Social Psychology Lecture 8

Theory of attitudes and behaviour

Jane ClarbourRoom PS/B007 email: jc129

Objectives• Show an understanding of how cultural

differences in social norms effect social influence on attitudes

• Specify the relationship between:– Beliefs and attitudes– Attitudes and behavioural intentions– Behavioural intentions and behaviour

• Demonstrate an understanding of the differences between:– The Theory of Reasoned Action– The Theory of Planned behaviour

Collectivist vs. Individualist cultures

Collectivist• Identity based on social

system and given by group• Socialised to be emotionally

dependent on organisations/ institutions

• Consistency between group goals and personal goals

• Social behaviour thought to be more determined by social norms and roles than by personal attitudes

Individualist• Identity based in the

individual• Socialised to be

emotionally independent• Personal and group goals

are inconsistent• Social behaviour thought

to be more determined by attitudes than social roles or norms

Influence of individualism-collectivism on attitude formation

• ‘Values’ hierarchy designed to provide information relating to importance of either individualist or collectivist values for self-concept– If individualist values are more central they

will have greater influence in shaping attitudes and behaviour (Franzoi, 2000).

Attitudes as explanation for social behaviour

Attitudes have three main functions:

1. They help define social groups2. Help to establish personal identity3. Mediate thinking and behaviour

– i.e Mandela is famous for his attitude towards apartheid. Explanation for social motivation

– But what is meant by attitude…?

Diversity of ‘attitude’ definitions

• Definitions of attitude are ambiguous and may include reference to:– Attribution of dispositions– Behavioural intentions– Evaluations

Attitudes as learned predisposition

Fishbein & Ajzen (1975)

• ‘A learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favourable or unfavourable manner with respect to a given object’– Predisposition– Associationist

• implication of attitude development through repeated experience of behavioural consequence

Attitudes as expressed evaluations

Eagly & Chaiken (1993)

‘Attitude is a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favour or disfavour’– More cognitive than Fishbein & Ajzen – More emphasis on evaluation (favour/disfavour)– Less emphasis on how gained (ie learned)– More social

Attitudes and behaviour

LaPiere (1934) racial prejudice– Attitudes to Chinese

“Will you accept members of the Chinese race as guests in your establishment?”

– Inconsistency between attitude and behaviour

– Concluded attitudes should be studied from behaviour in actual social settings

Review of attitude-behaviour relationship (Wicker, 1969)

• No attitude-behaviour relationship (mean .15)– Psychometric inadequacies

• (1 item measure)

– Principle of aggregation• LaPieres poor prediction of behaviour used a

general measure of attitude to try to predict a specific action rather than a general action.

Diversity of measurement(Ajzen, 1988)

Response categories

Affect Cognition Behaviour

Verbal Expressions of feelings towards attitude object

Expressions of beliefs about

attitude object

Expression of behavioural

intentions towards attitude object

Non-verbal Physiological responses to attitude object

Perceptual responses (e.g.

reaction times) to attitude object

Overt behavioural responses to attitude object

Ambiguity of definition

• Attitudes are… learned• Attitudes …predispose action

– Actions are consistently favourable or unfavourable towards the object

Three types of consistency

1. Stimulus-response consistency

2. Response-response consistency

3. Evaluative consistency

Theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Azjen, 1975)

• Problems arise from lack of clarity of which aspects are most important in definition of attitude and how should be measured– Must distinguish between

• Attitude• Beliefs• Behaviour

Theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Azjen, 1975)

• Attitude:– Main feature is its evaluative (or affective) nature– Measurement should be bipolar in relation to affect

• Beliefs:– The information a person has about an object– Measurement should be dimensional in relation to

subjective strength of belief

• Behaviour:– The observable acts that are studied in their own right– Measurement of behaviour should not be taken to infer

attitude

Relationships between these distinctions:

• Stage 1. Beliefs:– Links an object to some attribute

E.g. “China is a totalitarian state”

Object attribute

“Small dogs are snappy“

(see OHP: Figure1)

Conceptual structure

• Beliefs as foundations for attitudes– Knowledge about object

• Determines attitudes, intentions & behaviour

– Used for• Making judgements• Forming evaluations• Decision making

Stage 1: 3 main sources of beliefs

1. Primary sources– Direct observation

2. Inference– e.g. person with negative attitude towards

communist China and who positively values freedom of religion may infer that China has no religious freedom, even though no direct information on this point

3. Information from a secondary source – e.g. peers, newspapers, parents, books

Stage 2: Attitudes

• Attitude to object is based on salient beliefs – (a) That the object has certain

attributes– (b) How the person evaluates the

particular attributes• Evaluation of specific belief to object

– (not beliefs in general)– So, it’s the evaluation of the belief

attitude formation

Stage 3: Intentions

• Attitude to an object is related to person’s intention to perform a variety of behaviours with respect to the object– Intention relates to belief in respect of evaluation

of behavioural consequences rather than attributes of object

– Not just one behaviour, but whole set• So, might expect consistency

– Based upon ‘subjective norms’

