Post on 28-Mar-2015
C82SAD: Attitudes, persuasive communication, and attitude
change
What is an Attitude?
• “Social psychology is the study of attitudes” (Allport, 1935)
• Distinction between social psychologists use of the word ‘attitude’ and the generally used term i.e. “He has an attitude problem”, “Wow, she’s got attitude”
• Attitude is defined as “tendencies to evaluate an entity [attitude object] into some degree of favour or disfavour, ordinarily expressed in cognitive, affective and behavioural responses” (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993).
Attitude: Definitions
• “The concept of attitudes is probably the most distinctive and indispensable concept in contemporary American social psychology. No other term appears more frequently in the experimental and theoretical literature” (Allport, 1935, p. 798)
• “Attitudes are a mental and neural state of readiness, organised through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual's response to all objects and situations with which it is related” (Allport,1935, p. 810).
Attitude: Definitions
• Attitudes involve associations between attitude objects and evaluations of these objects (Fazio, 1989)
• Attitudes are evaluations of various objects that are stored in memory (Judd et al., 1991)
• Attitude is a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluation a particular entity with some degree of favour of disfavour ... Evaluating refers to all classes of evaluative responding, whether overt or covert, cognitive, affective or behavioural (Eagly & Chaiken,1993).
Component Theories of Attitude
• Unitary model. Attitudes are a single positive or negative evaluation of an attitude object
• Dual model. A mental state of readiness and therefore guides some evaluation or response towards and object
• Tripartite model. Include feeling (affective), action (behavioural), and thought (cognitive) components – “ABC”
Tripartite Model?
CognitiveBelief based e.g.
“Beer kills my brain cells”“Beer helps me to relax”
“Beer tastes good after a hard days work”
Attitude object: Beer
AffectiveEmotion based e.g.
“Harmful-Beneficial”“Relaxing-Stressful”
“Tasty-Bitter”
BehaviouralIntention based e.g.
“I will cut down on my beer drinking”“I intend to drink beer when I’m stressed”
“I plan to drink more beer after work”
What are Attitudes Used for?Attitudes serve as conscious and unconscious motives and have four functions (Katz, 1960):• They assist in helping us make sense of our world and to organize the information we encounter (c.f. cognitive economy) (KNOWLEDGE FUNCTION)• They help us make behave in socially acceptable ways to gain positive and avoid negative outcomes (UTILITARIAN/ADJUSTIVE FUNCTION)• They act as a guide to behaviour in social situations and help us in self- and social- categorization (SOCIAL IDENTITY/VALUE-EXPRESSIVE FUNCTION)• They allow use to preserve a positive sense of self (EGO-DEFENSIVE FUNCTION)
Attitude Formation
Behavioural theories• Direct experience – expectancy value model of
attitudes – mere exposure can influence attitudes
• Classical conditioning – neutral stimuli paired with salient response results in an attitude
• Operant conditioning – attitudes shaped by a reinforcement system of reward and punishment
• Observational learning – modelling in vicarious experiences
Attitude Formation
Cognitive theories• Information integration theory – attitudes formed by
‘averaging’ available information on a object• Self-perception theory – infer attitudes from own
behaviour (Bem, 1960)• Mood-as-information hypothesis – Emotion (mood)
provides basis of evaluation of attitudes objects• Heuristic processing – decision ‘rules of thumb’ are used
to make judgements and form ‘mental shortcuts’ in memory
• Persuasion – Attitudes formed on the basis of persuasive information
Attitude Formation
Sources• Parents – Infer attitudes from those most closest
to you (c.f. Bandura, 1965) but strength of association ranges from strong (Jennings & Niemi, 1968) to very weak (Connell, 1972)
• Mass media – Particularly television an important influence of attitude formation especially in children (e.g., Chaffee et al., 1977) and links between television advertisements and children’s attitude Atkin, 1980)
Common Sense: Attitudes and Behaviour
“You can’t stop parents feeding their kids what they are going to feed them, what you can do is try to create a situation where over time people realize that it isn’t really any good for kids to be brought up on a poor diet…It’s a question of changing attitudes over time”
Tony Blair speaking on BBC BreakfastTuesday, 10th October 2006
Attitude-Behaviour Relationship• Of principle concern - if attitudes don’t guide behaviour then their efficacy and
utility as a construct is greatly reduced• Classic study: LaPiere (1934) restaurateur's attitudes towards Asians in 1930’s
USA- questioned validity of the attitude-behaviour link• Wicker (1969) attitudes were very weakly correlated with behaviour across 45
studies (average r =.15)• Gregson and Stacey (1981) only a small positive correlation between attitudes
and alcohol consumption• Stimulated study into the personality, contextual, temporal and methodological
influences on the attitude-behaviour relationship
Attitude-Behaviour Relationship• Reasons for lack of a relationship:• Methodological
– Unreliability and low validity of attitude and/or behavioural measures
– Time between attitude and behavioural measure• Modality
– Lack of compatibility/correspondence between attitude and behaviour
– Target, Action, Context and Time– Recent evidence: e.g. Armitage and Conner (2001)
strong indirect attitude-behaviour relationships within Theory of Planned Behaviour
Expectancy-Value Models of Attitude
• Expectancy-value models – Attitudes have two components:– Expectancy: Behaviour will result in a certain outcome
(e.g., studying hard will gain me good grades)– Value: Outcome is highly valued (e.g., getting good
grades is important to me)
• Each expectancy is multiplied by each value to produce attitude ‘score’ e.g.
