態度態度 AttitudesAttitudes

DefinitionDefinition

A predisposition to respond to a particA predisposition to respond to a particular object in a generally favorable or ular object in a generally favorable or unfavorable wayunfavorable way

A person’s attitudes influence the waA person’s attitudes influence the way in which he or she perceives and resy in which he or she perceives and responds to the world. (Allport, 1935; Thponds to the world. (Allport, 1935; Thomas and Znaniecki, 1918)omas and Znaniecki, 1918)

The components of an attitudeThe components of an attitude

Cognition (knowledge)Cognition (knowledge)• A set of cognitions or knowledge A set of cognitions or knowledge

structure associated with that labelstructure associated with that label Evaluation (affection)Evaluation (affection)

• Directions, IntensityDirections, Intensity Behavioral predisposition (practice)Behavioral predisposition (practice)

Consistency—Stability--PersuasionConsistency—Stability--Persuasion

價值

Value

信念

Belief

態度

Atti-tude

意見

Opinion

蹺課情況蹺課情況 FrequencyFrequency PercentValidPercentValid沒有沒有 1414 8.2 8.2 很少很少 9898 57.3 57.3 偶爾偶爾 4040 23.4 23.4 好多次好多次 1515 8.8 8.8 常常常常 33 1.8 1.8Total 170 Total 170

遲到遲到 Frequency PercentFrequency Percent沒有沒有 1515 8.8 8.8 很少很少 9191 53.2 53.2 偶爾偶爾 4747 27.5 27.5 好多次好多次 1414 8.2 8.2 常常常常 44 2.3 2.3 Total 171 100.0Total 171 100.0

為什麼態度研究在為什麼態度研究在社會心理學佔重要地位社會心理學佔重要地位

態度與行為有關態度與行為有關 經濟因素經濟因素 : : 商業商業 , , 消費消費 政治因素政治因素 : : 宣傳宣傳 , , 民主競選民主競選 軍事因素軍事因素 : : 宣傳宣傳 , , 提升士氣提升士氣 , , 心戰心戰

Attitude formationAttitude formation

Social learning and socializationSocial learning and socialization• Classical conditioningClassical conditioning• Instrumental conditioningInstrumental conditioning• Observational learningObservational learning

• More complicated learning and More complicated learning and socialization processes (educational socialization processes (educational effects on attitudes)effects on attitudes)

Functions of attitudesFunctions of attitudes

Heuristic (instrumental)Heuristic (instrumental) Schematic (knowledge)Schematic (knowledge) Define the self and maintain self-Define the self and maintain self-

worthworth Protective, direct anger toward Protective, direct anger toward

minorityminority

Functions of AttitudesFunctions of Attitudes Value-Expressive functionValue-Expressive function

• enable us to express who we are and enable us to express who we are and what we believe inwhat we believe in

Ego-defensive functionEgo-defensive function• enable us to project internally-held enable us to project internally-held

conflicts onto others (e.g., homophobia)conflicts onto others (e.g., homophobia) Knowledge function Knowledge function

• enable us to know the worldenable us to know the world Utilitarian FunctionUtilitarian Function

• Enable us to gain rewards and avoid Enable us to gain rewards and avoid punishmentpunishment

Cognitive consistencyCognitive consistency

Balance theoryBalance theory Cognitive dissonance theoryCognitive dissonance theory

•FestingerFestinger

Theory of cognitive dissonanceTheory of cognitive dissonance

Postdecision dissonancePostdecision dissonance Counterattitudinal behaviorCounterattitudinal behavior

• Dissonance effectDissonance effect• Incentive effectIncentive effect• When Prophecy Fails: a social and psychoWhen Prophecy Fails: a social and psycho

logical study of a modern group that predlogical study of a modern group that predicted the destruction of the world icted the destruction of the world 19641964

Ready to turn some pegs??Ready to turn some pegs??

Students spent hour Students spent hour turning pegs in holes turning pegs in holes (really boring)(really boring)

Paid either $1 or $20Paid either $1 or $20 Who enjoyed the task Who enjoyed the task

more (when asked more (when asked later)?later)?

Why $1 people Why $1 people $20 $20 was justification was justification enough, $1 wasn’t – I enough, $1 wasn’t – I must have really liked must have really liked turning pegs!turning pegs! (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

lowdissonance

($20)

highdissonance

($1)

control

0

1

2

3

4

5

$0.50 $1.00 $5.00 $10.00 control

Post-decisional dissonancePost-decisional dissonance

選擇

被選的

沒被選的

Post-decision ConfidencePost-decision Confidence

Waiting in line

After bet is placed

bet

社會影響與說服社會影響與說服Social Influence Social Influence and Persuasionand Persuasion

社會影響的定義和類別社會影響的定義和類別 一個人的行為使得另外一個人的想法一個人的行為使得另外一個人的想法

或行動因而有所改變是為社會影響。或行動因而有所改變是為社會影響。 社會影響的類別社會影響的類別

• 態度變遷（態度變遷（ Attitude ChangeAttitude Change ））• 順從（順從（ ComplianceCompliance ））• 服從（服從（ ObedienceObedience ））

