Difference between revisions of "Attitude" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
Line 28: Line 28:
 
# '''Cognitive Routes''': A message can appeal to an individual's cognitive evaluation to help change an attitude. In the ''central route'' to persuasion the individual is presented with the data and motivated to evaluate the data and arrive at an attitude changing conclusion. In the ''peripheral route'' to attitude change, the individual is encouraged to not look at the content but at the source. This is commonly seen in modern [[advertisement]]s that feature [[Celebrity|celebrities]]. In some cases, [[Physician|doctor]]s and experts are used. In other cases [[film]] stars are used for their attractiveness.
 
# '''Cognitive Routes''': A message can appeal to an individual's cognitive evaluation to help change an attitude. In the ''central route'' to persuasion the individual is presented with the data and motivated to evaluate the data and arrive at an attitude changing conclusion. In the ''peripheral route'' to attitude change, the individual is encouraged to not look at the content but at the source. This is commonly seen in modern [[advertisement]]s that feature [[Celebrity|celebrities]]. In some cases, [[Physician|doctor]]s and experts are used. In other cases [[film]] stars are used for their attractiveness.
  
== Explanation of implicit and explicit attitudes ==
+
== Understanding implicit and explicit attitudes ==
 
There is considerable [[research]] on the so called "implicit" attitudes, which are unconscious but which have effects (identified through sophisticated experiments using people's response times to stimuli). Implicit and explicit attitudes (persons' report when they ask themselves how much they like an object) seem to affect their behavior.
 
There is considerable [[research]] on the so called "implicit" attitudes, which are unconscious but which have effects (identified through sophisticated experiments using people's response times to stimuli). Implicit and explicit attitudes (persons' report when they ask themselves how much they like an object) seem to affect their behavior.
 
Attitudes are those opinions that direct our behavior though there is not 100% correspondence between one's attitudes and behavior. The link between attitudes and behavior depends on attitude specificity, attitude relevance, [[personality]], social constraints and timing of measurement. Several things play a role for an attitude to cause a behavior. For example, a person may have a positive attitude towards [[blood]] donation but not go to a [[blood bank]] to donate blood. Differences in degrees of specificity of the attitude and behavior, motivational relevance, the opportunity a person has had to observe his/her own attitude-related behavior, and external constraints that prevent a person's acting on his/her attitude. Attitudes come from judgements and influence behavior.The strength of the link between particular attitudes and behavior varies but usually people strive for consistency between their attitudes and their behavior.
 
Attitudes are those opinions that direct our behavior though there is not 100% correspondence between one's attitudes and behavior. The link between attitudes and behavior depends on attitude specificity, attitude relevance, [[personality]], social constraints and timing of measurement. Several things play a role for an attitude to cause a behavior. For example, a person may have a positive attitude towards [[blood]] donation but not go to a [[blood bank]] to donate blood. Differences in degrees of specificity of the attitude and behavior, motivational relevance, the opportunity a person has had to observe his/her own attitude-related behavior, and external constraints that prevent a person's acting on his/her attitude. Attitudes come from judgements and influence behavior.The strength of the link between particular attitudes and behavior varies but usually people strive for consistency between their attitudes and their behavior.
Line 98: Line 98:
 
===Social judgment theory===
 
===Social judgment theory===
  
The '''Social Judgment theory''' of attitude change was proposed by [[Carl Hovland]] and [[Muzafer Sherif]].
+
The '''Social Judgment theory''' of attitude change was proposed by [[Carl Hovland]] and [[Muzafer Sherif]]. The judgment theory attempts to explain how attitude change is influenced by judgmental processes. In a study of weight perception, participants categorized several small weights by weight class based only on lifting each one in turn.  A control group '''C''' categorized the weights roughly evenly across six weight classes, while another group '''A''' was asked to lift a much heavier weight before each test weight.  This group categorized most weights in the lowest weight class, with decreasing quantities in each successively higher weight class.  The third group '''B''' lifted a weight only as heavy as the highest weight class before judging each other weight; this group categorized most weights into the highest weight class, with decreasing quantities in successively lower classes — the opposite result of group '''A''', and contrary to predictions of the [[contrast effect]].  Hovland and Sherif called this effect, where things start to seem more like their context (the heavy weight), the assimilation effect. In terms of [[anchoring and adjustment]], when an anchor (the heavy weight) approaches the range of possible judgments (the six weight classes), the categorization or judgment shifts from contrast to assimilation. When applied to social judgments, these effects show that the most effective position to advocate for changing another's attitude judgment is the most extreme position within that person's "latitude of acceptance," within which assimilation effects will make your position seem more like their own.  Beyond this latitude lies the latitude of rejection, within which any position will be seen as more different from one's own due to contrast effects.
The judgment theory attempts to explain how attitude change is influenced by judgmental processes.
 
