Textbook Notes (369,140)
Canada (162,411)
Psychology (2,981)
PSY220H1 (200)
Chapter 6

PSY220 Chapter 6.docx

16 Pages

Course Code
Jennifer Fortune

This preview shows pages 1,2,3,4. Sign up to view the full 16 pages of the document.
Chapter 6: Attitudes and Social Behaviour What Are Attitudes? Geoff Keller‟s (president of „Attitude Is Everything, Inc.‟) definition of an attitude: a general perspective on life, an outlook that can be positive (leading to success) or negative (leading to failure); corresponds closely to the dimension of dispositional optimism (discussed in Chapter 5) Social psychologists have a much more specific meaning for the term attitude. Attitudes: Evaluations of Targets Attitude: an individual‟s evaluation of a target (can be an object, an issue, a person, a group, a behaviour, or any other identifiable aspect of the environment (e.g. a colour, an emotion)) By calling it an evaluation, theorists mean that an attitude is a good-bad judgement: it represents the individual‟s overall assessment of whether a particular target is positive or negative. Researchers must infer attitudes from individuals‟ observable responses as attitudes cannot be seen directly. Although it is true that people can have an attitude toward almost anything, social psychologists have been interested mainly in attitudes that are directed at important targets, such as controversial issues, ethnic groups, and consequential behaviours. Three Parts of Attitudes Attitudes can come from sources: emotional reactions, cognitive information, and past behaviour. Whether an individual evaluates a target positively or negatively will depend on three things: 1) How the object makes them feel a. Targets that arouse negative feelings and emotions (e.g. snakes, hypodermic needles) are more likely to generate unfavourable attitudes than are targets that arouse positive feelings and emotions (e.g. puppies, chocolate). 2) The person‟s beliefs about the object a. Targets that are known or believed to possess negative characteristics (e.g. criminals, cholesterol) are more likely to generate unfavourable attitudes than are targets that are known or believed to possess positive characteristics (e.g. medical doctors, healthy foods). 3) The person‟s previous actions toward the object a. Targets toward which someone has behaved negatively in the past (e.g. enemies, weeds) are more likely to be seen as disliked than are targets toward which someone has behaved positively in the past (e.g. friends, kittens). Two-way relation between attitudes and behaviour: past behaviours influence current attitudes, and current attitudes influence future behaviour. Attitudes toward certain targets depend mostly on people‟s feelings toward those targets (e.g. attitude towards blood donation depends on one‟s fear of donating blood), whereas attitudes toward other targets depend mostly on people‟s knowledge and beliefs (e.g. attitude toward controversial social issues depend on one‟s agreement with arguments supporting each side of the issue). Ambivalent attitudes: evaluations of targets that include both positive and negative elements; this conflict among the attitudinal elements is experienced as unpleasant A key implication of ambivalence is for the consistency of behaviour – what kind of behaviour does an ambivalent attitude produce? Is it constant or variable? Ambivalent attitudes can lead to different behaviour over time because either the positive or the negative elements about the target may come to mind at a particular point, and whichever type of element is dominant will drive behaviour (accessibility). Attitudes that are low in ambivalence (all positive or all negative) will not produce such variable responses. Explicit Versus Implicit Attitudes Explicit attitudes: those that people can report consciously Implicit attitudes: an individual‟s automatic evaluative response to a target, which can occur without awareness; spontaneous good-bad response that cannot be consciously controlled Typically, implicit attitudes conform to explicit attitudes (they match); however, inconsistency between the two does occur – people may not always realize that their implicit and explicit attitudes toward a target differ. Perceptions of Others’ Attitudes There is a common structure to people‟s perceptions of others‟ attitudes. Two dimensions are most important: 1) Liberal vs. conservative 2) Traditional vs. novel (or radical) Thus, perceptions of other people‟s attitudes tend to be guided by consideration of the extent to which the others are liberal or conservative and traditional or innovative. Why Do We Evaluate? Recognition, per se, is not very informative unless the memory system also triggers some sort of evaluation of the object. Assessing Objects Object-appraisal function: attitudes give the individual a quick assessment (appraisal) of whether targets are likely to be helpful or hurtful; most basic function of/principal reason for attitudes The fundamental goal of object appraisal can be served by simple, affective responses that do not rely on complex cognition, causing attitude-development to generalize beyond humans. Expressing Values Values: broad, abstract standards or goals that people consider to be important guiding principles in their life People‟s values are related to their attitudes toward specific issues (e.g. religious individuals might adopt specific positions on issues such as birth control or gay marriage to display their support for their faith); the attitudes serve, in part, symbolic functions for the holders Value-expressive function: attitudes allow people to convey an identity that connects them to some groups and makes them distinct from other groups Testing the Functions of Attitudes How can an investigator determine whether a particular attitude fulfills an object-appraisal or a value- expressive function? The motivations underlying object-appraisal attitudes differ from those underlying value-expressive attitudes. Sharon Shavitt‟s experiment: Idea: attitudes toward a particular object may fulfill the same function for almost everyone Two examples of attitudes she studied: attitudes toward coffee and attitudes toward perfume Shavitt proposed that one of these attitudes typically fulfills an object-appraisal function, and the other typically fulfills a value-expressive function. Object-appraisal attitudes give the individual a quick evaluation of the target, whereas value-expressive attitudes tell other people about the