Psych 661: Attitudes and Opinions Attitudes and Behavior: History

1
Psych 661 Attitudes and OpinionsAttitudes and
Behavior History Solutions

• Professor Icek Aizen
• Office Tobin 625
• Email aizen_at_psych.umass.edu
• Tel [phone]

2
Centrality of the Attitude Construct

• attitude is probably the most distinctive and
  indispensable concept in contemporary American
  social psychology. No other term appears more
  frequently in experimental and theoretical
  literature."
• This concept has been so widely adopted that
  it has virtually established itself as the
  keystone in the edifice of American social
  psychology.
• Gordon W. Allport (1935)

3
Attitudes vs. Actions(LaPiere, 1934)
4
Attitudes and Behavior toward Blacks(Himelstein
Moore, 1963)
5
Racial Attitudes and Behavior(Bray, 1950)
Attitude-Behavior Correlations Jew r -.15
(n.s.) Black r .11 (n.s.)
6
Prejudice and Discrimination(Rokeach Mezei,
1965)
7
Liking and Aggression Learning Paradigm
(Hendrick Taylor, 1971)
8
Other Examples of Attitude-Behavior Relations

• Corey (1937)
• Attitude Likert scale. Attitude toward
  cheating.
• Behavior No. items changed on 5 true/false
  examinations.
• Attitudebehavior correlation r .02
• Weitz Nuckols (1953)
• Attitude 10-item scale. Attitude toward job.
• Behavior Turnover. Leaving job during
  subsequent 12-months period.
• Attitudebehavior correlation r .20
• Holman (1956)
• Attitude 12-item scale. Attitude toward
  football.
• Behavior Attendance of football games over 8
  occasions.
• Attitudebehavior correlation r .41.
• Fischer (1971)
• Attitude Likert scale. Attitude toward
  helping.
• Behavior Joining a hospital companion program.
• Attitudebehavior correlation r .27.

9
Wickers Narrative Review of over 50 studies on
the Attitude-Behavior Relation

• "Taken as a whole, these studies suggest that it
  is considerably more likely that attitudes will
  be unrelated or only slightly related to overt
  behaviors than that attitudes will be closely
  related to actions. Productmoment correlation
  coefficients relating the two kinds of responses
  are rarely above .30, and often are near zero."
• "The present review provides little evidence to
  support the postulated existence of stable,
  underlying attitudes within the individual which
  influence both his verbal expressions and his
  action."
• Alan Wicker (1969)

10
Recent Meta-Analyses of the Relation Between
Prejudice and Discrimination

• Schütz Six (1996) K 46
• Mean r .29
• Talaska, Fiske, Chaiken (2004) K 136
• Mean r .26

11
Other Additive Factors
Personality traits Ability Motivation Attitude Hab
it Needs Social pressure Other attitudes
Behavior
12
Pseudo-Inconsistency Weak or Ambivalent
Attitude Explanation Campbell (1963)
Yes
Moderately positive attitude
Strong positive attitude
Behavior
Negative attitude
No
Actual Behavior
Verbal Behavior
13
Moderating Variables

• Personality
• Self-monitoring (Snyder Swann, 1976)
• Private self-consciousness (Scheier et al., 1978)
• Need for cognition (Cacioppo et al., 1986)
• Attitude Attributes
• Cognitive-affective consistency (Norman, 1975)
• Reflection (Snyder Swann, 1976)
• Involvement (Sivacek Crano, 1982)
• Confidence (Warland Sample, 1973)
• Direct experience (Regan Fazio, 1977 Fazio
  Zanno, 1978)

14
Self-Monitoring Scale Sample Items(Snyder,
1974)

• I find it hard to imitate the behavior of other
  people. (F)
• My behavior is usually an expression of my true
  inner feelings, attitudes, and beliefs. (F)
• At parties and social gatherings, I do not
  attempt to do or say things that others will
  like. (F)
• I can only argue for ideas which I already
  believe. (F)
• I can make impromptu speeches even on topics
  about which I have almost no information. (T)
• I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain
  people. (T)
• I would probably make a good actor. (T)
• I rarely need the advice of my friends to choose
  movies, books, or music. (F)
• I sometimes appear to others to be experiencing
  deeper emotions than I actually am. (T)
• I laugh more when I watch a comedy with other
  than when alone. (T)
• In a group of people I am rarely the center of
  attention. (F)
• Note. T high self-monitoring, F low
  self-monitoring.