  
In a study of weight perception, participants categorized several small weights by weight class based only on lifting each one in turn.  A control group '''C''' categorized the weights roughly evenly across six weight classes, while another group '''A''' was asked to lift a much heavier weight before each test weight.  This group categorized most weights in the lowest weight class, with decreasing quantities in each successively higher weight class.  The third group '''B''' lifted a weight only as heavy as the highest weight class before judging each other weight; this group categorized most weights into the highest weight class, with decreasing quantities in successively lower classes — the opposite result of group '''A''', and contrary to predictions of the [[contrast effect]].  Hovland and Sherif called this effect, where things start to seem more like their context (the heavy weight), the assimilation effect.
+
The key idea of Social Judgment theory can be understood and explained in terms of '''attribution''' and other ''communication processes.'' '''Attribution''' is the process by which people decide why certain events occured or why a particular person acted in a certain manner.The following factors influence the person'e attribution: internal versus external causes of own behavior and the behaviors of others, consistency consensus, a certain person's role as an ''actor'' or a ''receiver'' in a particular situation.
 
 
In terms of [[anchoring and adjustment]], when an anchor (the heavy weight) approaches the range of possible judgments (the six weight classes), the categorization or judgment shifts from contrast to assimilation.
 
 
 
When applied to social judgments, these effects show that the most effective position to advocate for changing another's attitude judgment is the most extreme position within that person's "latitude of acceptance," within which assimilation effects will make your position seem more like their own.  Beyond this latitude lies the latitude of rejection, within which any position will be seen as more different from one's own due to contrast effects.
 
  
 
==The role of social attitudes and religious/ethnic prejudices in the workplace and education==
 
==The role of social attitudes and religious/ethnic prejudices in the workplace and education==
 
In our age of globalization the understanding and explanation of attitutes and prejudices become crucial. Prejudice is a particular form of attitude. It is a negative evaluation of a group of people defined by such characteristics as social class, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, socio-economic status, sexual orientation, etc. An important component of prejudice is the existence of stereotypes — reduced and often distorted beliefs about the characteristics possessed by members of a particular group. Stereotypes are examples of the heuristics that guide us through many of our social encounters. One reason we tend to view outgroup members negatively is our use of the available heuristic: Negative behaviors are often more vivid than positive ones, and outgroup members are more noticeable. Thus, when outgroup members commit an illegal act, we are more likely to notice it and to remember it. We then incorrectly conclude that the behavior is a characteristic of the outgroup as a whole. People also tend to apply the illusion of outgroup homogeneity. Although they realize that their own group contains members who are very different from each other, they tend to view members of other groups as rather similar. Obviously, this tyendency contributes to the formation of stereotypes. Prejudices often lead to discrimination — actual behaviors injurious to the members of the group. Intergroup conflict, such as war or gang violence, often has at its core ethnocentrism, or the belief that one's own group is superior to or more deserving than another group. Attitudes can be scientifically measured by '''Likert scales.''' When it comes to Human Resource Management and recruiting, in recent years [http://www.jobeq.com/articles/why_jobEQ.htm hire for attitude] became a well known mantra.  Several commercial tests such as the [http://www.labprofile.net LAB Profile], [http://www.jobEq.com/iwam.php iWAM] and PAPI were developed to measure work Attitude and motivation, e.g. for [http://www.jobeq.com/articles/pre-employment_testing.htm pre-employment testing].
 