individual‟s identity or values. Shavitt hypothesized that attitudes toward coffee typically fulfill an object-appraisal function: people either like or dislike the taste of coffee (as well as its dose of caffeine) and that attitudes toward perfume often fulfill a value-expressive function: many people purchase a particular brand of perfume because it projects a desired image or because it is promoted by a beautiful model or movie star with whom they identify. st 1 study: Shavitt asked participants to write down thoughts about their attitudes toward a particular target (e.g. coffee, perfume) and to explain why they felt that way. These thoughts were later examined by judges who recorded how often the participants mentioned specific themes. When participants described an object-appraisal attitude (e.g. toward coffee), they were likely to mention positive or negative features of the object. When participants described a value-expressive attitude (toward perfume), they were likely to mention their values, their identity, and what the object communicated to others. 2 study: Shavitt tested the implications of attitude functions for the effectiveness of persuasive messages – ads. If attitudes toward coffee give people a quick evaluation of this target, how should an ad be constructed to promote a new brand of coffee effectively? Shavitt proposed that the most effective strategy would be to focus on the positive features of the coffee and the rewards it will bring. But if attitudes toward perfume reflect individuals‟ identities and desired images, how should an ad for a new brand of perfume be constructed? Shavitt proposed that the most effective strategy would be to focus on the desirable impression the perfume will make on others. Shavitt created two different versions of ads for fictitious brands of coffee and perfume. One version stressed the rewards provided by the product (“The delicious, hearty flavour and aroma of Sterling Blend coffee come from a blend of the freshest coffee beans” or “The fresh, floral scent of Cadeau perfume comes from a balanced blend of oils and essences”). The second version emphasized how the product created a particular image in others‟ minds (“The coffee you drink can reveal your rare, discriminating taste” or “Cadeau perfume is the sophisticated scent that tells people that you are not one of the crowd”). The coffee ad focusing on rewards generated more interest than did the coffee ad focusing on image. The perfume ad focusing on image generated more interest than did the perfume ad focusing on rewards. Thus, the ads were more effective when they were consistent with the function fulfilled by the attitude: object-appraisal attitudes responded to information about rewards, whereas value-expressive attitudes responded to information about image. Measuring Attitudes Validity refers to whether a measure actually assesses what it is supposed to assess (how valid a measure is), and reliability refers to whether participants‟ scores on the measure are stable and free from “random” fluctuations (how reliable the scores are). Self-Report Measures of Attitudes Because people are usually aware of their attitudes, it seems sensible to ask them directly to report their evaluations. Most attitude measurement techniques are self-report in nature. Items are administered either in a paper-and-pencil questionnaire or on a computer. Respondents indicate their attitudes by circling a number or word on a response scale or by placing an X along a response dimension.  Likert-Type Scales o Most used technique to measure attitudes over the past 70 years o Respondents read a number of statements, each of which expresses a clear position (pro or con) on an issue, or a clear attitude (favourable or unfavourable) toward a target. o Respondents are then asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement with each item (on a scale from „strongly disagree‟ to „strongly agree‟ which is equivalent to 1-5 (with some reverse scoring present)). o Higher sums of scores reflect the same direction of attitude (e.g. higher sums reflect a favourable attitude). o Advantages:  Relatively easy for researchers to construct  Clear and simple for respondents to complete  Have been shown to produce reliable scores  Semantic Differential Scales o Respondents are asked to rate an attitude object on several evaluative dimensions (such as good-bad, favourable-unfavourable, effective-ineffective, and fair-unfair). o The opposing adjectives appear on either end of a 5-point response scale, and respondents are told to put an X somewhere on the scale to indicate his/her evaluation. o Higher sums of scores reflect the same direction of attitude (e.g. higher sums reflect a favourable attitude). o Advantages:  Easy for researchers to construct  Straightforward for respondents to complete  Assesses evaluations very directly, because participants rate the attitude object on dimensions that are explicitly evaluative (including the fundamental dimension underlying attitudes – the good-bad dimension)  Opinion Surveys o Designed to assess public opinion about an issue, event, or group o Sometimes, the survey researcher wants to be able to generalize the findings to a larger population (e.g. all adults in Canada), in which case the sample must be representative of that population. o On other occasions, survey researchers simply want a “snippet” of public opinion and will not present their findings as necessarily applicable to larger populations. o Most opinion surveys contain just one or two items on a particular issue, and responses are often limited to “yes” or “no” (perhaps also “undecided”). o Advantages:  Useful for gathering information about public opinion, but are rarely employed Measurement Technique Key Features Advantages and Disadvantages Likert-type scale Respondent rates agreement or Relatively easy to construct disagreement with attitude Clear and simple to answer statements Reliable scores All statements are clearly favourable or clearly unfavourable Researcher must identify nonvalid items and eliminate them Semantic differential scale Respondent rates attitude object Very simple to construct on evaluative dimensions Clear and simple to answer All dimensions reflect the good- Very direct measures of bad dimension evaluations Score is sum of respondent‟s ratings Opinion survey Respondent answers just one or Very simple to construct two items on each issue Useful for gathering information Responses are usually