C82SAD: Attitude, C82SAD: Attitude, persuasive persuasive

communication and communication and attitude changeattitude change

““Social psychology Social psychology isis the study of the study of attitudes”attitudes”

Allport (1935)Allport (1935)

What is an Attitude?What is an Attitude?

Distinction between social psychologists use Distinction between social psychologists use of the word ‘attitude’ and the generally used of the word ‘attitude’ and the generally used term i.e. “He has an attitude problem”, “Wow, term i.e. “He has an attitude problem”, “Wow, she’s got attitude”she’s got attitude”

Attitude is defined as “tendencies to evaluate Attitude is defined as “tendencies to evaluate an entity [attitude object] into some degree an entity [attitude object] into some degree of favour or disfavour, ordinarily expressed in of favour or disfavour, ordinarily expressed in cognitive, affective and behavioural cognitive, affective and behavioural responses” (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993).responses” (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993).

Attitude: DefinitionsAttitude: Definitions

““The concept of attitudes is probably the The concept of attitudes is probably the most distinctive and indispensable concept most distinctive and indispensable concept in contemporary American social in contemporary American social psychology. No other term appears more psychology. No other term appears more frequently in the experimental and frequently in the experimental and theoretical literature” (Allport, 1935, p. theoretical literature” (Allport, 1935, p. 798)798)

““Attitudes are a mental and neural state of Attitudes are a mental and neural state of readiness, organised through experience, readiness, organised through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual's response to all upon the individual's response to all objects and situations with which it is objects and situations with which it is related” (Allport,1935, p. 810).related” (Allport,1935, p. 810).

Attitude: DefinitionsAttitude: Definitions

Attitudes involve associations between Attitudes involve associations between attitude objects and evaluations of these attitude objects and evaluations of these objects (Fazio, 1989)objects (Fazio, 1989)

Attitudes are evaluations of various objects Attitudes are evaluations of various objects that are stored in memory (Judd et al., 1991)that are stored in memory (Judd et al., 1991)

Attitude is a psychological tendency that is Attitude is a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluation a particular entity expressed by evaluation a particular entity with some degree of favour of disfavour ... with some degree of favour of disfavour ... Evaluating refers to all classes of evaluative Evaluating refers to all classes of evaluative responding, whether overt or covert, responding, whether overt or covert, cognitive, affective or behavioural (Eagly & cognitive, affective or behavioural (Eagly & Chaiken,1993).Chaiken,1993).

Component Theories of Component Theories of AttitudeAttitude

Unitary modelUnitary model. Attitudes are a single . Attitudes are a single positive or negative evaluation of an positive or negative evaluation of an attitude objectattitude object

Dual modelDual model. A mental state of readiness . A mental state of readiness and therefore guides some evaluation or and therefore guides some evaluation or response towards and objectresponse towards and object

Tripartite modelTripartite model. Include feeling . Include feeling (affective), action (behavioural), and (affective), action (behavioural), and thought (cognitive) components – “ABC”thought (cognitive) components – “ABC”

Tripartite Model?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: BeerAttitude 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 What are Attitudes Used for?for?

Attitudes serve as conscious and unconscious Attitudes serve as conscious and unconscious motivesmotives and have four functions (Katz, 1960):and have four functions (Katz, 1960): They assist in helping us make sense of our world and They assist in helping us make sense of our world and to organize the information we encounter (c.f. cognitive to organize the information we encounter (c.f. cognitive economy) (KNOWLEDGE FUNCTION)economy) (KNOWLEDGE FUNCTION) They help us make behave in socially acceptable They help us make behave in socially acceptable ways to gain positive and avoid negative outcomes ways to gain positive and avoid negative outcomes (UTILITARIAN/ADJUSTIVE FUNCTION)(UTILITARIAN/ADJUSTIVE FUNCTION) They act as a guide to behaviour in social situations They act as a guide to behaviour in social situations and help us in self- and social- categorization (SOCIAL and help us in self- and social- categorization (SOCIAL IDENTITY/VALUE-EXPRESSIVE FUNCTION)IDENTITY/VALUE-EXPRESSIVE FUNCTION) They allow use to preserve a positive sense of self They allow use to preserve a positive sense of self (EGO-DEFENSIVE FUNCTION)(EGO-DEFENSIVE FUNCTION)