In our age of globalization the understanding and explanation of attitutes and prejudices become crucial. Prejudice is a particular form of attitude. It is a negative evaluation of a group of people defined by such characteristics as social class, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, socio-economic status, sexual orientation, etc. An important component of prejudice is the existence of stereotypes — reduced and often distorted beliefs about the characteristics possessed by members of a particular group. Stereotypes are examples of the heuristics that guide us through many of our social encounters. One reason we tend to view outgroup members negatively is our use of the available heuristic: Negative behaviors are often more vivid than positive ones, and outgroup members are more noticeable. Thus, when outgroup members commit an illegal act, we are more likely to notice it and to remember it. We then incorrectly conclude that the behavior is a characteristic of the outgroup as a whole. People also tend to apply the illusion of outgroup homogeneity. Although they realize that their own group contains members who are very different from each other, they tend to view members of other groups as rather similar. Obviously, this tyendency contributes to the formation of stereotypes. Prejudices often lead to discrimination — actual behaviors injurious to the members of the group. Intergroup conflict, such as war or gang violence, often has at its core ethnocentrism, or the belief that one's own group is superior to or more deserving than another group. Attitudes can be scientifically measured by '''Likert scales.''' When it comes to Human Resource Management and recruiting, in recent years [http://www.jobeq.com/articles/why_jobEQ.htm hire for attitude] became a well known mantra.  Several commercial tests such as the [http://www.labprofile.net LAB Profile], [http://www.jobEq.com/iwam.php iWAM] and PAPI were developed to measure work Attitude and motivation, e.g. for [http://www.jobeq.com/articles/pre-employment_testing.htm pre-employment testing].
 +
 +
In contemporary social psychology, human attitudes are understood as positive, negative or neutral judgments about people, places, and things. Affect, cognition, and behavior are the three aspects of an attitude. Attitudes can serve ego-defensive, adjustment, value-expressive, and knowledge functions. Learning, i.e., classical and operant conditioning as well as reduction or resolution of cognitive dissonance lead to the formation of attitudes. The main external source for attitude change is persuasion.
  
 
==Sources==
 
==Sources==
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
+
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). '''Psychology of Attitudes.''' Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
  
Festinger, L. A. Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1957.
+
Festinger, L. A. '''Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.''' Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1957.
  
Festinger, L., and Carlsmith, J. M. Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 58, 203-210.  
+
Festinger, L., and Carlsmith, J. M. Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. ''Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,'' 1959, 58, 203-210.  
  
Fiske, S. T. Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 1993, 48, 621-628.
+
Fiske, S. T. Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. ''American Psychologist,'' 1993, 48, 621-628.
  
Heider, F. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 1958.
+
Heider, F. '''The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations.''' New York: John Wiley and Sons: 1958.
  
Hovland, C. I., and Weiss, W. The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1951, 15, 635-650.
+
Hovland, C. I., and Weiss, W. The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. ''Public Opinion Quarterly,'' 1951, 15, 635-650.
  
Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., & Tormala, Z. L. (2002). Thought confidence as a determinant of persuasion: The self-validation hypothesis. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 82, 722-741.
+
Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., & Tormala, Z. L. (2002). Thought confidence as a determinant of persuasion: The self-validation hypothesis. ''Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,'' 82, 722-741.
  
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion:  Classic and contemporary approaches.  Dubuque, IA: Wm.C. Brown.
+
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). '''Attitudes and persuasion:  Classic and contemporary approaches.''' Dubuque, IA: Wm.C. Brown.
  
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion:  Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
+
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). '''Communication and persuasion:  Central and peripheral routes to attitude change.''' New York: Springer-Verlag.
  
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The Elaboration likelihood model:  Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology (pp. 41-72). New York: Guilford Press.
+
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The Elaboration likelihood model:  Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), ''Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology'' (pp. 41-72). New York: Guilford Press.
  