yes, about public opinion undecided, or no Usually not detained enough for Researchers sometimes obtain a use in psychological research representative sample  Problems with Self-Report Measures o All of the described techniques rest on at least two assumptions  People know what their attitudes are  They will report those attitudes honestly o If researchers are interested in implicit attitudes, they cannot use self-report measures. o People reporting their attitudes honestly is questionable in some cases – often one position on an issue is more socially desirable than other positions (topics that can be influenced by social desirability are in the domain of ethnic attitudes, attitudes towards illegal activities, attitudes towards harmful behaviours, and attitudes toward helpful but costly/time-consuming actions (e.g. donating, volunteering)). o Given that people want to appear likeable, moral, and competent, they may be tempted to shift their answers on attitude scales in the direction of the socially desirable position. o They typically do not yield a clear and easy way to measure the ambivalence of an individual‟s attitude (an attitude that includes both positive and negative elements).  To measure ambivalence, some researchers have asked respondents to rate the target on both positive and negative scales separately – for instance, participants might rate the target on a scale from „not at all good‟ to „extremely good‟ and on another scale from „not at all bad‟ to „extremely bad‟; in this way, participants can indicate that they have mixed reactions to the target. Nonverbal Measures of Attitudes Nonverbal measures of attitudes do not rely on participants‟ ability or willingness to report their attitudes, and they may provide better assessments of people‟s unconscious, affective responses to objects than self- report methods (which reflect people‟s conscious, often primarily cognitive, evaluations). However, these measures are often difficult to obtain and may not be as sensitive for assessing explicit attitudes as self- report measures.  Behavioural Measures o Some researchers have used participants‟ overt behaviour to infer their attitude toward an object. o Behavioural measures of attitudes are usually unobtrusive measures: participants usually do not realize that their attitudes are being assessed. o By being unobtrusive, behavioural measures reduce problems of self-presentation and social desirability. o Unfortunately, it is often difficult to design a behavioural measure of an attitude – for instance, how could attitudes toward nuclear power plants be inferred from behaviour? o Also, using behaviour to measure attitudes assumes that there is a strong, inevitable link between attitudes and actions, which is not always true.  Physiological Measures o One category of physiological reactions that has received attention is symptoms of arousal (such as heart rate and blood pressure). o Some researchers have found that exposure to negative or disliked objects increases arousal as measured by these symptoms (exposure to negative object = threat = arousal prepares one for „fight or flight‟ response). o It appears that although heart rate and blood pressure may sometimes indicate the intensity of people‟s feelings about a target, arousal symptoms are poor at distinguishing between positive and negative evaluations (very serious limitation). o Facial electromyography (facial EMG): a procedure for measuring muscle contractions in the face that may be sensitive to positive vs. negative responses to a stimulus (specific patters are associated with each) o There is some evidence that the magnitude of people‟s eye-blink response to a puff of air directed at their eye while they are looking at a target object reveals their affective response. o However, obtaining these measures is a complex and time-consuming procedure. o Facial EMG appears to be sensitive to emotional reactions, but less sensitive to evaluations that lack a strong affective component (e.g. attitudes that are based primarily on cognitive beliefs). o It is possible for people to deliberately alter or inhibit some of their facial responses.  Implicit Measures o Since responses can occur without awareness, researchers have designed procedures that assess the extent to which people have an automatic positive or negative response to an object. o Implicit Association Test (IAT): most common reaction time procedure; requires participants to complete two sorting tasks as quickly as possible – in one task, the target of the attitude must be sorted into the same category as some “good” objects, and in the other task, the target must be sorted into the same category as some “bad” objects  Basic idea: if participants complete the task in which the target is associated with “good” things more quickly than the task in which the target is associated with “bad” things, they are assumed to have a positive implicit attitude toward the target and vice versa o Disadvantages:  Responses on the IAT are influenced by idiosyncratic factors, such as recently generated thoughts by the respondents. Measurement Technique Key Features Advantages and Disadvantages Behavioural measures Observe respondent‟s actions Unobtrusive (respondent toward attitude object unaware) Favourable actions (e.g. approach Not possible for all attitude object, smile at object) are objects assumed to reflect favourable Assumes inevitable link between attitudes attitudes and behaviour Physiological measures Assess respondent‟s May reflect intensity but not physiological reactions to object direction of attitude Examples include arousal May not be very sensitive symptoms and facial EMG Implicit measures Respondent‟s reaction times are Respondent cannot easily distort used to infer automatic responses answers Example is the Implicit Shown to predict spontaneous, Association Test (IAT) nonverbal reactions to attitude Implicit attitudes are assumed to object influence the speed with which Time-consuming to obtain the attitude object can be paired with good or bad things How Do Attitudes Form? Three sources – affect, cognition, and behaviour – can each contribute to the development of an evaluative response. Affective Sources of Attitudes When an object, event, or action consistently produces positive feelings or pleasurable biological responses, we will form a favourable attitude
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1,2,3,4 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.