Behavioural beliefs

Outcome evaluations

Attitude towards the behaviour

Intention Behaviour

Subjective norm

Normative beliefs

Motivations to comply

Relative importance of attitudinal and normative factors

Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein & Azjen, 1975)

 

Theory of Reasoned Action Prediction of goal directed behaviour

(from Azjen & Maddson, 1986)

Attitude towards a behaviour

Subjective norms

Intention Behaviour

Intention-behaviour relationship

• Intentions and behaviours must be measured at same level of specificity– Behaviour, target, situation, time

• The closer the correspondence of these factors the greater the correlation between intention and behaviour

Subjective norms

• A person’s beliefs that key people would or would not behave that way

• A person’s motivation to comply with what these people think – So includes process of conformity as

mediator against attitude and behaviour

Stage 4: Behaviour

• Each intention is viewed as related to the corresponding behaviour– Assumption that most social behaviour is

volitional• A person should perform the behaviour that they

intend to perform

– Note, no direct link between attitude and behaviour

• Model assumes that to predict behaviour, need access to intention, not attitude.

Criticisms of Fishbein & Ajzen’s model (Bentler & Speckart, 1979)

• Structural equational modelling techniques demonstrated that both attitude and past behaviour contribute strongly to future behaviour (when measured 2 weeks later)

• Behavioural intent mediates predictive capacity of subjective norms on future behaviour– Conclusion that factors other than intentions also are

predictive of behavioural intent– Limits value of Fishbein & Ajzen’s model

• suggests incomplete

SummaryTheory of Reasoned Action

• Attitudes do not predict single behaviours• Attitudes are related to multiple behaviours

(behavioural patterns)– Questionnaires with a multiplicity of behavioural

statements are likely to predict attitudes

• Intentions are the better predictors of single behaviours– Need to understand psychological process relating

to beliefs and attitudes in order to understand intention-behaviour relationship

Recap…• Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein &

Ajzen,1975)

– People rationally think about or evaluate the consequences of their behaviour prior to acting

• Cognition is the primary process of attitude development• Behaviour is intended to achieve particular outcomes• By discovering intentions in a particular situation it

becomes possible to predict behaviour• Attitudes influence behaviour by their influence on

intentions

Limitations of the Theory of Reasoned Action

• Assumes rational evaluation of consequence– People also act:

• on their emotion without any thought of consequence• irrationally• according to own morals rather than social norm

– Based on individualist assumptions– Ignores individual differences in the need to

evaluate

Theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen & Madden, 1986)

Theory of Reasoned Action developed in relation to volitional behaviour– Not all behaviour is volitional

• Deeply ingrained habits• Lack of resources• External obstacles

Introduction of additional factor of PERCIEVED CONTROL to the earlier Theory of

Reasoned Action

Theory of planned behaviour (2)

Perceived control

• Additional set of beliefs relating to control– Presence or absence of resources and

opportunities• As not all behaviour is under voluntary control

• Greater perception of control with– increased perception of resources or

opportunities– Fewer obstacles or impediments

Theory of planned behaviour (Azjen & Madden, 1986)

Attitude to behaviour

Subjective norm

Perceived behavioural

control

Behavioural intention Behaviour

Perceived behavioural control (Ajzen & Madden, 1986)

• Theory of reasoned action assumes control over behaviour

• Factors other than intention may mediate control– Internal factors:

• Perception of skills, abilities, knowledge and planning…

– External factors:• Perception of time, opportunity, other people…

Theory of Planned Behaviour:

Prerequisites for behavioural intention – behaviour relationship

• The measure of intention must match the specificity of the behaviour– i.e. to be able to predict attendance of Social lectures must

measure intention to attend Social lectures, rather than just lectures more generally

• Time– The measure of intention should be as close as possible to

measure of behaviour to avoid change of intention

• Volitional control– The behaviour should be perceived to be performable and

not reliant upon external variables

Conclusions• Attitudes do not predict single behaviours

• Attitudes are related to multiple behaviours (behavioural patterns)

• Attitudes influence behaviour through influencing intention

• Intention is the better predictor of behaviour• In order to understand intentions and

behaviours, need to know about beliefs and attitudes– This is essential in relation to attitude change

What next…

• Lecture 9 – Attitude change: Advertising and Fear Appeals

• Essential reading– Rogers (1983) Cognitive and physiological

process in fear appeals and attitude change– Stroebe & Jonas (2001) Health Psychology: A

Social-Psychological Perspective– Franzoi (2000) Chapter 6: Persuasion