11

What is an attitude?

• Evaluations of people, objects or ideas• A predisposition to behave in a favorable or unfavorable

manner toward a particular class of objects.• Attitude structure

• Cognitive component: Non-evaluative beliefs about the attitude object

• Affective component: Feelings or evaluations about the object

• Behavioral component: Predisposition to take certain kinds of action toward the object

• Expect consistency among these components• Consistency is lower than expected• E.g., Average r verbal attitude X behavior= .52

Glasman, L. R., & Albarracín, D. (2006). Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: a meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 778-822.

33

Attitude towards Skippy Peanut Butter

Cognitive Affective Behavioral

44

Weights on the 3 components differ for different objects and at different times

• Attitudes towards utilitarian objects (e.g., dishwasher) are often based on cognition

• Attitudes towards objects more cognitively based when personal relevance or stakes (e.g., $) are higher

55

Weights on the 3 components differ for different objects and at different times

Attitudes towards “experience goods” (e.g., food, restaurants, movies or art) are often based on affect

66

Weights on the 3 components differ for different objects and at different times

• Attitudes towards routine goods may be based on behavioral habit

77

Bases for attitude change

• Compliance• Change in overt behavior because of the consequences. No

necessary change in beliefs or evaluation.

• Identification• Change in beliefs and affect to be similar to a admired/liked other

• Children’s political party affiliation• “Be like Mike”

• Internalization• Change in beliefs and affect where the content of the attitude is

intrinsically rewarding. • It fits in with one’s views, values, and principles; it’s consistent

Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(1), 51-60.

88

Compliance: “Just Following Orders”

• “Just following orders” defense attempted and failed at the Nuremberg War Crime trials•  Nuremberg Principle IV: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his

Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

99

Identification

Obamas to Plant Vegetable Garden at White House

Mar 29, 2009 — Michelle Obama will begin digging up a patch of the South Lawn on Friday to plant a vegetable garden, the first at the White House since Eleanor Roosevelt’s victory garden in World War II. There will be no beets — the president does not like them — but arugula will make the cut.

While the organic garden will provide food for the first family’s meals and formal dinners, its most important role, Mrs. Obama said, will be to educate children about healthful, locally grown fruit and vegetables

1010

Internalization: Expectancy-value model of

attitudes

Attitude towards buying a Prius • Cognitive premises:

• Buying a Prius will save me money (.5)

• Buying a Prius will be good for the environment (.9)

• Toyotas are reliable/ow maintenance (.,6)

• Evaluative premise:

• Saving money is good (3)

• Improving the environment is good (6)

• Reliability is important (10)

• Conclusion: Buying a Prius is good

(.5 x 3 + .9 x 6 + .6 x 10) = 12.9

Attitude towards buying a Ford Taurus• Cognitive premises:

• Buying a Taurus will save me money (.8)

• Buying a Taurus will be good for the environment (.4)

• Ford are reliable/ow maintenance (.,3)

• Evaluative premise:

• Saving money is good (3)

• Improving the environment is good (6)

• Reliability is important (10)

• Conclusion: Buying a Taurus is less good

(.8 x 3 + .4 x 6 + .3 x 10) = 5.4>

1111

Kahneman: Thinking Fast and Slow

• Dichotomy between two modes of thought: "System 1" is fast, instinctive and emotional; "System 2" is slower, more deliberative, and more logical. 

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

1212

2 x 2Routine, highway driving

on straight road

Kahneman: Thinking Fast and Slow

Automatic Processing

System 1 operates automatically and quickly, with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control

Effortful Processing

System 2 allocates attention to the effortful mental activities that demand it, including complex computations

13 x 17Driving on crowded, curvy road in

the rain

1313

Depth of Processing in Attitude Change

System 2:Systematic processing

• Occurs when we think deeply about a message

• Persuaded by the strength of the arguments

• Requires the motivation and the ability to think deeply about the message:

System 1: Heuristic processing

• Occurs when we don’t think deeply about a message

• Persuaded by superficial cues in the message or situation

• Happens automatically when we lack the motivation or ability to process deeply

1414

Two Routes to Persuasion

Message Audience

High ability and motivation

Low ability and motivation

Systematic processing

Heuristic processing

PersuasionSource

1515

With Systematic ProcessingAttitude Change Thru Internalization

• Reception of message Elaboration Persuasion• Are the facts right?• Is the argument coherent?• Are the conclusion warranted

• Quality of the argument wins• Stronger arguments more persuasion• Longer arguments (if strong) more persuasion• Source credibility more persuasion

• E.g., Obama healthcare & anti-Romney ads

1616

Can I cut in? Langer, Blank, & Chanowitz (1978)

Request

Bald request, with no rationale“Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine?”

Request, with legitimate rationale“Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I’m in a rush?”

Request, with illegitimate rationale“Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I have to make some copies”

Compliance rate

60%

94%

?

1717

Can I cut in? Langer, Blank, & Chanowitz (1978)

Compliance rate

60%

94%

93%

Request

Bald request, with no rationale“Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine?”

Request, with legitimate rationale“Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I’m in a rush?”

Request, with illegitimate rationale“Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I have to make some copies”

1818

Systematic vs. Heuristic Processing

Even when we think we are systematically processing, heuristic processing can influence us

1919

Systematic Processing Moderated by Involvement

College students hear argument for new exam as graduation requirement

• Evidence• Strong: Strong argument & solid

evidence• Weak: weak, Based on anecdote &

personal opinion• Involvement

• High: Start next year• Low: Start in 10years

Argument Strength & Involvement

-.6-.4-.2.0.2.4.6.8

High Low

Involvement

Atti

tud

e a

fter

com

mu

nic

atio

n

Strong

Weak

Argument strength has impact only for involved listeners

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(5), 847.