Rajecki, D.J. (1989). Attitudes. 2nd edition, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
+
Rajecki, D.J. (1989). '''Attitudes.''' 2nd edition, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
  
Sivacek, J., and Grano, W. D. (1977). Vested interest as a moderator of attitude-behavior consistency. In ''Journal of Personality and Social Psycholgy,'' 43, 537-544.
+
Sivacek, J., and Grano, W. D. (1977). Vested interest as a moderator of attitude-behavior consistency. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psycholgy,'' 43, 537-544.
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Revision as of 21:54, 10 July 2006


The term Attitude as well as the concepts attitude formation and attitude change constitute an important part of the field of social psychology.

Definition and aspects of attitudes

Attitudes are the learned evaluation of a particular person, belief, event, place, or thing. In fact, they are positive or negative views of an "attitude object." People can also have ambivalent feelings toward a certain target, which means that they can simultaneously possess positive and negative attitudes toward the same object. Attitudes have three components: affect, behavior, and cognition.

Affective components of attitudes can be very strong and influential. For example, a bigot feels uneasasy in the presence of people from a certain religious, racial, or ethnic group; the nature lover feels exhilaration from a pleasant walk through the woods and mountains. Like other emotional reactions, these feelings are strongly influenced by direct or vicarious conditioning. The affective components consist of the kinds of feelings that a particular topic arouses. The affective response is a physiological response that expresses an individual's preference for an entity. It is a conditioned emotional response, that has been linked to a previously non-emotional stimulus. The affective component of an attitude grows into a reflex that is intertwined with new emotional responses.

The cognitive response is a cognitive evaluation of the entity to form an attitude. The cognitive component consists of a set of beliefs about a topic. People acquire most beliefs about a particular topic quite directly: They hear or read a fact or an opinion, or other people reinforce their statements expressing a particular attitude. It is formed through direct instructions, reinforncement, imitation and/or exposure. Children form attitudes by imitating the behavior of people who play an important role in their lives. Children usually repeat opinions expressed by their parents. Most attitudes in individuals are a result of social learning from the environment. Psychologists use the expression mere exposure effect which means the formation of a positive attitude toward a person, place or thing based solely on repeated exposure to that person, place or thing.

The behavioral component consists of a tendency to act in a particular way with respect to a particular topic. Attitudes are more likely to be accompanied by behaviors of the effects of the behaviors have motivational relevance for the person. Sivacek and Grano (1982) demonstated this phenomenon by asking students to help campaign against a law pending in the state legislature that would raise the drinking age from eighteen to twenty. Although almost all the students were opposed to the new drinking law, younger students, who would be affected by its passage, were more likely to volunteer their time and effort. Another source of discrepancy between attitudes and behaviors can be the constaints on behavior. For example, a young man might have a very positive attitude toward a certain young woman, however, he never kisses her because she has plainly shown that she is not interested in him. No matter how carefully the young man's attitudes are measured, it is impossible to predict his behavior without additional information from the young woman. Thus, people do not always behave as their expressed attitudes and beliefs would lead others to expect. Psychologists mention a few situations when attitudes and behavior diverge. They are: Person's motivational relevance, self-attribution, degree of specificity of situations, constraints on behavior. The behavioral intention is a verbal indication of the intention of an individual.

The social psychologists have studied all these three aspects of attitudes and have developed a few theories in which Attitude is the central and key concept in understanding and explaining human mind and behavior.

Attitude formation and attitude change

Unlike personality, attitudes are expected to change as a function of experience. Tesser (1993) has argued that heredity variables may affect attitudes - but believes that may do so indirectly. For example, if one inherits the disposition to become an extrovert, this may affect one's attitude to certain styles of music. There are numerous theories of attitude formation and attitude change. People often attempt to persuade us to change our attitudes. Two aspects of persuation process have received special attention, the source of the message and the message itself. A message attempts to be more persuasive if its source is credible. Source credibility is high when the source is perceived as knowledgeable and is trusted to communicate this knowledge accurately. Attractiveness of the source has also a definite impact in the process of persuation. For example, individuals who are asked to endorse products for advertisers are almost always physically attractive or appealing in other ways. Another example, physically attractive people are more likely to persuade others to sign a petition (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993). The social psychological mechanisms of attitude formation and attitude change are identical.

