1 / 80

Attitudes

Attitudes. Lecture 7. Attitude. „Attitude” from Latin. Aptus ( fit) Attitude: Learned (conditioning, exposure, vicarious learning etc.) Stable (stable disposition) Evaluation of a target object ( emotional component) That influences behavior. Attitudes and other concepts.

emery
Download Presentation

Attitudes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Attitudes Lecture 7

  2. Attitude • „Attitude” from Latin. Aptus (fit) • Attitude: • Learned (conditioning, exposure, vicarious learning etc.) • Stable (stable disposition) • Evaluation of a target object (emotional component) • That influences behavior

  3. Attitudes and other concepts • Habits - behavioral • Values – general goals • Beliefs – probabilistic judgments • Opinions – elements of knowledge system

  4. Functions of attitudes • Cognitive – source of knowledge • Utilitarian – maximize gains and minimize losses • Egotistic and defensive – protect values and identities • Value expression

  5. Structure of attitudes • Three components of attitudes (ABC: Affective, Behavioral, Cognitive) • EMOTIONAL: evaluation of the target object • COGNITIVE: knowledge about the target object • BEHAVIORAL : behavior towards the target object • The most important (definitional) attitudinal componet: emotional

  6. Attitudes form a structure • Fritz Heider (1958): Concept of „cognitive unit” • Objects = objects of attitudes • Relationsbetween objects • Emotional relations • liking • disliking • Unit relations: • positive (eg. owning, approaching) • negative (eg. avoidance, ignoring, sellingetc.)

  7. Cognitive unit Self R2 R1 Object A Object B R3

  8. Cognitive unit Balanced unit Self + + Object A Object B +

  9. Cognitive unit Unbalanced unit Self + + Object A Object B -

  10. Cognitive balance • Cognitive units may be balanced • My two friends like each other • Or unbalanced • I am jealous of a friend of my boy-friend • Affective consistency – condition for cognitive balance

  11. Cognitive balance theory Abelson & Rosenberg (1960) + + + + + - + - - - - - Balanced units Unbalanced units

  12. Restoring balance + + + + + - + - - - - - Balanced units Unbalanced units

  13. Balanced structure - + + - - + - + + - +

  14. Unbalanced structure + - + + - + - - - + +

  15. Theories of attitude change • Two directions of the relationship between attitude and behavior • Attitude  Behavior • I like him therefore I will help him • He irritates me therefore I will attack him • Behavior  Attitude • I helped him, therefore I like him • I hurt him, therefore I don’t like him

  16. Conditions of attitude change • Attitude  behavior • In order to change behavior one has to change attitude • Behavior  attitude • In order to change attitude one has to change behavior (attitude = justification of behavior)

  17. Attitude  behavior • Theories of persuasion (Yale school) • Theory of reasoned action (M. Fishbein & I. Ajzen) • Elaboration likelihood model (R. Petty & J. Caccioppo) • Assimilation-contrast theory (M. Sherif)

  18. Behavior  attitude • Theory of cognitive dissonance • Self-attribution theory

  19. Leon Festinger (1957) Theory of cognitive dissonance Dissonance = any inconsistency between two beliefs, such that from one of them follows its contradiction

  20. Inconsistency in Festinger’s theory Behavior (-) Self-evaluation (+) I have lied but I am honest I made a stupid decision but I am rational I inserted lots of effort but I am reasonable

  21. Insufficient reward paradigm Boring task Attitude measurement I Promised reward Lie Reward $1 Reward $ 20 Attitude measurement II

  22. Conclusions • Low reward  strong dissonance  attitude change (behavior justification) • High reward  no dissonance  no attitude change

  23. Unjustified effort paradigm Initiation to a group No initiation Boring task Attitude measurement

  24. Conclusions • Difficult access to a group  more dissonance  the group more attractive • We value more what is difficult to achieve

  25. Post-decisional dissonance paradigm A B C D E Choice D Post-decisional dissonance Increase attractiveness of D Decrease attractiveness of other alternatives

  26. Strength of post-decisional dissonance • Number of alternatives  the more the stronger dissonance • Similarity of alternatives the lower, the stronger dissonance

  27. Who is more persuasive – liked or disliked superior? Liked superior Disliked superior Attitude towards eating grasshoppers Eating grasshoppers Measurement of attitude towards food from grasshoppers