態度變遷（即說服 態度變遷（即說服 PersuasionPersuasion ）） 影響來源者（影響來源者（ Source)Source) 用訊息（用訊息（ message,message,

information information ）改變了目標對象（）改變了目標對象（ TargeTargett ）對議題、對人、或對情況的態度和信念）對議題、對人、或對情況的態度和信念（（ beliefsbeliefs ））

Who (Source) says what (Message) to Who (Source) says what (Message) to whom (Target) to gain what effect?whom (Target) to gain what effect?

許多其他作者態度與態度變遷和社會影響許多其他作者態度與態度變遷和社會影響的主題是分開的。的主題是分開的。

順從（順從（ ComplianceCompliance ）） 影響來源者（影響來源者（ SourceSource ）經由獎勵（）經由獎勵（ rere

wardward ）或懲罰（）或懲罰（ punishmentpunishment ）來鼓）來鼓勵（勵（ promisepromise ）或威脅（）或威脅（ threatthreat ）目）目標對象（標對象（ TargetTarget ）改變行為）改變行為SourceSource 顯然控制是否給予獎懲的力量顯然控制是否給予獎懲的力量

服從（服從（ ObedienceObedience ）） 影響來源者是以命令（影響來源者是以命令（ orderorder ）來）來

要求目標對象接受權威的正當性（要求目標對象接受權威的正當性（ aauthority’s legitimacyuthority’s legitimacy ）。）。•Order is ligitimate.Order is ligitimate.

來源

專業

可信度

吸引力

訊息

差距

訴諸恐懼

單向或雙向

目標

智力

涉入

預受警

效果

改變態度

拒絕訊息

反駁

暫停

貶損來源

影響來源影響來源 專業性（專業性（ expertiseexpertise ））支持通過消費者保護法支持通過消費者保護法

同樣的訊息內容，不同的人來說同樣的訊息內容，不同的人來說1. 1. 哈佛畢業的律師，在消費者議題上很熟悉哈佛畢業的律師，在消費者議題上很熟悉2. 2. 一位關心消費者的民眾一位關心消費者的民眾原先反對者表示接受那位律師的說法比較多原先反對者表示接受那位律師的說法比較多

---- 目標對象對議題的涉入與知識也有影響目標對象對議題的涉入與知識也有影響

可信賴度（可信賴度（ trustworthinesstrustworthiness ））說服者若違反對自己的利益就最有說說服者若違反對自己的利益就最有說服力服力說服者身份的影響，若說服者被認為說服者身份的影響，若說服者被認為和目標對象有相類似的目標，就愈有和目標對象有相類似的目標，就愈有說服力說服力

吸引力吸引力 個人外表的吸引力影響說服力個人外表的吸引力影響說服力 說服者若美貌有吸引力會讓人更注意說服者若美貌有吸引力會讓人更注意

到說服的訊息，注意力會促成說服的到說服的訊息，注意力會促成說服的效果。效果。

吸引力和論辯強弱吸引力和論辯強弱•論辯強（論辯強（ strong argumentstrong argument ），吸），吸

引力影響更大引力影響更大

多種來源的效果多種來源的效果 社會影響論（社會影響論（ social impact theorysocial impact theory ））

影響力（影響力（ the impact of influence attempthe impact of influence attemptt ）是強度（）是強度（ strength, social status or pstrength, social status or powerower ）、可及性（）、可及性（ immediacy, physical immediacy, physical or psychological distanceor psychological distance ）、和來源數）、和來源數（（ number of influencing sourcesnumber of influencing sources ）的函）的函數。數。論辯來自多源，說服力比較大，強論辯尤其論辯來自多源，說服力比較大，強論辯尤其如此。如此。獨立多源獨立多源 有上限有上限

訊息（訊息（ message)message)

訊息差距訊息差距

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

低信譽

高信譽

引發恐懼（引發恐懼（ fear arousalfear arousal ）） 訴諸理性和訴諸情緒訴諸理性和訴諸情緒

•訴諸恐懼有說服力（中度）訴諸恐懼有說服力（中度）•太強太極端，使人受到嚴重威脅，就無太強太極端，使人受到嚴重威脅，就無

效效強調若改變行為，就會有嚴重後果強調若改變行為，就會有嚴重後果顯示負面後果很可能發生的證據顯示負面後果很可能發生的證據要提出有效避免嚴重後果的明確做法要提出有效避免嚴重後果的明確做法

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

One-sided Two-sided

Initially opposed

Initially agreed

The message

Opinion change

(Hovland et al., 1949)