Attitude = (expectancyi x valuei)i = 1
The Theory of Reasoned Action(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980)
Attitudes
Subjective Norms
Intentions Behaviour
General orientation towards the behaviour“good-bad”,“useful-useless”,“harmful-beneficial”
Stated volitional plans“I plan…/I intend.../ I expect...”
Measure of actual behaviour
Evaluation of others evaluation “my parents think…”,”my teacher thinks…”
Where do Attitudes and Subjective Norms Come From?
Attitudes
Subjective Norms
Intentions Behaviour
BehaviouralBeliefs
XOutcome
Evaluations
NormativeBeliefs
XMotivation to
Comply
Expectancy-value Models of Attitudes and Subjective Norms
Man’s belief about woman using pill Man’s belief about man using condom
Attribute Strength of belief
Value of belief
Result
Strength of belief
Value of belief
Result
Reliability 0.90 X +2 = +1.80 0.70 X -1 = -0.70
Embarras-ement
1.00 X +2 = +2.00 0.80 X -2 = -1.60
Side effects
0.10 X -1 = -0.10 1.00 X +2 = +2.00
Outcome +3.70 -0.30
Evaluation of capacities/barriers/abilities“self-efficacy”/”easy-difficult”
The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)
(Ajzen , 1989)
PerceivedControl
Attitudes
Subjective Norms
Intentions Behaviour
ControlBeliefs
XPerceived
Power
The Effect of Including Perceived Behavioural Control
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
TRA TPB
Intentions: sleep
Behaviour: sleep
Behaviour: vitamins
Intentions: vitamins
Theory
Source:Madden, Ellen & Ajzen (1992)
• Generality of attitude (Davidson & Jaccard, 1979) – confirmed ‘TACT’
• Attitude accessibility (Doll & Ajzen, 1992)• Attitude strength (Fazio et al., 1986)• Social identity as a group member (self-
identity for a particular behaviour) affects intention-behaviour relationship (Terry & Hogg, 1996)
Factors Affecting Attitude-Intention Relationship in TPB
The role of norms and group identification in attitude-behaviour consistencyStudents expressed a stronger intention to engage in regular exercise when they felt their attitudes towards exercise were normative of a student peer group with which they identified strongly.
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
4.0Low High
Ingroup normativeness of own attitude
Inte
ntio
n to
eng
age
in r
egul
ar e
xerc
ise
(7-p
oint
sca
le)
Group identification: Low
High
Source: based ondata from Terry andHogg (1996)
Protection Motivation TheoryBalancing perceived threat vs. capacity to cope with healthy behaviour
Intrinsic rewardExtrinsic reward
Source: Floyd, Prentice-Dunn, Rogers (2000)
Cognitive processes
Perceived vulnerabilityPerceived severity
Perceivedresponse-cost
Threatappraisal
Copingappraisal
Protectionmotivation
(Maladaptive)
(Adaptive)
Response efficacySelf-efficacyResponse efficacySelf-efficacyResponse efficacySelf-efficacy
Measuring Attitudes
• Thurstone’s (1928) equal appearing interval scale – developed from 100s of items (questions)
• Likert (1932) scale – 5- point scales with +ive and –ive scoring
• Semantic differential scale (Osgood et al., 1957) –uses word pairs
• Scalogram (Guttman, 1944) – agreement with statements from single trait
Scale Value of Items on an 11-point Thurstone
Equal-Intervals ScaleT H U R S T O N E S C A L E
Attitude towards Contraception
How favourable Value on 11- Item
point scale
Least 1.3 Practising contraception should be punishable by law.
3.6 Contraception is morally wrong in spite of possible benefits.
Neutral 5.4 Contraception has both advantages and disadvantages.
7.6 Contraception is a legitimate health measure.
9.6 Contraception is the only solution to many of our social
problems.
Most 10.3 We should not only allow but enforce limitation on family size.
