Attitudes

1. Attitudes Early definition – Lange (1888) defined as a state of readiness to behave Allport (1935) - first complete definition in social psychology mental & neural state – mediating construct of readiness – activation, physiological quality organized - cognitive structure through experience – information or exposure exerting directive or dynamic influence – energizes, and directs on responses to all objects and situations to which it is related

2. Attitudes Attitudes – the evidence for their ‘existence’ in other’s – attribution patterns individual attitude (person x ‘object’ interaction) Low Consensus – High Distinctiveness – High Consistency shared attitude (object main effect) High Consensus – High Distinctiveness – High Consistency in self – ease of evaluative response, information retrieval, behavioral predispositions

3. Attitudes Traditional three component view Attitude (Evaluation/Evaluative Reaction – abstracted from below) feelings (Affective reaction)- behavior – (Behavioral) beliefs – (Cognitive)

4. Attitudes Measuring Attitudes Self-reports Overall evaluation – ‘summary’ of attitude (direct) Assessment of qualities/beliefs associated with the ‘object’ (indirect) are positive or negative qualities assumed to describe the ‘object? Behavioral indicators do you choose the ‘object’ time spent looking at will you help the person Physio/neuro indicators arousal, pupil dilation (strength, but unclear direction) areas of the brain activated

5. Attitudes Attitude Functions Inherent in all Object Appraisal – Knowledge – Utilitarian – Certain Attitudes Value Expressive – Ego defensive – Social-adjustment -

6. Attitudes Sources of Attitudes Genetics - uniformly – selected for - inherited – individually Learned Associations - classical conditioning - operant conditioning - observational learning

7. Tesser (1993); Tesser, Whitaker, Martin, & Ward (1998) Attitudes with higher heritability were: Accessed faster – respond more quickly when asked for your attitude More resistant – social norms less likely to lead you to change More appealing in others – similarity on them led to higher liking of others Resulted in more arousal when changed • Men and women have the right to find out if they are sexually suited before marriage. • The average person can live a good life without religion. • The death penalty is barbaric and should be abolished. • Birth control, except when recommended by a doctor, should be made illegal. • Sex crimes, such as rape, deserve more than mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be flogged or worse. Attitude data from Eysenck, 1954

8. Attitudes In addition to heritability, in what other important ways do attitudes vary? Attitudes Strength certainty – extensive personal experience – extremity – Attitude Specificity at what ‘level’ is attitude assessed?

9. Attitudes Attitude Specificity Attitudes can vary in terms of specificity of target Attitude toward ‘justice’ – ‘equal rights’ – affirmative action – quotas network of general and specific attitudes, of varying strengths, with all eventually associated with beliefs and feelings and behavioral intentions

10. Attitudes Stability of Attitudes – as evident in reports of attitudes Having versus Reporting attitudes – do you know what you are talking about? Thinking about your attitude Explaining your attitudes Incubating your attitude

11. Attitudes Stability of Attitudes – as evident in reports of attitudes Anchoring and Adjustment initially assumed to be underlying process Anchor - underlying abstracted Evaluation is accessed almost automatically Adjustment - then ‘adjust’ for current conditions/information Evaluation develops gradually, over time and across experiences not aware of all that led to the Evaluation may not ‘know’, completely, why we feel as we do When explain/report one’s attitude, may sample from available experiences

12. Attitudes Dual Attitude Models – (Wilson et al 2001) can simultaneously have two attitudes Implicit – automatic, impact primarily on implicit responses Explicit – require effort to activate, can ‘override’ implicit Strategies for Assessing “Implicit” as separate attitude Priming – use object of interest to ‘prime’ or ‘activate” processing – then expect to find that evaluatively similar information will be processed faster Implicit Associations Test – a categorization task – assumes that those things that are more closely associated will be more easily categorized together https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ http://www.tolerance.org/hidden_bias/

13. Attitudes Implications for Understanding and Using Attitudes in Context What should we expect from attitudes? Can we report our attitudes? Can they predict behavior? When will attitudes be predictive of behaviors? Are attitudes strong or weak? What attitudes are salient? What ‘behaviors” are to be predicted? (specific or global) What are the social or intrapersonal context conditions? What should we be aware of in ‘using’ attitudes? What is attitude based on (what component)? What function does attitude serve? Is there likely a discrepancy between implicit and explicit attitudes?

14. Attitudes Attitude (Explicit) - Behavior Consistency Interest in Attitudes 'requires' that there be a reasonable link to behaviors Early research was 'disappointing‘ – but often naive Issues to consider Predict specific behavior, or pattern of behaviors Predict in narrow context or broad context Strength of attitude Salience of attitude

15. Attitudes Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein)–behavioral intention, to predict actual behaviors Attitude - Subjective norms – Perceived control – Attempts to: focus attention on using attitudes that are at the same level of specificity as the behavior of interest acknowledge the importance of “psychological context” incorporate beliefs about personal control that might facilitate or preclude behavior behavioral intention

16. Attitudes and Attitude Change Despite the ‘changes’ in views of attitudes – strategies for producing change yield results consistent with early models – with less effort to verify link to behaviors Successful change can be gotten by attacking any component of attitude Affect Behavior Cognition

17. Attitudes and Attitude Change Cognitive Dissonance as a Model for Understanding Attitude Change- Festinger Really a very general model for understanding, but research slow to recognize Cognitive Consistency Model Basic assumptions – relationships among cognitions tension in the system magnitude of dissonance strategies for reducing dissonance Why might inconsistency be aversive?

