C82SAD: Attitudes, persuasive communication, and attitude

change

What is an Attitude?

• “Social psychology is the study of attitudes” (Allport, 1935)

• Distinction between social psychologists use of the word ‘attitude’ and the generally used term i.e. “He has an attitude problem”, “Wow, she’s got attitude”

• Attitude is defined as “tendencies to evaluate an entity [attitude object] into some degree of favour or disfavour, ordinarily expressed in cognitive, affective and behavioural responses” (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993).

Attitude: Definitions

• “The concept of attitudes is probably the most distinctive and indispensable concept in contemporary American social psychology. No other term appears more frequently in the experimental and theoretical literature” (Allport, 1935, p. 798)

• “Attitudes are a mental and neural state of readiness, organised through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual's response to all objects and situations with which it is related” (Allport,1935, p. 810).

Attitude: Definitions

• Attitudes involve associations between attitude objects and evaluations of these objects (Fazio, 1989)

• Attitudes are evaluations of various objects that are stored in memory (Judd et al., 1991)

• Attitude is a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluation a particular entity with some degree of favour of disfavour ... Evaluating refers to all classes of evaluative responding, whether overt or covert, cognitive, affective or behavioural (Eagly & Chaiken,1993).

Component Theories of Attitude

• Unitary model. Attitudes are a single positive or negative evaluation of an attitude object

• Dual model. A mental state of readiness and therefore guides some evaluation or response towards and object

• Tripartite model. Include feeling (affective), action (behavioural), and thought (cognitive) components – “ABC”

Tripartite Model?

CognitiveBelief based e.g.

“Beer kills my brain cells”“Beer helps me to relax”

“Beer tastes good after a hard days work”

Attitude object: Beer

AffectiveEmotion based e.g.

“Harmful-Beneficial”“Relaxing-Stressful”

“Tasty-Bitter”

BehaviouralIntention based e.g.

“I will cut down on my beer drinking”“I intend to drink beer when I’m stressed”

“I plan to drink more beer after work”

What are Attitudes Used for?Attitudes serve as conscious and unconscious motives and have four functions (Katz, 1960):• They assist in helping us make sense of our world and to organize the information we encounter (c.f. cognitive economy) (KNOWLEDGE FUNCTION)• They help us make behave in socially acceptable ways to gain positive and avoid negative outcomes (UTILITARIAN/ADJUSTIVE FUNCTION)• They act as a guide to behaviour in social situations and help us in self- and social- categorization (SOCIAL IDENTITY/VALUE-EXPRESSIVE FUNCTION)• They allow use to preserve a positive sense of self (EGO-DEFENSIVE FUNCTION)

Attitude Formation

Behavioural theories• Direct experience – expectancy value model of

attitudes – mere exposure can influence attitudes

• Classical conditioning – neutral stimuli paired with salient response results in an attitude

• Operant conditioning – attitudes shaped by a reinforcement system of reward and punishment

• Observational learning – modelling in vicarious experiences

Attitude Formation

Cognitive theories• Information integration theory – attitudes formed by

‘averaging’ available information on a object• Self-perception theory – infer attitudes from own

behaviour (Bem, 1960)• Mood-as-information hypothesis – Emotion (mood)

provides basis of evaluation of attitudes objects• Heuristic processing – decision ‘rules of thumb’ are used

to make judgements and form ‘mental shortcuts’ in memory

• Persuasion – Attitudes formed on the basis of persuasive information

Attitude Formation

Sources• Parents – Infer attitudes from those most closest

to you (c.f. Bandura, 1965) but strength of association ranges from strong (Jennings & Niemi, 1968) to very weak (Connell, 1972)

• Mass media – Particularly television an important influence of attitude formation especially in children (e.g., Chaffee et al., 1977) and links between television advertisements and children’s attitude Atkin, 1980)

Common Sense: Attitudes and Behaviour

“You can’t stop parents feeding their kids what they are going to feed them, what you can do is try to create a situation where over time people realize that it isn’t really any good for kids to be brought up on a poor diet…It’s a question of changing attitudes over time”

Tony Blair speaking on BBC BreakfastTuesday, 10th October 2006

Attitude-Behaviour Relationship• Of principle concern - if attitudes don’t guide behaviour then their efficacy and

utility as a construct is greatly reduced• Classic study: LaPiere (1934) restaurateur's attitudes towards Asians in 1930’s

USA- questioned validity of the attitude-behaviour link• Wicker (1969) attitudes were very weakly correlated with behaviour across 45

studies (average r =.15)• Gregson and Stacey (1981) only a small positive correlation between attitudes

and alcohol consumption• Stimulated study into the personality, contextual, temporal and methodological

influences on the attitude-behaviour relationship

Attitude-Behaviour Relationship• Reasons for lack of a relationship:• Methodological

