrieval?higherhigher r’ r’ s with spontaneous self-reports with spontaneous self-report
Assumption: that proper measurement on the Assumption: that proper measurement on the
behavior side is equally important and that webehavior side is equally important and that we
do not have to abandon attitude construct asdo not have to abandon attitude construct as
long as we use properly scaled behaviorallong as we use properly scaled behavioralcriteriacriteria and and a valid attitude measure.a valid attitude measure.
1.1. Specific act or single act criterionSpecific act or single act criterion: Should: Should
include 4 elements (action, time, context,include 4 elements (action, time, context,
target). Measure can be dichotomous ortarget). Measure can be dichotomous or
continuous.continuous.2.2. Repeated observations of same single act:Repeated observations of same single act:
repeated observations of same behavior atrepeated observations of same behavior at
different observation times (e.g., unobtrusivedifferent observation times (e.g., unobtrusive
measure of popularity of an art exhibit).measure of popularity of an art exhibit).Observations combined into repeatedObservations combined into repeated
Return to Multimethod Approacheturn to Multimethod Approach
The asked to rate on 7-point scale howThe asked to rate on 7-point scale howcharacteristic each of 22 traits was of characteristic each of 22 traits was of Blacks and Whites (half rated eachBlacks and Whites (half rated each
group).group).In order to determine “to what extentIn order to determine “to what extent
people are in touch with their realpeople are in touch with their realfeelings” E allegedly checked participant’sfeelings” E allegedly checked participant’sverbal response against machine’sverbal response against machine’sreading.reading.
Control: same task, no machine.Control: same task, no machine.
Return to Multimethod Approacheturn to Multimethod Approach
Found that students were much more likely toFound that students were much more likely to
assign negative traits to Blacks under the bogusassign negative traits to Blacks under the bogus
pipeline condition than Control.pipeline condition than Control.
Significant racial prejudice exposed. Same conceptSignificant racial prejudice exposed. Same conceptas polygraph and lie detection – suspects needas polygraph and lie detection – suspects need
to believe that the machine will unmask theirto believe that the machine will unmask their
deception; leads to them spilling their guts, anddeception; leads to them spilling their guts, and
the polygraph industry claiming efficacy. Samethe polygraph industry claiming efficacy. Samewithwith No Lie MRI, Inc.No Lie MRI, Inc.
2.2. Use of more subtle self-report measures and indirectUse of more subtle self-report measures and indirectmeasures yields a different picture. Responses that aremeasures yields a different picture. Responses that aredifficult to control (e.g., physiological reactions, reactiondifficult to control (e.g., physiological reactions, reactiontimes following racial primes, etc.) uncover moretimes following racial primes, etc.) uncover more
negative feelings and beliefs.negative feelings and beliefs.3.3. Which set of findings more closely represents “true” Which set of findings more closely represents “true”
attitudes? Results from direct measures must be viewedattitudes? Results from direct measures must be viewedwith some skepticism, but social desirability biases morewith some skepticism, but social desirability biases moreproblematic in certain contexts than others (atts towardproblematic in certain contexts than others (atts toward
fat and toward gay/lesbian people vs. race, gender,fat and toward gay/lesbian people vs. race, gender,ethnicity).ethnicity).
Fazio et al: Whites can be divided into threeFazio et al: Whites can be divided into threecategories with respect to attitudes towardscategories with respect to attitudes towardsBlacks:Blacks:
“ “
truly nonprejudiced”: no negative beliefs ortruly nonprejudiced”: no negative beliefs orfeelings about Blacks; low prejudice scores onfeelings about Blacks; low prejudice scores onboth direct and indirect measures.both direct and indirect measures.
“ “truly prejudiced”: high scores on both direct andtruly prejudiced”: high scores on both direct and
indirect measures; do not try to hide theirindirect measures; do not try to hide theirnegative feelings (either because prejudice is OK negative feelings (either because prejudice is OK or because they fail to recognize that theiror because they fail to recognize that theirattitudes are prejudiced)attitudes are prejudiced)
6. Tempting to always think that affective,6. Tempting to always think that affective,cognitive, and behavioral measures arecognitive, and behavioral measures are
equivalent; but in fact only modestly correlated.equivalent; but in fact only modestly correlated.
e.g., (Dovidio, Brigham, Johnson, & Gaertner, 1996): Somee.g., (Dovidio, Brigham, Johnson, & Gaertner, 1996): Somepeople hold negative beliefs about outgroups, yet believepeople hold negative beliefs about outgroups, yet believeit is wrong to act on them. Others deny having negativeit is wrong to act on them. Others deny having negativebeliefs about outgroups, yet experience negative feelingsbeliefs about outgroups, yet experience negative feelings
toward those groups. Can’t assume that tripartite attitudetoward those groups. Can’t assume that tripartite attitudemodel holds all or even most of the time (Schneider,model holds all or even most of the time (Schneider,2004, pp.29-30).2004, pp.29-30).