Attitude FormationAttitude Formation

Behavioural theoriesBehavioural theories Direct experience – expectancy value model Direct experience – expectancy value model

of attitudes – mere exposure can influence of attitudes – mere exposure can influence attitudesattitudes

Classical conditioning – neutral stimuli paired Classical conditioning – neutral stimuli paired with salient response results in an attitudewith salient response results in an attitude

Operant conditioning – attitudes shaped by a Operant conditioning – attitudes shaped by a reinforcement system of reward and reinforcement system of reward and punishmentpunishment

Observational learning – modelling in Observational learning – modelling in vicarious experiencesvicarious experiences

Attitude FormationAttitude Formation

Cognitive theoriesCognitive theories Information integration theory – attitudes formed Information integration theory – attitudes formed

by ‘averaging’ available information on a objectby ‘averaging’ available information on a object Self-perception theory – infer attitudes from own Self-perception theory – infer attitudes from own

behaviour (Bem, 1960)behaviour (Bem, 1960) Mood-as-information hypothesis – Emotion (mood) Mood-as-information hypothesis – Emotion (mood)

provides basis of evaluation of attitudes objectsprovides basis of evaluation of attitudes objects Heuristic processing – decision ‘rules of thumb’ Heuristic processing – decision ‘rules of thumb’

are used to make judgements and form ‘mental are used to make judgements and form ‘mental shortcuts’ in memoryshortcuts’ in memory

Persuasion – Attitudes formed on the basis of Persuasion – Attitudes formed on the basis of persuasive informationpersuasive information

Attitude FormationAttitude Formation

SourcesSources ParentsParents – Infer attitudes from those most – Infer attitudes from those most

closest to you (c.f. Bandura, 1965) but closest to you (c.f. Bandura, 1965) but strength of association ranges from strong strength of association ranges from strong (Jennings & Niemi, 1968) to very weak (Jennings & Niemi, 1968) to very weak (Connell, 1972)(Connell, 1972)

Mass mediaMass media – Particularly television an – Particularly television an important influence of attitude formation important influence of attitude formation especially in children (e.g., Chaffee et al., especially in children (e.g., Chaffee et al., 1977) and links between television 1977) and links between television advertisements and children’s attitude Atkin, advertisements and children’s attitude Atkin, 1980)1980)

Common Sense: Attitudes and Common Sense: Attitudes and BehaviourBehaviour

““You can’t stop parents feeding their kids You can’t stop parents feeding their kids what they are going to feed them, what what they are going to feed them, what you can do is try to create a situation you can do is try to create a situation where over time people realize that it where over time people realize that it isn’t really any good for kids to be isn’t really any good for kids to be brought up on a poor diet…It’s a question brought up on a poor diet…It’s a question of changing attitudes over time”of changing attitudes over time”

Tony Blair speaking on BBC BreakfastTuesday, 10th October 2006

Attitude-Behaviour Attitude-Behaviour RelationshipRelationship

Of principle concern - if attitudes don’t guide behaviour then their efficacy Of principle concern - if attitudes don’t guide behaviour then their efficacy and utility as a construct is greatly reducedand utility as a construct is greatly reduced

Classic study: Classic study: LaPiere (1934)LaPiere (1934) restaurateur's attitudes towards Asians in restaurateur's attitudes towards Asians in 1930’s USA- questioned validity of the attitude-behaviour link1930’s USA- questioned validity of the attitude-behaviour link

Wicker (1969)Wicker (1969) attitudes were very weakly correlated with behaviour attitudes were very weakly correlated with behaviour across 45 studies (average across 45 studies (average r r =.15)=.15)

Gregson and Stacey (1981)Gregson and Stacey (1981) only a small positive correlation between only a small positive correlation between attitudes and alcohol consumptionattitudes and alcohol consumption

Stimulated study into the personality, contextual, temporal and Stimulated study into the personality, contextual, temporal and methodological influences on the attitude-behaviour relationship methodological influences on the attitude-behaviour relationship