– Unreliability and low validity of attitude and/or behavioural measures

– Time between attitude and behavioural measure• Modality

– Lack of compatibility/correspondence between attitude and behaviour

– Target, Action, Context and Time– Recent evidence: e.g. Armitage and Conner (2001)

strong indirect attitude-behaviour relationships within Theory of Planned Behaviour

Expectancy-Value Models of Attitude

• Expectancy-value models – Attitudes have two components:– Expectancy: Behaviour will result in a certain outcome

(e.g., studying hard will gain me good grades)– Value: Outcome is highly valued (e.g., getting good

grades is important to me)

• Each expectancy is multiplied by each value to produce attitude ‘score’ e.g.

Attitude = (expectancyi x valuei)i = 1

The Theory of Reasoned Action(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980)

Attitudes

Subjective Norms

Intentions Behaviour

General orientation towards the behaviour“good-bad”,“useful-useless”,“harmful-beneficial”

Stated volitional plans“I plan…/I intend.../ I expect...”

Measure of actual behaviour

Evaluation of others evaluation “my parents think…”,”my teacher thinks…”

Where do Attitudes and Subjective Norms Come From?

Attitudes

Subjective Norms

Intentions Behaviour

BehaviouralBeliefs

XOutcome

Evaluations

NormativeBeliefs

XMotivation to

Comply

Expectancy-value Models of Attitudes and Subjective Norms

Man’s belief about woman using pill Man’s belief about man using condom

Attribute Strength of belief

Value of belief

Result

Strength of belief

Value of belief

Result

Reliability 0.90 X +2 = +1.80 0.70 X -1 = -0.70

Embarras-ement

1.00 X +2 = +2.00 0.80 X -2 = -1.60

Side effects

0.10 X -1 = -0.10 1.00 X +2 = +2.00

Outcome +3.70 -0.30

Evaluation of capacities/barriers/abilities“self-efficacy”/”easy-difficult”

The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)

(Ajzen , 1989)

PerceivedControl

Attitudes

Subjective Norms

Intentions Behaviour

ControlBeliefs

XPerceived

Power

The Effect of Including Perceived Behavioural Control

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

TRA TPB

Intentions: sleep

Behaviour: sleep

Behaviour: vitamins

Intentions: vitamins

Theory

Source:Madden, Ellen & Ajzen (1992)

• Generality of attitude (Davidson & Jaccard, 1979) – confirmed ‘TACT’

• Attitude accessibility (Doll & Ajzen, 1992)• Attitude strength (Fazio et al., 1986)• Social identity as a group member (self-

identity for a particular behaviour) affects intention-behaviour relationship (Terry & Hogg, 1996)

Factors Affecting Attitude-Intention Relationship in TPB

The role of norms and group identification in attitude-behaviour consistencyStudents expressed a stronger intention to engage in regular exercise when they felt their attitudes towards exercise were normative of a student peer group with which they identified strongly.

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

4.0Low High

Ingroup normativeness of own attitude

Inte

ntio

n to

eng

age

in r

egul

ar e

xerc

ise

(7-p

oint

sca

le)

Group identification: Low

High

Source: based ondata from Terry andHogg (1996)

Protection Motivation TheoryBalancing perceived threat vs. capacity to cope with healthy behaviour

Intrinsic rewardExtrinsic reward

Source: Floyd, Prentice-Dunn, Rogers (2000)

Cognitive processes

Perceived vulnerabilityPerceived severity

Perceivedresponse-cost

Threatappraisal

Copingappraisal

Protectionmotivation

(Maladaptive)

(Adaptive)

Response efficacySelf-efficacyResponse efficacySelf-efficacyResponse efficacySelf-efficacy

Measuring Attitudes

• Thurstone’s (1928) equal appearing interval scale – developed from 100s of items (questions)

• Likert (1932) scale – 5- point scales with +ive and –ive scoring

• Semantic differential scale (Osgood et al., 1957) –uses word pairs

• Scalogram (Guttman, 1944) – agreement with statements from single trait

Scale Value of Items on an 11-point Thurstone

Equal-Intervals ScaleT H U R S T O N E S C A L E

Attitude towards Contraception

How favourable Value on 11- Item

point scale

Least 1.3 Practising contraception should be punishable by law.

3.6 Contraception is morally wrong in spite of possible benefits.

Neutral 5.4 Contraception has both advantages and disadvantages.

7.6 Contraception is a legitimate health measure.

9.6 Contraception is the only solution to many of our social

problems.

Most 10.3 We should not only allow but enforce limitation on family size.