An Example of a Likert-Scale Item to Measure
Attitudes Towards Nuclear Power Plants
`I believe that nuclear power plants are one of the great dangers of industrial
societies´
+2 Strongly agree
+1 Moderately agree
0 Neutral or undecided
-1 Moderately disagree
-2 Strongly disagree
A 7-Point ‘Likert-Type’ Self-Rating Scale
Are you favour of having nuclear power plants in Britain?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
STRONGLYAPPROVE
NEUTRALSTRONGLY
DISAPPROVE
Rating The Concept of `Nuclear Power´ on a
7-Point Semantic Differential Scale
GOOD BAD
STRONG WEAK
FAST SLOW
SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALE
Nuclear power
Attitude Accessibility Model• Fazio (1989, 1995) proposed the attitude accessibility model• Attitude is automatically activated on presence of situational cues
that have a strong effect on life outcomes• Attitudes are most influential when they are relevant and important
Attitude objectin memory
Evaluation ofattitude object
Attitude objectin memory
Evaluation ofattitude object
Attitude objectin memory
Evaluation ofattitude object
No link
Weak link
Strong link
Fazio’s Automatic Activation Model
According to the attitude accessibility model (Fazio, 1989), attitude accessibility— the ease with which attitudes can be retrieved from memory — plays a keyrole in the attitude-behaviour link.
Source: Fazio (1989)
Presentation ofattitude object
(activation)
Strong attitudeactivated-retrieved
from memory
Evaluation ofattitude object and
situation
Information processingand behaviour toward
attitude object
Persuasive Communication
• The ‘Yale’ approach precursor and highly influential of persuasive communication
• Hovland and coworkers identified the features of persuasive communication– Message (content)– Source or communicator– Audience
Yale Approach to Persuasive Communication (Hovland et al., 1953)
Message•Order of arguments•One- vs two-sided arguments•Type of appeal•Explicit vs implicit conclusion
Source•Expertise•Trustworthiness•Likeability•Status•Race
Audience•Persuasibility•Initial position•Intelligence•Self-esteem•Personality
Attention
Comprehension
Acceptance
Action change
Affect change
Opinion change
Perception change
The Source or ‘Communicator’• Experts more persuasive (and credible) than
non-experts (Hovland & Weiss, 1952) Popular and attractive communicators are
most effective (Kiesler & Kiesler, 1969) People speaking more quickly are more
effective than slow speakers (Miller et al., 1976), conveys expertise in subject matter.
Source Credibility
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8F
inal
op
inio
n (
ho
urs
of
slee
p
req
uir
ed)
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8*
Hours of sleep advocated by source
Discrepancy from modal student opinion*
Bochner & Insko (1996_
Low credibility(YMCA instructor)
High credibility(Nobel prize winner)
The Message• Persuasion is more effective if the message is
not perceived to be deliberately intending to manipulate opinions
Persuasion is enhanced using evaluatively-biased language – information vs. evaluation e.g. price, contents, offer etc. vs. value for money
Can persuasion be enhanced using messages that arouse fear in the audience?
Fear Communication
“There is now a danger that is a threat to us all. It is a deadly disease and there is no known cure. The virus can be passed during sexual intercourse with an infected person. Anyone can get it... If you ignore AIDS it could be the death of you. So don't die of ignorance”
Does Fear Work?
• Fear messages pervasive in advertising and communication
• But how fearful can a message become and still be effective?
Does Fear Work?• Early research suggested low-fear was
optimal (e.g., dental hygiene, Janis & Feshbach, 1953)
• Leventhal et al. (1967) found high-fear message promoted greater willingness to stop smoking
• McGuire (1969) suggested an ‘inverted-U’ hypothesis
• Messages with too little fear may not highlight the potential harm of the targeted act
• Very disturbing images may distract people from the message itself or may evoke an ‘avoidance’ reaction (Keller & Block, 1995)
Does Fear Work?A
mo
unt
of a
ttitu
de
ch
ang
e
Increase in fear
Low High
High
McGuire’s (1969) ‘Inverted-U’ hypothesis
Does Fear Work?