15
Effect of Self-Monitoring (S-M) on
Attitude-Judgment Correlation in Mock Jury
Judgment of Sex Discrimination Case (Snyder
Swann, 1976)
16
Effect of Self-Monitoring (S-M) on
Attitude-Behavior Correlation Blood
Donation(Zuckerman Reis, 1978)
Note. Differences not significant
17
Effect of Self-Monitoring (S-M) on Correlation of
Liberalism-Conservatism with Behavior(Ajzen,
Timko, White, 1982)
High S-M
High S-M
Low S-M
Total sample
Total sample
Low S-M
18
Effect of Evaluative-Cognitive Consistency on
Evaluation-Behavior Correlation Volunteering
for Psych Research (Norman, 1975)
19
Effect of Evaluative-Cognitive Consistency on
Attitude-Behavior Correlation Volunteering for
Psych Research (Fazio Zanna, 1978)
20
Effect of Direct Experience on Attitude-Behavior
Correlation (Regan Fazio, 1977)
21
Effect of Vested Interest on Attitude-Behavior
Correlation Comprehensive Exam (Sivacek
Crano, 1982)
22
Effect of Confidence on Attitude-Behavior
Correlation Student Government (Warland
Sample, 1973)
23
Effect of Thinking About Attitude on
Attitude-Behavior Correlation Sex
Discrimination Court Case (Snyder Swann, 1976)
24
Effect of Listing Reasons for Attitude on
Attitude-Behavior Correlation (Wilson et al.,
1984)
25
Assumed Differential Changes to be Explained by
Implicit Prejudice
Discrimination
Implicit prejudice
Explicit Prejudice
26
Willingness to Vote for Black Candidate for
President (New York Times)
27
Whites and Blacks With High School Diploma or
Equivalent (U.S. Census Bureau)
28
White Approval of Intermarriage (NY Times) and
Black-White Intermarriage (U.S. Census Bureau)
29
Explicit vs. Implicit AttitudesExpected
Attitude-Behavior Correlations
Deliberative Behavior
Spontaneous Behavior
30
Explicit Prejudice and Controlled Behavior
(Himelstein Moore, 1963)
31
Attitude-Behavior Correlations in 6 Recent
Studies Deliberative Behavior

• Deliberative behavioral criteria
• Hiring decision
• Judged guilt/innocence of defendant
• Judged justification of verdict
• Explicit evaluation of interviewer

Correlations with explicit attitude .24 to
.54 Correlations with implicit attitude .02 to
.06
32
Attitude-Behavior Correlations in 6 Recent
Studies Spontaneous Behavior

• Spontaneous behavioral criteria
• Judged friendliness of interaction
• Judged hostility of editorial comments on essay
• Valence of completed words under cognitive load

Correlations with explicit attitude .02 to
.26 Correlations with implicit attitude .25 to
.48
33
Attitude-Behavior Correlations in 2 Recent
Studies Spontaneous Behavior

• Spontaneous behavioral criteria
• Specific nonverbal behaviors (eye contact,
  blinking, smiling, speech hesitations, seating
  distance, etc.)

Correlations with explicit attitude -.20 to
.21 Correlations with implicit attitude -.06 to
.51
34
Meta-Analysis (Poehlman, Uhlmann, Greenwald,
Banaji, unpublished)

• 61 articles
• 260 IAT criterion correlations.
• 283 Explicit measures criterion correlations.
• Each attitude domain rated for social
  desirability concerns, and each criterion rated
  for controllability.
• Results
• IAT criterion correlations unaffected by SD or
  control ratings
• r .08 and .11 between ratings and magnitude
  of AB correlation.
• Explicit measures criterion correlations
  influenced as expected
• r .36 for SD and .28 for controllability.

35
Attitude-Behavior Relation Same Latent Attitude
Verbal Response
Nonverbal Response
Attitude
36
Validity of Behavior Measures
Drink wine with dinner
Attitude toward globalization
Read the New York Times
Recycle paper and bottles
Buy shares of McDonalds
Demonstrate against the IMF
37
Attitude-Behavior Relation Different Latent
Attitudes
Verbal Response
Nonverbal Response
Attitude Toward Object A
Attitude Toward Object B
38
Evaluative Inconsistency
Concern About Health
Work Out at the Gym
High
Yes
Low
No
39
Aggregation of Behavior(From Ajzen, 1988)
40
Example Helping Behavior

• Giving blood to the Red Cross
• Collecting money for a charity
• Spending time with the elderly
• Registering as an organ donor
• Donating used cloths to the Salvation Army
• Helping a person in a wheel chair across the
  street
• Donating money to charity
• Offering a seat on the bus to a pregnant woman
• Signing a petition to increase aid to developing
  countries
• Working in a soup kitchen for the homeless