Attitude-Behaviour Attitude-Behaviour RelationshipRelationship

Reasons for lack of a relationship:Reasons for lack of a relationship: MethodologicalMethodological

– Unreliability and low validity of attitude and/or Unreliability and low validity of attitude and/or behavioural measuresbehavioural measures

– Time between attitude and behavioural measureTime between attitude and behavioural measure ModalityModality

– Lack of compatibility/correspondence between Lack of compatibility/correspondence between attitude and behaviourattitude and behaviour

– Target, Action, Context and TimeTarget, Action, Context and Time– Recent evidence: e.g. Armitage and Conner Recent evidence: e.g. Armitage and Conner

(2001) strong indirect attitude-behaviour (2001) strong indirect attitude-behaviour relationships within Theory of Planned Behaviourrelationships within Theory of Planned Behaviour

Expectancy-Value Models of Expectancy-Value Models of AttitudeAttitude

Expectancy-value models – Attitudes have Expectancy-value models – Attitudes have two components:two components:– Expectancy: Behaviour will result in a certain Expectancy: Behaviour will result in a certain

outcome (e.g., studying hard will gain me good outcome (e.g., studying hard will gain me good grades)grades)

– Value: Outcome is highly valued (e.g., getting Value: Outcome is highly valued (e.g., getting good grades is important to me)good grades is important to me)

Each expectancy is multiplied by each value Each expectancy is multiplied by each value to produce attitude ‘score’ e.g.to produce attitude ‘score’ e.g.

Attitude = Attitude = (expectancy (expectancyii x value x valueii))

i = 1

The Theory of Reasoned ActionThe Theory of Reasoned Action(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980)(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 Where do Attitudes and Subjective Norms Come From?Subjective Norms Come From?

Attitudes

Subjective Norms

Intentions Behaviour

BehaviouralBeliefs

XOutcome

Evaluations

NormativeBeliefs

XMotivation to

Comply

Expectancy-value Models of Expectancy-value Models of Attitudes and Subjective Attitudes and Subjective

NormsNormsMan’s belief about woman using pillMan’s belief about woman using pill Man’s belief about man Man’s belief about man

using condomusing condom

AttributeAttribute StrengtStrength of h of beliefbelief

Value Value of of beliefbelief

ResuResultlt

StrengtStrength of h of beliefbelief

ValuValue of e of beliefbelief

ResuResultlt

ReliabilitReliabilityy

0.900.90 XX +2+2 == +1.8+1.800

0.700.70 XX -1-1 == -0.70-0.70

EmbarraEmbarras-ements-ement

1.001.00 XX +2+2 == +2.0+2.000

0.800.80 XX -2-2 == -1.60-1.60

Side Side effectseffects

0.100.10 XX -1-1 == -0.10-0.10 1.001.00 XX +2+2 == +2.0+2.000

OutcomeOutcome +3.7+3.700

-0.30-0.30

‘Behavioural belief’

‘Outcome evaluation’

Sum of ‘expectancy x value’ statements

Evaluation of capacities/barriers/abilities“self-efficacy”/”easy-difficult”

The Theory of Planned Behaviour The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)(TPB)

(Ajzen , 1989)(Ajzen , 1989)

PerceivedControl

Attitudes

Subjective Norms

Intentions Behaviour

ControlBeliefs

XPerceived

Power

The Effect of Including The Effect of Including Perceived Behavioural ControlPerceived 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 & Generality of attitude (Davidson & Jaccard, 1979) – confirmed ‘TACT’Jaccard, 1979) – confirmed ‘TACT’

Attitude accessibility (Doll & Ajzen, Attitude accessibility (Doll & Ajzen, 1992)1992)

Attitude strength (Fazio et al., 1986)Attitude strength (Fazio et al., 1986) Social identity as a group member (self-Social identity as a group member (self-

identity for a particular behaviour) identity for a particular behaviour) affects intention-behaviour relationship affects intention-behaviour relationship (Terry & Hogg, 1996)(Terry & Hogg, 1996)

Factors Affecting Attitude-Factors Affecting Attitude-Intention Relationship in Intention Relationship in

