LECTURE 5 Attitudes and Behaviour 1 Administration 2

LECTURE 5 Attitudes and Behaviour 1) Administration 2) What are attitudes? 3) Origin of attitudes 4) How do we measure attitudes? u Explicit versus implicit measures u IAT – how did you do? u IAT video 5) Break 6) The attitude-behaviour link u Do attitudes determine behaviour? u Does behaviour determine attitudes? 7) Next Class

Attitudes Definition: “An evaluation of a person, object, or idea”

Attitudes Towards: (Likert Scale) • Ice-cream Very negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very positive 7 • Asians Very negative 1 2 3 4 5 • Nudity on TV Very negative 1 2 3 4 5

Attitudes towards: (Likert Scale) • It is essential that all citizens exercise their right to vote if government is to effectively reflect the will of the people. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly Agree 7 • Homelessness in Canada is a serious social problem that needs attention. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly Agree 7 • I believe that a family with a mother and father is the best. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly Agree 7

Where do attitudes come from? (C) Cognitively Based Attitudes • Based primarily on a person’s beliefs about the properties of an attitude object. “I like this vacuum cleaner because this one picks up more dirt” (A) Affectively Based Attitudes • Based primarily on people’s feelings and values pertaining to the attitude object • Can be a sensory reaction (chocolate), conditioned (love warm comforters on rainy days), or value-based (anti-abortion) (B) Behaviourally Based Attitudes • Based on an observation of how one behaves toward an attitude object “I recycled, so I must have a positive attitude toward environmental issues” Sometimes we might be ambivalent toward certain objects because of these different determinants (cigarettes). ABCs of attitudes

How do we measure attitudes? Explicit vs. Implicit – Why Important? Explicit Measures • • Likert Scales (already shown) Evaluation Thermometer Semantic Differential Scale Modern Prejudice

Attitudes Towards: (Likert Scale) • Gay men Very negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very positive 7

Evaluation Thermometer Gay Men Very favorable 100 50 0 Very unfavorable

Semantic Differential Scale Gay Men Bad ____ : ____ Good Worthless ____ : ____ Valuable Unpleasant ____ : ____ Pleasant Boring ____ : ____ Interesting Unfavorable ____ : ____ Favorable Harmful ____ : ____ Beneficial

Modern Prejudice Scale strongly disagree 1 2 strongly agree 3 4 5 6 7 1. Gay men are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Prejudice against gay men is still a problem. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. The government should not help make any special effort to help gay men because they should help themselves. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

How do we measure attitudes? Implicit Measures • Bogus Pipelines • Reaction Time Measures - IAT • Physiological Measures – EEG and f. MRI (brain activity), ECG (heart rate)

Bogus Pipeline Studies Page & Sigall (1971) A bogus pipeline fools people into disclosing their attitudes by convincing them that a machine can be used to gauge their private attitudes. Participants hold a wheel that measures whether they agree with a statement or not. Electrodes are attached to their arm and the fake machine supposedly gauges their tendency to turn the wheel to the left (disagree) or to the right (agree). This attitude machine was demonstrated by showing participants how it worked on an attitude that they had expressed earlier. Once convinced that the machine worked, participants were asked about their racial attitudes. Compared to control conditions, who were not on the machine, these participants reported more negative attitudes toward Blacks.

But is it possible that we are not even aware of our implicit attitudes? The Implicit Association Task and studies using physiological measure suggests that this may in some instances be the case. Did you test your Hidden Biases/Attitudes with the IAT? Which IAT did you do? What were the results?