目標對象（涉入，目標對象（涉入， involvementinvolvement ））

-0.12

0.4

-0.64

0.25

0.61 0.64

-0.38-0.58

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

低 高

強論辯（明年） 弱論辯（明年）強論辯（十年） 弱論辯（十年）

認知的需求（認知的需求（ Need for cognitioNeed for cognitionn ））•中樞途徑中樞途徑

分心（分心（ distractiondistraction ））•邊緣指標，途徑邊緣指標，途徑

順從順從 威脅與獎勵，信譽威脅與獎勵，信譽 SEVSEV （（ subjective expected valsubjective expected val

ueue ））

嫌犯困境遊戲嫌犯困境遊戲受試者選擇受試者選擇11 22

實驗者同謀實驗者同謀 11 44 ，， 44 -5-5 ，， 55選擇選擇 22 55 ，， -5-5 -4-4 ，， -4-4

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

1 2 3 420

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

1 2 3

懲罰強度 威信

社會權力（社會權力（ social powersocial power ））1.Promise of reward1.Promise of reward

2.Coercion through threat2.Coercion through threat

3.Referent power3.Referent power

4.Legitimate power4.Legitimate power

5.Information5.Information

6.Expertise6.Expertise

服從（服從（ ObedienceObedience ）） ObedienceObedience

• compliance of person is due to compliance of person is due to perceived authority of askerperceived authority of asker

• request is perceived as a commandrequest is perceived as a command

Milgram interested in Milgram interested in unquestioning obedience to unquestioning obedience to orders (blind obedience)orders (blind obedience)

Stanley Milgram’s StudiesStanley Milgram’s Studies Teacher to another room with Teacher to another room with

experimenterexperimenter Shock generator panel – 15 to Shock generator panel – 15 to

450 volts, labels “slight shock” 450 volts, labels “slight shock” to “XXX”to “XXX”

Asked to give higher shocks for Asked to give higher shocks for every mistake learner makesevery mistake learner makes

Stanley Milgram’s StudiesStanley Milgram’s Studies

Learner protests Learner protests more and more as more and more as shock increasesshock increases

Experimenter Experimenter continues to continues to request obedience request obedience even if teacher even if teacher balksbalks

120

150

300

330

“Ugh! Hey this really hurts.”

“Ugh! Experimenter! That’s all. get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heart’s starting to bother me now.”

(agonized scream) “I absolutelyrefuse to answer any more.get me out of here You can’t hold me here. Get me out.”

“(intense & prolonged agonized scream) “Let me out of here. Let me out of here. My heart’s bothering me. Let me out, I tell you…”

ObedienceObedience

How many people would go How many people would go to the highest shock level?to the highest shock level?

65% of the subjects went to 65% of the subjects went to the end, even those that the end, even those that protestedprotested

ObedienceObedience

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Slight(15-60)

Moderate(75-120)

Strong(135-180)

Verystrong

(195-240)

Intense(255-300)

Extremeintensity(315-360)

Danger:severe

(375-420)

XXX(435-450)

Shock levels in works

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

sub

jec

ts

wh

o o

be

yed

exp

eri

me

nte

r

Percentage of subjects administeringthe maximum shock (450 volts)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Follow-Up Studies to MilgramFollow-Up Studies to Milgram

Original studyOriginal study

Different buildingDifferent building

Teacher withTeacher with learnerlearner Put hand on shockPut hand on shock Orders by phoneOrders by phone Ordinary man ordersOrdinary man orders 2 teachers rebel2 teachers rebel Teacher chooses shock levelTeacher chooses shock level

抗拒影響與說服抗拒影響與說服 免疫（免疫（ inoculationinoculation ）） McGuireMcGuire 預先警告（預先警告（ ForewarningForewarning ）） 抗拒（抗拒（ reactancereactance ）獨立和自由受到）獨立和自由受到

威脅威脅

Inoculation Theory

McGuire and Papageorgis (1961) proposed that people who are educated about opposing arguments are more resistant to those arguments later on.

• “Everybody should get a chest x-ray each year in order to detect tuberculosis”

• “Everybody should brush their teeth after every meal if at all possible.”

• Participants received an essay that included counterarguments against the health beliefs.

• Attitudes were measured in four experimental groups.

• Control group. No counterarguments.

• Inoculation group. Informed about counterarguments and information to undermine it.

• Additional support. Received further information supporting the attitude.

• No defense. No additional information to defend against counterarguments.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Tru

th o

f B

elie

f

Control Inoculation Support No Defense

True-False

Inoculation Effect on Resistance to Counterarguments

The Elaboration-Likelihood The Elaboration-Likelihood Model of Persuasion (Model of Persuasion (Petty & Petty &

Cacioppo, 1986)Cacioppo, 1986)

PersuasiveCommunication

Ability & Motivationto pay attention?

No

YesCentral Route to

Persuasion

Peripheral RouteTo persuasion

Attitude Change