TPBTPB

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 TheoryProtection Motivation TheoryBalanBalancing perceived threat vs. capacity to cope with healthy cing perceived threat vs. capacity to cope with healthy

behaviourbehaviour

Intrinsic rewardExtrinsic reward

Source: Floyd, Prentice-Dunn, Rogers (2000)Source: Floyd, Prentice-Dunn, Rogers (2000)

Cognitive processes

Perceived vulnerabilityPerceived severity

Perceivedresponse-cost

Threatappraisal

Copingappraisal

Protectionmotivation

(Maladaptive)

(Adaptive)

Perceived vulnerabilityPerceived severityPerceived vulnerabilityPerceived severity

Response efficacySelf-efficacyResponse efficacySelf-efficacyResponse efficacySelf-efficacy

Measuring AttitudesMeasuring Attitudes

Thurstone’s (1928) equal appearing Thurstone’s (1928) equal appearing interval scale – developed from 100s interval scale – developed from 100s of items (questions)of items (questions)

Likert (1932) scale – 5- point scales Likert (1932) scale – 5- point scales with +ive and –ive scoringwith +ive and –ive scoring

Semantic differential scale (Osgood et Semantic differential scale (Osgood et al., 1957) –uses word pairsal., 1957) –uses word pairs

Scalogram (Guttman, 1944) – Scalogram (Guttman, 1944) – agreement with statements from agreement with statements from single traitsingle 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 ModelAttitude Accessibility Model Fazio (1989, 1995) proposed the attitude accessibility modelFazio (1989, 1995) proposed the attitude accessibility model Attitude is automatically activated on presence of situational Attitude is automatically activated on presence of situational

cues that have a strong effect on life outcomescues that have a strong effect on life outcomes Attitudes are most influential when they are relevant and Attitudes are most influential when they are relevant and

importantimportant

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 CommunicationPersuasive Communication

The ‘Yale’ approach precursor and The ‘Yale’ approach precursor and highly influential in persuasive highly influential in persuasive communicationcommunication

Hovland and coworkers identified the Hovland and coworkers identified the features of persuasive features of persuasive communicationcommunication– Message (content)Message (content)– Source or communicatorSource or communicator– AudienceAudience

Yale Approach to Persuasive Yale Approach to Persuasive Communication (Hovland et al., Communication (Hovland et al.,

1953)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 The Source or ‘Communicator’‘Communicator’

Experts more persuasive (and credible) Experts more persuasive (and credible) than non-experts (Hovland & Weiss, 1952)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.

George Best and ‘Cookstown’sausages

Source CredibilitySource 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 MessageThe Message Persuasion is more effective if the Persuasion is more effective if the

message is not perceived to be message is not perceived to be deliberately intending to manipulate deliberately intending to manipulate opinionsopinions 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?

Does Fear Work?Does Fear Work?

Fear messages pervasive in Fear messages pervasive in advertising and communicationadvertising and communication

But how fearful can a message But how fearful can a message become and still be effective?become and still be effective?

Does Fear Work?Does Fear Work? Early research suggested low-fear was Early research suggested low-fear was

optimal (e.g., dental hygiene, Janis & optimal (e.g., dental hygiene, Janis & Feshbach, 1953)Feshbach, 1953)

Leventhal et al. (1967) found high-fear Leventhal et al. (1967) found high-fear message promoted greater willingness to message promoted greater willingness to stop smokingstop smoking

McGuire (1969) suggested an ‘inverted-U’ McGuire (1969) suggested an ‘inverted-U’ hypothesishypothesis

Messages with too little fear may not Messages with too little fear may not highlight the potential harm of the targeted highlight the potential harm of the targeted actact

Very disturbing images may distract people Very disturbing images may distract people from the message itself or may evoke an from the message itself or may evoke an ‘avoidance’ reaction (Keller & Block, 1995)‘avoidance’ reaction (Keller & Block, 1995)

Does Fear Work?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?Does Fear Work?