• Recent fear appeals
• Department for transport advertisements– THINK! Teenager road campaign– THINK! Drink driving campaign
• Department of health anti-smoking campaigns
The Medium and the Message
0
1
2
3
4
5A
mo
un
t o
f o
pin
ion
ch
ang
e
Easy Difficult
Message difficulty
Written
Audiotape
Videotape
Source: Eagly and Chaiken (1983)
The Audience
Self-esteem
• Hovland et al. suggested that people with low self-esteem were more susceptible to persuasion and attitude change
• McGuire (1968) suggested that this also followed an inverted-U relationship
The AudienceGender effects• Women more easily persuaded than men
(Cooper, 1979; Eagly, 1978)• Reasons suggested are:
– Socialisation into cooperative roles (Eagly et al., 1981)
– Only when women less familiar with subject matter (Sistrunk & McDavid, 1971)
– Carli (1990) suggested that men more persuaded by ‘tentative’ female communicator but women equally persuaded by both
– Covell et al. (1994) female participants found to prefer image-related marketing of tobacco and alcohol over quality- or attribute-oriented advertising
Dual Process Models of Persuasion
• Elaboration-likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986)
• Two ‘routes’ to persuasion• Central route = when message is followed
closely, considerable cognitive effort expended
• Peripheral route = Superficial processing of peripheral cues, attraction rather than information
HIGH LEVEL CENTRALDepends on
Quality ofArguments
LOW LEVEL PERIPHERALDepends onPresence of
Persuasion cues
Persuasivemessage
NOTCAREFUL
CAREFUL
Elaboration-Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986)
Elaboration RouteInformationprocessing
Attitudechange
Dual Process Models of Persuasion
• Heuristic-systematic model (Chaiken, 1987)• Contrasts ‘systematic’ and ‘heuristic’ processing• Systematic = careful, deliberative scanning and
processing of available arguments/information• Heuristic processing = people use ‘cognitive
heuristics’ or ‘shortcuts’/’rules of thumb’ to make judgements
• Heuristic processing involves using ‘mental shortcuts’ like a ‘cognitive miser’:– ‘longer arguments are always convincing’– ‘statistics don’t lie’– ‘you can’t trust a lawyer’
Dual Process Models of Persuasion
• When is heuristic processing used?• Petty and Wegener (1998) suggest a
‘sufficiency threshold’ – as long as heuristics produce an attitude that we are confident with
• Of not, systematic processing may be used• Use of systematic processing also halted by:
– Mood –people in good moods tend to use heuristics (Gorn, 1982; Bohner et al., 1994)
– Emotion – high-fear messages tend to be processes peripherally while low-fear more centrally.
Background to Cognitive Dissonance Theory
• Framework for explaining the effect of behaviour and experience on formation and change in attitudes
• Festinger (1954) examined how attitudes, behaviour and self-esteem (self-image) are linked
• Any inconsistency may motivate change• Recall ideas of cognitive imbalance (Heider,
1958) and cognitive incongruence (Osgood & Tannenbaum, 1955)
Cognitive Dissonance Theory• Key concept: Dissonance – an unpleasant feeling of
anxiety and of ‘disequilibrium’• Premise 1: If a person does something (behaviour) OR is
presented with counter-attitudinal information that is in contrast to his or her personal opinion (attitude) an internal conflict (dissonance) arises
• Premise 2: Dissonance motivates people to make alterations to their behavioural or internal states to restore the equilibrium between their attitudes and their behaviour
• Premise 3: Dissonance can be attenuated (reduced) using 3 means (1) reducing the importance of one of the dissonant elements (attitude change) (2) adding a ‘consonant’ element (cognitive re-appraisal) (3) changing one of the dissonant elements (behaviour change)
Examples of Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Attitudes Dissonant Element
Source of Dissonance
Strategy
A student believes he’s intelligent and that intelligent people perform well at school
He gets bad grades all the time
Discrepancy between belief in intelligence and performance
1. Behavioural: Tries harder to get good grades
2. Attitudinal: “Believes he’s not that intelligent”
3. Add consonant elements: “I don’t have time to study”; “My teacher is rubbish and unfair”; “Grades aren’t a good indicator of intelligence, anyway”
You believe that Britney Spears is the best pop artist since Take That and you buy a her latest masterpiece
Your best friend says Britney is rubbish, has no talent and all her songs sound the same
Discrepancy between your attitudes and behaviour towards Britney and someone else’s attitudes
1. Behavioural: Sell Britney single on EBay recouping most of your losses
2. Attitudinal: “I guess she’s not that good”
3. Add consonant elements: “It said she was the ‘queen of pop’ in Heat magazine, how can they be wrong”; “What do they know about music anyway? They like Westlife”
Induced Compliance
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
None $1 $20
Payment
Rat
ing
of L
ikin
g fo
r th
e T
ask
Source: Festinger, L. & Carlsmith, J.M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forcedCompliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-210.
Effort Justification
70
75
80
85
90
95
100S
um
of
rati
ng
s
Discussion Participants
Object of the ratings
Severe
Mild
Control
Source: Aronson & Mills 1959)
Moreinteresting
Moreboring
Induced Compliance
Source: Croyle, R.T. and Cooper, J. (1983). Dissonance arousal: Physicalevidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 782-791.
0123456789
Arousal Attitudechange
Free to chose, arguedagainst own position
Not free to choose,argued against ownposition
Free to chose, arguedfor own position