18. Attitudes and Attitude Change Cognitive Dissonance as a Model for Understanding Attitude Change- Festinger Research Approaches to Attitude Change based on Dissonance Insufficient justification (forced compliance) approach Insufficient deterrence (hypocrisy) Decision-making Is arousal really a factor in the ‘experience’ of dissonance

19. Attitudes and Attitude Change Cognitive Dissonance as a Model for Understanding Attitude Change- Festinger Later research recognized the alternative responses possible Reducing dissonance change cognitions add cognitions change importance reduce/reinterpret the arousal

20. Attitudes and Attitude Change Persuasion Models – present new information to bring about change Possible Responses - accept new information and change - reject new information and keep old attitude - argue back, to change source’s attitude - react to new information, and change opposite way - derogate the source, imply bias - ignore new information

21. Attitudes and Attitude Change Persuasion Models – present new information to bring about change Historical Perspective – the logical, thoughtful information processor Yale Program - Hovland et al (1950's) Attitude - implicit response, drive like, approach/avoid Opinion - verbal response, interpretations, beliefs, evaluations Stimulus -- Implicit Response (attitude) -- Response (opinion) Attitude Change New Information is Stimulus Opinions are existing Habits New Habits may form if LEARN and ACCEPT new information Acceptance depends on incentives-does new information provide “rational” or “logical” support for the conclusions

22. Attitudes and Attitude Change Persuasion Models – present new information to bring about change Processes (McGuire) ATTENTION RECEPTION (comprehension & learning) YIELDING (acceptance) RETENTION? Reception is neither necessary nor sufficient for there to be yielding can comprehend, but reject can fail to comprehend, but yield Over time this evolved into a: Cognitive Response Model Use own information to counter new information if successful, resist change

23. Attitudes and Attitude Change Persuasion Models – present new information to bring about change Variables examined as relevant to successful change - persuasion Source Qualities Expertise Trustworthiness Attraction Message Content and style One vs. Two Sided Emotional Associations Recipient Characteristics and Attitude Initial Attitude Individual Differences Context Distraction Affect transfer

24. Attitudes and Attitude Change Persuasion Models – present new information to bring about change Some Issues that challenged the assumed “logical”/”rational” processes Sleeper Effect Short Term Change Physical Attractiveness Effects Context Effects Lack of Appreciation of Early Assumptions New Models assumed two alternative processes can result in change Central Route Processing Peripheral Route Processing

25. Attitudes and Attitude Change Revised Model - Elaboration Likelihood Model - Petty & Cacioppo Assumes 1. Motivated to hold “correct” attitudes 2. Amount and Nature of issue-relevant elaboration in which willing to engage varies - elaboration likelihood continuum - differences are quantitative AND qualitative high elaboration – consider more, consider longer, consider relevance to position low elaboration – consider less, or with less effort, rely more on “irrelevant” 3. Variables affect amount and direction of Attitude Change by: a. serve as persuasive argument – just better information to believe b. serve as peripheral cues c. affect argument elaboration, encouraging either objective or biased processing 4. Affect Objective Processing through: personal relevance, distraction, repetition, etc. 5. Affect Biased Processing (lead away from full careful analysis): positivity bias, forewarning/reactance, existing schema, mood effects on processing and retrieval 6. As motivation to process arguments decreases, peripheral cues gain importance 7. Consequences – will change be stable or unstable

26. Attitudes and Attitude Change Revised Model - Elaboration Likelihood Model - Petty & Cacioppo Examples/applications – interactions, not main effects Credibility as Information or as Heuristic Mood as Information or as Heuristic

27. Social Perception and Attitudes Integrating Social Perception and Attitude Processes Forming Attitudes and Making Inferences based on Group Membership Attitudes Towards Individuals based on Categories or Groups Prejudice and Discrimination as components of these attitudes Affect – prejudice Cognitive – schema or stereotype Behavioral – discrimination

28. Social Perception and Attitudes Stereotypes and the “kernel of truth” Issues to consider about stereotypes how common and distinctive is the quality why is the quality present within the group are evaluative biases associated with the qualities

29. Social Perception and Attitudes Development of Prejudice and Stereotypes Cognitive Roots of Stereotype Development Seeking Organization Schematic Processing Out-group Homogeneity beliefs Social Roots of Stereotype Development Social Conflict Social Identity Social Roles Social Learning

30. Social Perception and Attitudes Evolving Nature of Prejudice and Discrimination Modern vs Old Fashion Racism Hostile vs Benevolent Sexism Characteristics of low prejudiced vs. high prejudiced individuals Internal and External Motivation to Respond without Prejudice

31. Social Perception and Attitudes Costs of Prejudice and Discrimination Material Costs – lost opportunities, social costs Other Costs – lack of diversity of ideas Psychological Costs – self evaluation and performance Stereotype Threat

32. Social Perception and Attitudes Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination Strategy Depends on Level in Social System Legislation Re-socialization education role-playing Intergroup Contact Re-categorization

33. Social Perception and Attitudes Social Norms and the Expression of Prejudice (Crandall, Eshleman & O’Brien, 2002) Social Norms Define Acceptable Expression of Prejudices Acceptable Targets of Prejudice and Discrimination

34. Social Perception and Attitudes Stereotype Content Model - Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu Focus on Content of stereotype, not process Stereotypes can be both negative and positive Content determines emotions experienced Two Evaluative Dimensions Competence Warmth

35. Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002 – Stereotype Content Model