Recent fear appealsRecent fear appeals Department for transport Department for transport

advertisementsadvertisements– THINK! Teenager road campaignTHINK! Teenager road campaign– THINK! Drink driving campaignTHINK! Drink driving campaign

Department of health anti-smoking Department of health anti-smoking campaignscampaigns

The Medium and the The Medium and the MessageMessage

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 AudienceThe Audience

Self-esteemSelf-esteem Hovland et al. suggested that Hovland et al. suggested that

people with low self-esteem were people with low self-esteem were more susceptible to persuasion more susceptible to persuasion and attitude changeand attitude change

McGuire (1968) suggested that this McGuire (1968) suggested that this also followed an inverted-U also followed an inverted-U relationshiprelationship

The AudienceThe AudienceGender effectsGender effects Women more easily persuaded than Women more easily persuaded than

men (Cooper, 1979; Eagly, 1978)men (Cooper, 1979; Eagly, 1978) Reasons suggested are:Reasons suggested are:

– Socialisation into cooperative roles (Eagly et Socialisation into cooperative roles (Eagly et al., 1981)al., 1981)

– Only when women less familiar with subject Only when women less familiar with subject matter (Sistrunk & McDavid, 1971)matter (Sistrunk & McDavid, 1971)

– Carli (1990) suggested that men more Carli (1990) suggested that men more persuaded by ‘tentative’ female persuaded by ‘tentative’ female communicator but women equally communicator but women equally persuaded by bothpersuaded by both

– Covell et al. (1994) female participants Covell et al. (1994) female participants found to prefer image-related marketing of found to prefer image-related marketing of tobacco and alcohol over quality- or tobacco and alcohol over quality- or attribute-oriented advertisingattribute-oriented advertising

Dual Process Models of Dual Process Models of PersuasionPersuasion

Elaboration-likelihood model (Petty & Elaboration-likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986)Cacioppo, 1986)

Two ‘routes’ to persuasionTwo ‘routes’ to persuasion Central route = when message is followed Central route = when message is followed

closely, considerable cognitive effort closely, considerable cognitive effort expendedexpended

Peripheral route = Superficial processing Peripheral route = Superficial processing of peripheral cues, attraction rather than of peripheral cues, attraction rather than informationinformation

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 Dual Process Models of PersuasionPersuasion

Heuristic-systematic model (Chaiken, 1987)Heuristic-systematic model (Chaiken, 1987) Contrasts ‘systematic’ and ‘heuristic’ processingContrasts ‘systematic’ and ‘heuristic’ processing Systematic = careful, deliberative scanning and Systematic = careful, deliberative scanning and

processing of available arguments/informationprocessing of available arguments/information Heuristic processing = people use ‘cognitive Heuristic processing = people use ‘cognitive

heuristics’ or ‘shortcuts’/’rules of thumb’ to heuristics’ or ‘shortcuts’/’rules of thumb’ to make judgementsmake judgements

Heuristic processing involves using ‘mental Heuristic processing involves using ‘mental shortcuts’ like a ‘cognitive miser’:shortcuts’ like a ‘cognitive miser’:– ‘‘longer arguments are always convincing’longer arguments are always convincing’– ‘‘statistics don’t lie’statistics don’t lie’– ‘‘you can’t trust a lawyer’you can’t trust a lawyer’

Dual Process Models of Dual Process Models of PersuasionPersuasion

When is heuristic processing used?When is heuristic processing used? Petty and Wegener (1998) suggest a Petty and Wegener (1998) suggest a

‘sufficiency threshold’ – as long as heuristics ‘sufficiency threshold’ – as long as heuristics produce an attitude that we are confident produce an attitude that we are confident withwith

Of not, systematic processing may be usedOf not, systematic processing may be used Use of systematic processing also halted by:Use of systematic processing also halted by:

– Mood –people in good moods tend to use Mood –people in good moods tend to use heuristics (Gorn, 1982; Bohner et al., 1994)heuristics (Gorn, 1982; Bohner et al., 1994)

– Emotion – high-fear messages tend to be Emotion – high-fear messages tend to be processes peripherally while low-fear more processes peripherally while low-fear more centrally.centrally.