Explicit attempts at changing a person's attitudes often involve persuasion. This means that attitudes can be changed through persuasion. Persuasion is the process of changing attitudes. The celebrated work of Carl Hovland, at Yale University in the 1950s and 1960s, helped advance knowledge of persuasion. In Hovland's view, we should understand attitude change as a response to communication. He and his colleagues did experimental research into the factors that can affect the persuasiveness of a message:-

  1. Target Characteristics: These are characteristics that refer to the person who receives and processes a message. One such is intelligence - it seems that more intelligent people are less easily persuaded by one-sided messages. Another variable that has been studied in this category is self esteem. Although it is sometimes thought that those higher in self-esteem are less easily persuaded, there is some evidence that the relationship between self-esteem and persuasibility is actually curvilinear, with people of moderate self-esteem being more easily persuaded than both those of high and low self-esteem levels (Rhodes & Woods, 1992). The mind frame and mood of the target also plays a role in this process.
  2. Source Characteristics: The major source characteristics are expertise, trustworthiness and attractiveness. The credibility of a perceived message has been found to be a key variable here (Hovland & Weiss, 1951); if one reads a report on health and believes it comes from a professional medical journal, one may be more easily persuaded than if one believes it is from a popular newspaper. Some psychologists have debated whether this is a long-lasting effect and Hovland and Weiss (1951) found the effect of telling people that a message came from a credible source disappeared after several weeks (the so-called "sleeper effect"). Whether there is a sleeper effect is controversial. Received wisdom is that if people are informed of the source of a message before hearing it, there is less likelihood of a sleeper effect than if they are told a message and then told its source.
  3. Message Characteristics: The nature of the message plays a role in persuasion. Sometimes presenting both sides of a story is useful to help change attitudes.
  4. Cognitive Routes: A message can appeal to an individual's cognitive evaluation to help change an attitude. In the central route to persuasion the individual is presented with the data and motivated to evaluate the data and arrive at an attitude changing conclusion. In the peripheral route to attitude change, the individual is encouraged to not look at the content but at the source. This is commonly seen in modern advertisements that feature celebrities. In some cases, doctors and experts are used. In other cases film stars are used for their attractiveness.

Understanding implicit and explicit attitudes

There is considerable research on the so called "implicit" attitudes, which are unconscious but which have effects (identified through sophisticated experiments using people's response times to stimuli). Implicit and explicit attitudes (persons' report when they ask themselves how much they like an object) seem to affect their behavior. Attitudes are those opinions that direct our behavior though there is not 100% correspondence between one's attitudes and behavior. The link between attitudes and behavior depends on attitude specificity, attitude relevance, personality, social constraints and timing of measurement. Several things play a role for an attitude to cause a behavior. For example, a person may have a positive attitude towards blood donation but not go to a blood bank to donate blood. Differences in degrees of specificity of the attitude and behavior, motivational relevance, the opportunity a person has had to observe his/her own attitude-related behavior, and external constraints that prevent a person's acting on his/her attitude. Attitudes come from judgements and influence behavior.The strength of the link between particular attitudes and behavior varies but usually people strive for consistency between their attitudes and their behavior.

A few theories explain attitude formation and attitude change from various aspects of emotional life, behavior, and cognition. The concept attitude is central for the theories discussed below.

Consistency theories of cognitive dissonance

Consistency theories imply that we must be consistent in our beliefs and values. The most famous example of such a theory is Dissonance-reduction theory, associated with the name of Leon Festinger, although there are others.

According to Festinger's theory, when we perceive a discrepancy between our attitudes and behavior, between our behavior and self-image, or between one attitude and another, an frustrating state of anxiety, or dissonance, results. For example, a person may successfully overcome a childhood racial prejudice but may experience unpleasant emotional arousal at the sight of a racially mixed couple. The person experiences a conflict between the belief in his own lack of prejudice and the evidence of prejudice from his behavior. This internal conflict produces cognitive dissonance, which is aversive. According to Festinger, a crucial source of a person's motivation is dissonance reduction: The aversive state of dissonance motivates a person to reduce it. Because dissonance reduction involves the removal of an aversive stimulus, it serves as a negative reinforcer.