41
Compatibility of Religious Attitudes and
Behavior Effect of Aggregation (Fishbein
Ajzen, 1974)
42
Environmental Attitudes and Behavior(Weigel
Newman, 1976)
.50
.36
.39
.62
43
Principle of Compatibility
Attitude
Behavior
Target Action Context Time
Target Action Context Time
44
Degree of Generality-Specificity Example
Specific . . . . . . . . . . Intermediate .
. . . . . . General
Target multi-vitamins
multi-vitamins dietary
supplements Action taking
taking
--- Context prescribed by my
doctor ---
--- Time daily
---
---
45
Compatibility of Action Elements(Ajzen
Fishbein,1970 1980)
46
Predicting Specific Behaviors Meta-Analysis (K
8) (Kraus, 1995)
47
Correlations Between Values and Attitudes(Iser
Schmidt, 2003)
48
Attitude-Behavior Relations as a Function of
Compatibility (K142) (Ajzen Fishbein, 1974)
49
Attitude-Behavior Relation Conclusion
Global Attitude
Multi-Act Aggregate
Attitude toward the Behavior
Specific Behavioral Tendency
50
From General Attitudes to Specific Behaviors
Automatic and Deliberative Processes (Fazio, 1990)

• Attitude is the link in memory between an object
  and an evaluation.
• The stronger the link, the stronger the attitude.
• Direct experience, repeated attitude expressions,
  and other factors produce strong attitudes.
• Attitude strength is indicated by low response
  latency.
• For attitude to influence behavior, it must be
  activated from memory.
• Only strong attitudes are automatically
  activated weak attitudes must be effortfully
  retrieved or constructed.
• Automatically activated attitudes produce
  automatic biased processing of the attitude
  object.
• Biased processing results in strong
  attitude-behavior correlation.

51
Deliberative vs. Spontaneous Processing The MODE
Model (Motivation and Opportunity as
Determinants) Fazio (1990)
52
Attitude-Behavior Relations MODE Model
Predictions

• In spontaneous mode, only strong, chronically
  accessible attitudes are (automatically)
  activated, bias perception of the situation, and
  thus predict behavior.
• In deliberative mode, controlled as well as
  automatic processes can occur. Weak attitudes
  can be effortfully retrieved, but strong
  attitudes produce greater (controlled or
  automatic) bias of the situation, and thus
  predict behavior better than weak attitudes.
• In deliberative mode, motives such as fear of
  invalidity or motivation to control seemingly
  prejudiced reactions can override the expression
  of even strong, chronically accessible attitudes.
  This can influence responses to attitudinal
  questions and performance of overt behavior.

53
Accessibility, Biased Perception, and Voting
Choice in 1984 Presidential Election (Fazio
Williams, 1986)

n.s.
54
MODE Model Effect of Direct Experience Mediated
by Latency
55
The Role of Attitude Strength Two Possibilities

• Response latency is an indicator of attitude
  strength. Attitude strength is multifaceted.
  Any of its facets can moderate the
  attitude-behavior relation.
• MODE model Accessibility is the crucial facet.
  Accessibility increases bias and thus produces
  attitude-consistent.
• Alternative explanation Strong attitudes are
  more stable over time and therefore more
  predictive of later behavior.

56
Moderating Effect of Intention Stability on the
Intention-Behavior Relation (Sheeran Abraham,
2003)

• High-Opportunity Behavior Exercise
• Intentions measured twice, 2 weeks apart, prior
  to the behavior.
• Results Simple slope analysis.

High stability
Moderate stability
Behavior
Low stability
Intention
57
Mediation by Accessibility vs. Stability(Doll
Ajzen, 1992)
Correlation Significance
(t) Experience Without Latency
as Stability as Direct Indirect Mediator
Mediator Mediator Attitude-behavior .56 .37
2.12 2.81 .87 Intention-behavior .61 .39
2.02 2.17 1.68
58
Problems For MODE Model Explanation of
Attitude-Behavior Relation

• Weak as well as strong attitudes are
  automatically activated (Bargh et al.). Not
  critical if it is assumed that weak attitudes
  (even if automatically activated) dont have a
  strong biasing effect.
• No direct tests of the mediating role of
  accessibility.
• Any proposed model should predict existing data.
  Most early studies measured important (strong)
  attitudes under high cognitive capacity
  conditions. MODE model predicts strong
  correlations with behavior.