Point: Researchers’ measurement strategies will be shapedPoint: Researchers’ measurement strategies will be shapedby the particular facets of the attitudes of greatestby the particular facets of the attitudes of greatest
interest to them, and often they will find it necessary tointerest to them, and often they will find it necessary touse more than one type of measure.use more than one type of measure.
Intra-attitudinal Structure Matters: The allure of Intra-attitudinal Structure Matters: The allure of
“safer” tobacco products “safer” tobacco products
“ “The more successfully a cigarette reducesThe more successfully a cigarette reduces
risk, the more it might encourage smokersrisk, the more it might encourage smokers
not to quit. Or lure ex-smokers to resumenot to quit. Or lure ex-smokers to resume
their habit. Or make kids smokers. Ittheir habit. Or make kids smokers. Itmight, in other words, do exactly themight, in other words, do exactly the
opposite of what it is intended to do. In aopposite of what it is intended to do. In a
worst-case scenario, it could reverse aworst-case scenario, it could reverse ahalf-century of antismoking education,half-century of antismoking education,
policy and litigation in a flash.” (Gertner,policy and litigation in a flash.” (Gertner,
•• Availability of “low-yield cigarettes” has led to Availability of “low-yield cigarettes” has led to
public perceptions of “safer” cigarettes, butpublic perceptions of “safer” cigarettes, butwith no resultant decrease in morbiditywith no resultant decrease in morbidity((Fairchild & Cosgrove, 2004,Fairchild & Cosgrove, 2004, American Journal of Public Health American Journal of Public Health , “Out of , “Out of
the Ashes”; Myers, 2000, NEJM).the Ashes”; Myers, 2000, NEJM).
•• Similar concerns have been raised about theSimilar concerns have been raised about themarketing of reduced harm products, underscoringmarketing of reduced harm products, underscoringneed for science to fill the information gap onneed for science to fill the information gap onattitudes toward harm reduction and federalattitudes toward harm reduction and federal
regulation of reduced harm productsregulation of reduced harm products (H.R. 140, “Title V –(H.R. 140, “Title V –FDA Regulations of Tobacco Products, referred to House Subcommittee on Health,FDA Regulations of Tobacco Products, referred to House Subcommittee on Health,2/14/03)2/14/03)
Two Key Background ConceptsTwo Key Background Concepts
Harm reductionHarm reduction: relates to actually seeing a: relates to actually seeing areduction in mortality or morbidity with the usereduction in mortality or morbidity with the useof a product.of a product.
Potentially reduced-exposure products (PREPsPotentially reduced-exposure products (PREPs):):tobacco products that have been modified ortobacco products that have been modified ordesigned in some way to reduce users’ exposuredesigned in some way to reduce users’ exposureto tobacco toxins.to tobacco toxins. Two categoriesTwo categories – variants of – variants of traditional tobacco cigarettes (e.g., smokelesstraditional tobacco cigarettes (e.g., smokeless
tobacco; new cigarettes that heat rather thantobacco; new cigarettes that heat rather thanburn tobacco), or pharmaceutical agents that areburn tobacco), or pharmaceutical agents that aremeant to aid in smoking cessation (e.g., nicotinemeant to aid in smoking cessation (e.g., nicotinegum, lozenges, nicotine patch).gum, lozenges, nicotine patch).
Survey: Minnesota Center for Survey ResearchSurvey: Minnesota Center for Survey Research
••sent to 1,300 randomly selected households in 5-statesent to 1,300 randomly selected households in 5-stateUpper Midwest region (Minnesota, Iowa, NorthUpper Midwest region (Minnesota, Iowa, North
Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin); Fall 2003Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin); Fall 2003
••438 adult participants returned the survey (38% return438 adult participants returned the survey (38% returnrate)rate) 58.9% Male, 95.7% Caucasian58.9% Male, 95.7% Caucasian
Mean age: 54.2 yearsMean age: 54.2 years
21.9% smoked in last 30 days.21.9% smoked in last 30 days.
Predicting attitudes toward harm reductionPredicting attitudes toward harm reductionby level of experienceby level of experience::
– Smokers’ attitudes are best predicted by theirSmokers’ attitudes are best predicted by theirfeelings, non-smokers’ attitudes are bestfeelings, non-smokers’ attitudes are bestpredicted by their thoughts and beliefspredicted by their thoughts and beliefs
Does structure matter and for whom?Does structure matter and for whom?
ForFor smokerssmokers, their feelings about harm reduction, their feelings about harm reduction
were the primary predictor of overall attitudeswere the primary predictor of overall attitudes
toward harm reduction; fortoward harm reduction; for non-smokersnon-smokers,,
thoughts and beliefs were the primary predictor.thoughts and beliefs were the primary predictor. Feelings associated with smoking (taste,Feelings associated with smoking (taste,
reduction of cravings, relaxation) may createreduction of cravings, relaxation) may create
positive attitudes that are difficult to counterpositive attitudes that are difficult to counter
with information on the health risks of thesewith information on the health risks of theseproducts.products.