A person can achieve dissonance reduction either by reducing the importance of the the dissonant element (Strategy 1) or by adding consonant elements (Strategy 2), or by changing one of the dissoanant elements (Strategy 3). Suppose, Artemis, a Drama student believes she is very intelligent but she invariably gets bad grades in her courses. Because the obvious prediction is that intelligent people get good grades, the discrepancy causes the student to experience dissonance. To reduce this dissonance, she might decide grades are unimportantand intelligence is not closely related to grades. She is using strategy (1),,i.e., reducing the importance of one of the dissonant elements — the fact that she got bad grades in her courses. Or she can dwell on the belief that her professors have been unfair or that her job leaves her only little time to study. In this case, she is using Strategy 2, reducing dissonance by adding consonant elements — those factors that can account for her poor grades and hence explain the discrepancy between her perceived intelligence and actual grades. Finally, she can use Strategy 3 to change one of the dissonant elements. She can either start getting good grades or revise her opinion of her own intelligence.

Self-perception theory

Self-perception theory is an account of attitude change developed by psychologist Daryl Bem. It asserts that we only have that knowledge of our own behavior and its causation that another person can have, and that we therefore develop our attitudes by observing our own behavior and concluding what attitudes must have caused them.

Self-perception theory differs from cognitive dissonance theory in that it does not hold that people experience a "negative drive state" called "dissonance" which they seek to relieve. Instead, people simply infer their attitudes from their own behavior in the same way that an outside observer might. In this way it combines dissonance theory with attribution theory.

Bem ran his own version of Festinger and Carlsmith's famous cognitive dissonance experiment. Subjects listened to a tape of a man enthusiastically describing a tedious peg-turning task. Some subjects were told that the man had been paid $20 for his testimonial and another group was told that he was paid $1. Those in the latter condition thought that the man must have enjoyed the task more than those in the $20 condition. Bem argued that the subjects did not judge the man's attitude in terms of cognitive dissonance phenomena, and that therefore any attitude change the man might have had in that situation was the result of the subject's own self-perception.

Also, cognitive dissonance theory cannot explain attitude change that occurs when there is no upsetting dissonance state, such as that which occurred to subjects in studies of the overjustification effect.

Whether cognitive dissonance or self-perception is a more useful theory is a topic of considerable controversy and a large body of literature, with no clear winner. There are some circumstances where either theory is preferred, but it is traditional to use the terminology of cognitive dissonance theory by default.

Balance theory

Balance Theory is a motivational theory of attitude change proposed by Fritz Heider, which conceptualizes the consistency motive as a drive toward psychological balance. Heider proposed that "sentiment" or liking relationships are balanced if the affect valence in a system multiplies out to a positive result.

For example: a Person who likes an Other person will be balanced by the same valence attitude on behalf of the other. Symbolically, P (+) > O and P < (+) O results in psychological balance.

This can be extended to objects (X) as well, thus introducing triadic relationships. If a person P likes object X but dislikes other person O, what does P feel upon learning that O created X? This is symbolized as such:

  • P (+) > X
  • P (-) > O
  • O (+) > X

Multiplying the signs shows that the person will perceive imbalance (a negative multiplicative product) in this relationship, and will be motivated to correct the imbalance somehow. The Person can either:

  • Decide that O isn't so bad after all,
  • Decide that X isn't as great as originally thought, or
  • Conclude that O couldn't really have made X.

Any of these will result in psychological balance, thus resolving the dilemma and satisfying the drive. (Person P could also avoid object X and other person O entirely, lessening the stress created by psychological imbalance.)

Balance Theory is also useful in examining how celebrity endorsement affects consumers' attitudes toward products. If a person likes a celebrity and perceives (due to the endorsement) that said celebrity likes a product, said person will tend to liking the product more, in order to achieve psychological balance.