IAT BIAS Your results suggest: Strong automatic preference for * Moderate automatic preference for * Slight automatic preference for * Little or no automatic preference * Slight automatic preference for * Moderate automatic preference for * Strong automatic preference for *

BLACK/WHITE IAT unpleasant or BLACKS pleasant or WHITES

BLACK/WHITE IAT unpleasant or BLACKS pleasant or WHITES love

BLACK/WHITE IAT unpleasant or WHITES pleasant or BLACKS

BLACK/WHITE IAT unpleasant or WHITES pleasant or BLACKS war

BLACK/WHITE IAT Your results suggest: Strong automatic preference for Whites Moderate automatic preference for Whites Slight automatic preference for Whites Little or no automatic preference Slight automatic preference for Blacks Moderate automatic preference for Blacks Strong automatic preference for Blacks

BLACK/WHITE IAT Percentage of Total Respondents on IAT website Blacks/Whites IAT Preference for Whites 70% Little or no preference 17% Preference for Blacks 12%

Implicit Association Test (IAT) Greenwald, Mc. Ghee, & Schwartz (1998) Explicit vs. Implicit Measures of Bias IAT and Semantic Differential Scale Blacks (/Whites) Bad ____ : ____ Worthless ____ : ____ Unpleasant ____ : ____ Good Valuable Pleasant Video: Dateline on IAT http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=n 5 Q 5 FQf. XZag

Implicit Association Test (IAT) Greenwald, Mc. Ghee, & Schwartz (1998) Positive Ingroup Evaluations: Blacks vs. Whites Video: A girl like me http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=17 f. Ey 0 q 6 yqc

But can the IAT predict behaviour? If so, what type of behaviour? Explicit Behaviour explicit attitudes predict Yes implicit attitudes predict No Implicit Behaviour No Yes

The Attitude-Behaviour Link Do attitudes determine behaviour? What are the conditions under which attitudes predict behaviour?

Attitudes can predict behaviour when: 1. we minimize social influence on attitudes – Reduce social desirable responding (bogus pipeline, implicit measures) 2. we match the level of specificity of attitudes and behaviours • • General attitudes predict behaviours in general Specific attitudes predict specific behaviours – The theory of planned behaviour 3. attitudes are strong

General attitudes predict behaviours in general A general attitudes toward an object or a concept may not predict any specific behavior but if we average behaviours over many occasions, attitudes can predict behaviour. Principle of aggregation: A person’s religious attitude may not predict whether they go to church next weekend but it will predict the total number of a wide array of religious behaviours over time.

Specific attitudes predict specific behaviours. A general attitude will often not predict a specific behavior. But when attitude measures are directly pertinent to the situation they will predict behavior in that situation.

Theory of Planned Behavior Ajzen & Fishbein, 1985 Specific Attitude (Subjective) Norms Behavioral Control Intentions Behaviour

Theory of Planned Behavior Problems with this theory: - It is very rationale and deliberative. - Intentions are not great predictors of behaviour. - Attitudes sometimes have a direct relationship to spontaneous, unintentional behaviour. - It also can not explain habits which are very unthoughtful actions. - This theory also does not take into account our implicit attitudes and how our behavior can also be influenced by these evaluations that are often quite different than our explicit attitudes.

Strong attitudes predict behaviours (not all attitudes are equal) People with a strong attitude: • Often have acquired more information about the attitude object • Often are personally involved with the attitude object. It is important to them. • Often have had direct experience with an attitude object. Strong attitudes are important because they are more accessible. More accessible attitudes direct behaviour. (e. g. , I think we must protect the environment. )

The Attitude-Behaviour Link Do attitudes determine behaviour? Sometimes. Does behaviour determine attitudes? Sometimes. When and why?

Why and when do behaviours change attitudes? e. g. , Donating money to foreign aid. 1. Self-Presentation (not actual attitude change) 2. Self-Justification - Cognitive Dissonance 3. Self-Perception

Self-Presentation • • • To appear consistent (and avoid appearing foolish), we express attitudes that match our actions Assumes conscious awareness of the discrepancy between the real attitude and the presented attitude Not genuine attitude change (e. g. , If I donate money to a relief charity, I may state that I am more positive toward this charity if I am with women who saw me give money than if I was with a different group of women who did not witness my initial donation. )

Self-Justification: Cognitive Dissonance • Real change that occurs within the self. • Tension arises when we are aware of inconsistencies in the self – You realize that your behaviour doesn’t match your attitude • To reduce that tension we often change our attitudes to fit the behaviour (e. g. , I would state that I am more positive toward this charity even if I was with a different group of women who did not witness my initial donation or if no one was around. )

Self-Justification: Cognitive Dissonance When? 1) Insufficient Justification 2) Postdecisional Dissonance

Self-Justification: Cognitive Dissonance 1) Insufficient Justification We change our attitudes to be more consistent with our behaviours if we act in a certain way that is not consistent with our attitudes and we have no strong justification for acting in this way. If we do have a reasonable justification, we will not change our attitudes.