  28. Cognitive dissonance theory • The first dynamic model in social psychology • Continuation • Paradigm of post-decisional dissonance: • Descriptive models of decision making: pre-decisional vs. post-decisional dissonance, regret theory of decision making • Paradigm of insufficient reward • Theory of intrinsic motivation and engagement • Paradigm of unjustified effort • Theories of entrapment

  29. Effects of insufficient reward Theory of intrinsic motication E. Deci i R. Ryana • Two motivational systems: extrinsic (instrumental) and intrinsic • Factors that suppress intrinsic motivation: • money • deadlines • grades and tokens • competition

  30. Post-decisional vs. pre-decisional dissonance • L. Festinger –POST-decisional dissonance • Contemporary descriptive models of decision making (e.g. H. Montgomery) – seeking information in a way to prevent post-decisional regret

  31. Decision as search for a dominant structure P R E F E R E N C E S A B C D E F G Screening B D E F Choice of promising alternative B D E F Final choice E

  32. Decision making as dominance testing • Screening stage: elimination of the negatuve • Non-negative stage • Choice of a promising alternatuve • Dominance testing • Focus on the promising alternative • Increase in attractiveness of the promising alternative • Creating dominance • Manipulating weights and preferences • Perspective changes • Final choice (of the promising alternative)

  33. Entrapment – mechanisms and consequences

  34. Rational or rationalizing? • What does it mean to be „rational”? • Logical and consistent: if you said A you should say B) • Justified: you should act in a justified way, you should have good reasons for doing something • Efficient: you should choose the best means to an end • Critical: you should objectively analyze an issue from many points of view

  35. Rational decisions • Have clear goals: know what you want • Don’t decide hastily: consider many possibilities and many aspects of each alternative • Don’t be involved in wishful thinking – what you would like to happen doesn’t always happen • Be efficient: choose optimal means to your ends • Be efficient: avoid losses, maximize gains • Learn from your mistakes

  36. Do people always act rationally? • Sunk costs effect • Entrapment or to much invested to quit • Commitment • Escalation behavior • Perseverance on unrealistic goals • Status quo bias

  37. Decision traps

  38. Sunk costs effect • B. Staw (1976) • Big enterprise produces technical goods • Two main sections • Consumer products • Industrial products • Subject: vice-director for finances

  39. „Sunk costs” effect • $ 10 millions to be assigned to one of two sections • Two conditions: • Subject decides which section should be given money • Subject has no influence on assignement • Feedback information on consequences of money assignment: • Positive – the section flourishes • Negative – the section loses

  40. Experimental conditions department profit loss subject responsible not responsible

  41. New prospects • Additional $ 20 millions • Distributing the money between the two sections • Subject decides how much each section gets

  42. Results

  43. Results • More money assigned to the loser • More money assigned if the subject felt responsible

  44. Teger (1980) One-dollar auction game • Rules of the game: • Buying one dollar • Any number of players can bid (minimum two) • Bids should be relatively small and escalate slowly (e.g., 5c) • This player who bids the highest amount gets the dollar • The player who bids the next highest amount must also pay

  45. Two turning points • Profit for the experimenter: 50c – 55c • Loss for the players: $ 1,05

  46. Results • Bids up to $10 in order to buy one dollar

  47. Decision traps or entrapment • Entrapment = a decision making process whereby individuals escalate their commitment to a previously chosen, though failing, course of action in order to justify or „make good on” prior investments

  48. Too much invested too quit • Waiting for a bus • Continuing a failing marriage/relationship • Staying on unsatisfactory job • Escalation of war which has no chance for quick resolution • Hazard and gambling: continuing to invest beyond rational limits • Face-losing politicians

  49. Situational determinants of entrapment • The decision maker’s investments in the pursuit of the goal can be interpreted as irretrievable expenses („sunk costs”) • The decision maker must be able to choose between entering/remaining in the entrapping situation or not • It is never entirely certain that the decision maker’s goal will be realized • In order to achieve their objective, the decision makers must make investments repeatedly (continual rather than „one-shot” decisions)

  50. When do we fall into a trap? • Freedom of choice • The sunk costs cannot be retrieved • The goal is uncertain • Continuous investment

More Related