However, if the person already had a dislike for the product being endorsed by the celebrity, she may like the celebrity less in addition to liking the product more, again to achieve psychological balance.

To predict the outcome of a situation using Heider's Balance Theory, one must weigh the effects of all the potential results, and the one requiring the least amount of effort will be the likely outcome.

Elaboration Likelihood Model

The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion (ELM; proposed by Petty & Cacioppo, 1981, 1986) is a model of how attitudes are formed and changed (see also attitude change). Central to this model is the elaboration continuum, which ranges from low elaboration (low thought) to high elaboration (high thought). Depending on the extent of elaboration, different processes can mediate persuasion.

Key Elements

The ELM distinguishes between two routes to persuasion: the Central Route and the Peripheral Route. This implies it is one of a number of dual-process theories of information processing. Central route processes are those that require a great deal of thought, and therefore are likely to predominate under conditions that promote high elaboration. Central route processes involve careful scrutiny of a persuasive communication (e.g., a speech, an advertisement, etc.) to determine the merits of the arguments. Under these conditions, a person’s unique cognitive responses to the message determine the persuasive outcome (i.e., the direction and magnitude of attitude change).

Peripheral route processes, on the other hand, require little thought, and therefore predominate under conditions that promote low elaboration. These processes often rely on judgmental heuristics (e.g., “experts are always right”) or surface features of a message (e.g., the number of arguments presented) or its source (e.g., their attractiveness).

Which route is taken is determined by the extent of elaboration. Both motivational and ability factors determine elaboration. Motivational factors include (among others) the personal relevance of the message topic, accountability, and a person’s Need for Cognition (their innate desire to enjoy thinking). Ability factors include the availability of cognitive resources (e.g., the presence or absence of time pressures or distractions) or relevant knowledge needed to carefully scrutinize the arguments. Under conditions of moderate elaboration, a mixture of central and peripheral route processes will guide information processing.

Additional Propositions

In addition to these factors, the ELM also makes several unique proposals.

  • Attitudes formed under high elaboration are stronger (more predictive of behavior and information processing, more stable over time, more resistant to persuasion) than those formed under low elaboration.
  • Variables can serve multiple roles in a persuasive setting depending on other contextual factors (examples below).
    • Under high elaboration, a given variable (e.g., source expertise) can either serve as an argument (“If Einstein agrees with the theory of relativity, then this is a strong reason for me to as well”) or as a biasing factor (“if an expert agrees with this position it is probably good, so let me see what else agrees with this conclusion” (at the expense of information that disagrees with it)).
    • Under conditions of low elaboration, a given variable can act as a cue (e.g., through the use of an “experts are always right” heuristic – note that while this is similar to the case presented above, this is a simple shortcut, and does not require the careful thought as in the Einstein example above).
    • Under conditions of moderate elaboration, a given variable can serve to direct the extent of information processing (“Well, if an expert agrees with this position, I should really listen to what (s)he has to say”). Interestingly, when a variable affects elaboration, this can increase or decrease persuasion, depending on the strength of the arguments presented. If the arguments are strong, enhancing elaboration will enhance persuasion. If the arguments are weak, however, more thought will undermine persuasion.

More recent adaptations of the ELM (e.g., Petty, Briñol, & Tormala, 2002) have added an additional role that variables can serve. They can affect the extent to which a person has confidence in, and thus trusts, their own thoughts in response to a message. Keeping with our source expertise example, a person may feel that “if an expert presented this information, it is probably correct, and thus I can trust that my reactions to it are informative with respect to my attitude”. Note that this role, because of its metacognitive nature, only occurs under conditions that promote high elaboration.