An Example of a Likert-Scale Item to Measure

Attitudes Towards Nuclear Power Plants

`I believe that nuclear power plants are one of the great dangers of industrial

societies´

+2 Strongly agree

+1 Moderately agree

0 Neutral or undecided

-1 Moderately disagree

-2 Strongly disagree

A 7-Point ‘Likert-Type’ Self-Rating Scale

Are you favour of having nuclear power plants in Britain?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

STRONGLYAPPROVE

NEUTRALSTRONGLY

DISAPPROVE

Rating The Concept of `Nuclear Power´ on a

7-Point Semantic Differential Scale

GOOD BAD

STRONG WEAK

FAST SLOW

SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALE

Nuclear power

Attitude Accessibility Model• Fazio (1989, 1995) proposed the attitude accessibility model• Attitude is automatically activated on presence of situational cues

that have a strong effect on life outcomes• Attitudes are most influential when they are relevant and important

Attitude objectin memory

Evaluation ofattitude object

Attitude objectin memory

Evaluation ofattitude object

Attitude objectin memory

Evaluation ofattitude object

No link

Weak link

Strong link

Fazio’s Automatic Activation Model

According to the attitude accessibility model (Fazio, 1989), attitude accessibility— the ease with which attitudes can be retrieved from memory — plays a keyrole in the attitude-behaviour link.

Source: Fazio (1989)

Presentation ofattitude object

(activation)

Strong attitudeactivated-retrieved

from memory

Evaluation ofattitude object and

situation

Information processingand behaviour toward

attitude object

Persuasive Communication

• The ‘Yale’ approach precursor and highly influential of persuasive communication

• Hovland and coworkers identified the features of persuasive communication– Message (content)– Source or communicator– Audience

Yale Approach to Persuasive Communication (Hovland et al., 1953)

Message•Order of arguments•One- vs two-sided arguments•Type of appeal•Explicit vs implicit conclusion

Source•Expertise•Trustworthiness•Likeability•Status•Race

Audience•Persuasibility•Initial position•Intelligence•Self-esteem•Personality

Attention

Comprehension

Acceptance

Action change

Affect change

Opinion change

Perception change

The Source or ‘Communicator’• Experts more persuasive (and credible) than

non-experts (Hovland & Weiss, 1952) Popular and attractive communicators are

most effective (Kiesler & Kiesler, 1969) People speaking more quickly are more

effective than slow speakers (Miller et al., 1976), conveys expertise in subject matter.

Source Credibility

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8F

inal

op

inio

n (

ho

urs

of

slee

p

req

uir

ed)

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8*

Hours of sleep advocated by source

Discrepancy from modal student opinion*

Bochner & Insko (1996_

Low credibility(YMCA instructor)

High credibility(Nobel prize winner)

The Message• Persuasion is more effective if the message is

not perceived to be deliberately intending to manipulate opinions

Persuasion is enhanced using evaluatively-biased language – information vs. evaluation e.g. price, contents, offer etc. vs. value for money

Can persuasion be enhanced using messages that arouse fear in the audience?

Fear Communication

“There is now a danger that is a threat to us all. It is a deadly disease and there is no known cure. The virus can be passed during sexual intercourse with an infected person. Anyone can get it... If you ignore AIDS it could be the death of you. So don't die of ignorance”

Does Fear Work?

• Fear messages pervasive in advertising and communication

• But how fearful can a message become and still be effective?

Does Fear Work?• Early research suggested low-fear was

optimal (e.g., dental hygiene, Janis & Feshbach, 1953)

• Leventhal et al. (1967) found high-fear message promoted greater willingness to stop smoking

• McGuire (1969) suggested an ‘inverted-U’ hypothesis

• Messages with too little fear may not highlight the potential harm of the targeted act

• Very disturbing images may distract people from the message itself or may evoke an ‘avoidance’ reaction (Keller & Block, 1995)

Does Fear Work?A

mo

unt

of a

ttitu

de

ch

ang

e

Increase in fear

Low High

High

McGuire’s (1969) ‘Inverted-U’ hypothesis

Does Fear Work?

• Recent fear appeals

• Department for transport advertisements– THINK! Teenager road campaign– THINK! Drink driving campaign

• Department of health anti-smoking campaigns

The Medium and the Message

0

1

2

3

4

5A

mo

un

t o

f o

pin

ion

ch

ang

e

Easy Difficult

Message difficulty

Written

Audiotape

Videotape

Source: Eagly and Chaiken (1983)

The Audience

Self-esteem

• Hovland et al. suggested that people with low self-esteem were more susceptible to persuasion and attitude change

• McGuire (1968) suggested that this also followed an inverted-U relationship

The AudienceGender effects• Women more easily persuaded than men

(Cooper, 1979; Eagly, 1978)• Reasons suggested are:

– Socialisation into cooperative roles (Eagly et al., 1981)

– Only when women less familiar with subject matter (Sistrunk & McDavid, 1971)

– Carli (1990) suggested that men more persuaded by ‘tentative’ female communicator but women equally persuaded by both

– Covell et al. (1994) female participants found to prefer image-related marketing of tobacco and alcohol over quality- or attribute-oriented advertising

Dual Process Models of Persuasion

• Elaboration-likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986)

• Two ‘routes’ to persuasion• Central route = when message is followed

closely, considerable cognitive effort expended

• Peripheral route = Superficial processing of peripheral cues, attraction rather than information

HIGH LEVEL CENTRALDepends on

Quality ofArguments

LOW LEVEL PERIPHERALDepends onPresence of

Persuasion cues

Persuasivemessage

NOTCAREFUL

CAREFUL

Elaboration-Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986)

Elaboration RouteInformationprocessing

Attitudechange

Dual Process Models of Persuasion

• Heuristic-systematic model (Chaiken, 1987)• Contrasts ‘systematic’ and ‘heuristic’ processing• Systematic = careful, deliberative scanning and

processing of available arguments/information• Heuristic processing = people use ‘cognitive

heuristics’ or ‘shortcuts’/’rules of thumb’ to make judgements

• Heuristic processing involves using ‘mental shortcuts’ like a ‘cognitive miser’:– ‘longer arguments are always convincing’– ‘statistics don’t lie’– ‘you can’t trust a lawyer’

Dual Process Models of Persuasion

• When is heuristic processing used?• Petty and Wegener (1998) suggest a

‘sufficiency threshold’ – as long as heuristics produce an attitude that we are confident with

• Of not, systematic processing may be used• Use of systematic processing also halted by:

– Mood –people in good moods tend to use heuristics (Gorn, 1982; Bohner et al., 1994)

– Emotion – high-fear messages tend to be processes peripherally while low-fear more centrally.

Background to Cognitive Dissonance Theory

• Framework for explaining the effect of behaviour and experience on formation and change in attitudes

• Festinger (1954) examined how attitudes, behaviour and self-esteem (self-image) are linked

• Any inconsistency may motivate change• Recall ideas of cognitive imbalance (Heider,

1958) and cognitive incongruence (Osgood & Tannenbaum, 1955)

Cognitive Dissonance Theory• Key concept: Dissonance – an unpleasant feeling of

anxiety and of ‘disequilibrium’• Premise 1: If a person does something (behaviour) OR is

presented with counter-attitudinal information that is in contrast to his or her personal opinion (attitude) an internal conflict (dissonance) arises

• Premise 2: Dissonance motivates people to make alterations to their behavioural or internal states to restore the equilibrium between their attitudes and their behaviour

• Premise 3: Dissonance can be attenuated (reduced) using 3 means (1) reducing the importance of one of the dissonant elements (attitude change) (2) adding a ‘consonant’ element (cognitive re-appraisal) (3) changing one of the dissonant elements (behaviour change)

Examples of Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Attitudes Dissonant Element

Source of Dissonance

Strategy

A student believes he’s intelligent and that intelligent people perform well at school

He gets bad grades all the time

Discrepancy between belief in intelligence and performance

1. Behavioural: Tries harder to get good grades

2. Attitudinal: “Believes he’s not that intelligent”

3. Add consonant elements: “I don’t have time to study”; “My teacher is rubbish and unfair”; “Grades aren’t a good indicator of intelligence, anyway”

You believe that Britney Spears is the best pop artist since Take That and you buy a her latest masterpiece

Your best friend says Britney is rubbish, has no talent and all her songs sound the same

Discrepancy between your attitudes and behaviour towards Britney and someone else’s attitudes

1. Behavioural: Sell Britney single on EBay recouping most of your losses

2. Attitudinal: “I guess she’s not that good”

3. Add consonant elements: “It said she was the ‘queen of pop’ in Heat magazine, how can they be wrong”; “What do they know about music anyway? They like Westlife”

Induced Compliance

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

None $1 $20

Payment

Rat

ing

of L

ikin

g fo

r th

e T

ask

Source: Festinger, L. & Carlsmith, J.M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forcedCompliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-210.

Effort Justification

70

75

80

85

90

95

100S

um

of

rati

ng

s

Discussion Participants

Object of the ratings

Severe

Mild

Control

Source: Aronson & Mills 1959)

Moreinteresting

Moreboring

Induced Compliance

Source: Croyle, R.T. and Cooper, J. (1983). Dissonance arousal: Physicalevidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 782-791.

0123456789

Arousal Attitudechange

Free to chose, arguedagainst own position

Not free to choose,argued against ownposition

Free to chose, arguedfor own position