Self-Justification: Cognitive Dissonance Classic Study: Festinger & Carlsmith (1959) How much I enjoyed the experiment (-5 to +5)

Self-Justification: Cognitive Dissonance 2) Postdecisional Dissonance People often reduce dissonance that is aroused after making a decision by - increasing their liking for the chosen item and - decreasing their liking for the rejected item.

Post-decision Dissonance Schultz, Leveille, & Lepper (1999) Ask 13 year olds to rate the attractiveness of various posters. Some children were allowed to choose between 2 posters they rated very positively. After choosing, they rated the poster they rejected more negatively than they had previously. - Rejecting a positive objects produces dissonance. So you need to change your attitude toward positive object that you reject. Other children were allowed to choose between 2 posters they rated very negatively. After choosing, they rated the poster they chose more positively than they had previously. - Choosing a negative object produces dissonance. So you need to change your attitude toward negative object that chose. This effect was largest.

Arousal and Cognitive Dissonance and the pill (Cooper & Zanna, 1974) Procedure • Subjects were asked to write a counter-attitudinal essay – banning all speakers on campus • Either an illusion of high choice or low choice • Given a pill – told will be arousing, have no effect, or be relaxing (really a placebo) • Examine attitude change

Dissonance and the Pill Dissonance and the pill (Cooper & Zanna, 1974)

Self-Perception Theory • When unsure of our attitudes, we infer them by observing our behaviour. – Examples, listening to country music channel (no one forcing me) – Social Embodiment – Overjustification Effect

Social Embodiment Recent theorizing on embodiment suggest there is a close relationship between bodily feedback and higher cognitions. They assuming that actions and body movements can directly influence our thoughts and attitudes. For example, if we are evaluating cartoons when we holding a pen with a mouth that grins rather than a circular mouth, we will find the cartoons funnier. Likewise, if we are evaluating Chinese ideographs when we are pulling up on a table (upward flex) compared to when we are pushing down on a table (downward extend), we will like the object more. The feedback from our body influences our attitudes.

Overjustification effect “The result of paying people to do what they already like doing, ” may make the task less intrinsically motivated and less likely to occur. – This effect occurs when someone offers an unnecessary reward beforehand in an effort to control behaviour.

Overjustification effect Deci (1971) Procedure - Monitored participants who are initially allowed to play with puzzles. - ½ subjects paid to solve puzzles - ½ not paid - Next removed all rewards for the paid group. - Monitored who continued to work on the puzzle

Amount of Time played with puzzles Overjustification effect Deci (1971)

Overjustification Effect (Self-Perception Theory) Getting paid for something you want to do. Getting paid for doing puzzles when you like solving puzzles. No dissonance here – I like solving puzzles and I am solving puzzles. My attitude and my behaviour are consistent. However, self-perceptions may lead people to believe that by receiving an unnecessary reward for the behaviour they may not really like the task so much - - that they are just doing it for the money. They believe that the reason they are behaving like they are is because of extrinsic rather than intrinsic motivations.

Underjustification Effect (Cognitive Dissonance Theory) Getting paid for something you don’t want to do. Getting paid to tell someone that a task is fun when your real attitude is that it is a boring task. Dissonance is that your behaviour and your attitudes are not consistent. Why am I telling this person it is a fun task when it is really boring – it can’t be because of the money ($1), it wasn’t enough to make me act that way, I must really like the task.

Next Class 6: Persuasion