Social judgment theory

The Social Judgment theory of attitude change was proposed by Carl Hovland and Muzafer Sherif. The judgment theory attempts to explain how attitude change is influenced by judgmental processes. In a study of weight perception, participants categorized several small weights by weight class based only on lifting each one in turn. A control group C categorized the weights roughly evenly across six weight classes, while another group A was asked to lift a much heavier weight before each test weight. This group categorized most weights in the lowest weight class, with decreasing quantities in each successively higher weight class. The third group B lifted a weight only as heavy as the highest weight class before judging each other weight; this group categorized most weights into the highest weight class, with decreasing quantities in successively lower classes — the opposite result of group A, and contrary to predictions of the contrast effect. Hovland and Sherif called this effect, where things start to seem more like their context (the heavy weight), the assimilation effect. In terms of anchoring and adjustment, when an anchor (the heavy weight) approaches the range of possible judgments (the six weight classes), the categorization or judgment shifts from contrast to assimilation. When applied to social judgments, these effects show that the most effective position to advocate for changing another's attitude judgment is the most extreme position within that person's "latitude of acceptance," within which assimilation effects will make your position seem more like their own. Beyond this latitude lies the latitude of rejection, within which any position will be seen as more different from one's own due to contrast effects.

The key idea of Social Judgment theory can be understood and explained in terms of attribution and other communication processes. Attribution is the process by which people decide why certain events occured or why a particular person acted in a certain manner.The following factors influence the person'e attribution: internal versus external causes of own behavior and the behaviors of others, consistency consensus, a certain person's role as an actor or a receiver in a particular situation.

The role of social attitudes and religious/ethnic prejudices in the workplace and education

In our age of globalization the understanding and explanation of attitutes and prejudices become crucial. Prejudice is a particular form of attitude. It is a negative evaluation of a group of people defined by such characteristics as social class, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, socio-economic status, sexual orientation, etc. An important component of prejudice is the existence of stereotypes — reduced and often distorted beliefs about the characteristics possessed by members of a particular group. Stereotypes are examples of the heuristics that guide us through many of our social encounters. One reason we tend to view outgroup members negatively is our use of the available heuristic: Negative behaviors are often more vivid than positive ones, and outgroup members are more noticeable. Thus, when outgroup members commit an illegal act, we are more likely to notice it and to remember it. We then incorrectly conclude that the behavior is a characteristic of the outgroup as a whole. People also tend to apply the illusion of outgroup homogeneity. Although they realize that their own group contains members who are very different from each other, they tend to view members of other groups as rather similar. Obviously, this tyendency contributes to the formation of stereotypes. Prejudices often lead to discrimination — actual behaviors injurious to the members of the group. Intergroup conflict, such as war or gang violence, often has at its core ethnocentrism, or the belief that one's own group is superior to or more deserving than another group. Attitudes can be scientifically measured by Likert scales. When it comes to Human Resource Management and recruiting, in recent years hire for attitude became a well known mantra. Several commercial tests such as the LAB Profile, iWAM and PAPI were developed to measure work Attitude and motivation, e.g. for pre-employment testing.

In contemporary social psychology, human attitudes are understood as positive, negative or neutral judgments about people, places, and things. Affect, cognition, and behavior are the three aspects of an attitude. Attitudes can serve ego-defensive, adjustment, value-expressive, and knowledge functions. Learning, i.e., classical and operant conditioning as well as reduction or resolution of cognitive dissonance lead to the formation of attitudes. The main external source for attitude change is persuasion.

Sources

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

Festinger, L. A. Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1957.

Festinger, L., and Carlsmith, J. M. Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 58, 203-210.

Fiske, S. T. Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 1993, 48, 621-628.

Heider, F. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 1958.

Hovland, C. I., and Weiss, W. The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1951, 15, 635-650.

Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., & Tormala, Z. L. (2002). Thought confidence as a determinant of persuasion: The self-validation hypothesis. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 82, 722-741.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Wm.C. Brown.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The Elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology (pp. 41-72). New York: Guilford Press.

Rajecki, D.J. (1989). Attitudes. 2nd edition, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

Sivacek, J., and Grano, W. D. (1977). Vested interest as a moderator of attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholgy, 43, 537-544.

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

  • Bem, D. J. (1967). "Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena". Psychological Review, 74, 183–200.
  • Bem, D. J. (1972). "Self-perception theory". In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social psychology, Vol. 6, 1-62. New York: Academic Press. Full text (PDF). Summary.
  • [1] From USA Today "Power of a super attitude"

External links


Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.