Background to Cognitive Background to Cognitive Dissonance TheoryDissonance Theory

Framework for explaining the effect of Framework for explaining the effect of behaviour and experience on formation behaviour and experience on formation and change in attitudesand change in attitudes

Festinger (1954) examined how attitudes, Festinger (1954) examined how attitudes, behaviour and self-esteem (self-image) are behaviour and self-esteem (self-image) are linkedlinked

Any inconsistency may motivate changeAny inconsistency may motivate change Recall ideas ofRecall ideas of cognitive imbalance cognitive imbalance

(Heider, 1958) and cognitive incongruence (Heider, 1958) and cognitive incongruence (Osgood & Tannenbaum, 1955)(Osgood & Tannenbaum, 1955)

Cognitive Dissonance Cognitive Dissonance TheoryTheory

Key concept: Dissonance – an unpleasant feeling of Key concept: Dissonance – an unpleasant feeling of anxiety and of ‘disequilibrium’anxiety and of ‘disequilibrium’

Premise 1Premise 1: If a person does something (behaviour) : If a person does something (behaviour) OR is presented with counter-attitudinal information OR is presented with counter-attitudinal information that is in contrast to his or her personal opinion that is in contrast to his or her personal opinion (attitude) an internal conflict (dissonance) arises(attitude) an internal conflict (dissonance) arises

Premise 2Premise 2: Dissonance motivates people to make : Dissonance motivates people to make alterations to their behavioural or internal states to alterations to their behavioural or internal states to restore the equilibrium between their attitudes and restore the equilibrium between their attitudes and their behaviourtheir behaviour

Premise 3Premise 3: Dissonance can be attenuated (reduced) : Dissonance can be attenuated (reduced) using 3 means (1) reducing the importance of one of using 3 means (1) reducing the importance of one of the dissonant elements (attitude change) (2) adding the dissonant elements (attitude change) (2) adding a ‘consonant’ element (cognitive re-appraisal) (3) a ‘consonant’ element (cognitive re-appraisal) (3) changing one of the dissonant elements (behaviour changing one of the dissonant elements (behaviour change)change)

Examples of Cognitive Examples of Cognitive Dissonance TheoryDissonance Theory

AttitudesAttitudes DissonanDissonant Elementt Element

Source of Source of DissonanceDissonance

StrategyStrategy

A student A student believes he’s believes he’s intelligent and intelligent and that intelligent that intelligent people perform people perform well at schoolwell at school

He gets bad He gets bad grades all the grades all the timetime

Discrepancy Discrepancy between belief between belief in intelligence in intelligence and and performanceperformance

1.1. Behavioural: Tries harder to get Behavioural: Tries harder to get good gradesgood grades

2.2. Attitudinal: “Believes he’s not Attitudinal: “Believes he’s not that intelligent”that intelligent”

3.3. Add consonant elements: “I don’t Add consonant elements: “I don’t have time to study”; “My teacher have time to study”; “My teacher is rubbish and unfair”; “Grades is rubbish and unfair”; “Grades aren’t a good indicator of aren’t a good indicator of intelligence, anyway”intelligence, anyway”

You believe that You believe that Britney Spears is Britney Spears is the best pop the best pop artist since Take artist since Take That and you That and you buy a her latest buy a her latest masterpiecemasterpiece

Your best Your best friend says friend says Britney is Britney is rubbish, has rubbish, has no talent and no talent and all her songs all her songs sound the sound the samesame

Discrepancy Discrepancy between your between your attitudes and attitudes and behaviour behaviour towards Britney towards Britney and someone and someone else’s attitudeselse’s attitudes

1.1. Behavioural: Sell Britney single Behavioural: Sell Britney single on EBay recouping most of your on EBay recouping most of your losseslosses

2.2. Attitudinal: “I guess she’s not Attitudinal: “I guess she’s not that good”that good”

3.3. Add consonant elements: “It said Add consonant elements: “It said she was the ‘queen of pop’ in she was the ‘queen of pop’ in Heat magazine, how can they be Heat magazine, how can they be wrong”; “What do they know wrong”; “What do they know about music anyway? They like about music anyway? They like Westlife”Westlife”

Induced ComplianceInduced 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 forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-210.

Effort JustificationEffort 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 ComplianceInduced 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