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.
1
Attitude towards Toyota Prius
•
•
•
Cognitive: Beliefs about
mileage, resale value,
maintenance costs.
Affective: Liking or disliking
the brand, the color,
thinking its cool.
Behavioral: Disposition to
buy it, rent it, talk it up to
friends, get a “My other car
is a Prius” bumper sticker,
etc.
2
Attitude towards Skippy Peanut
Butter
Cognitive
Affective
Behavioral
3
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
4
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
5
Weights on the 3 components differ for
different objects and at different times

Attitudes towards
routine goods
may be based on
behavioral habit
6
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.
7
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."
8
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
9
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)
•
•
• Attitude
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)
Toyotas are reliable/ow maintenance (.,6)
Evaluative premise:
•
•
•
•
•
towards buying a Ford Taurus
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
•
•>
•
•
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
10
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,
Giroux.
D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow: Farrar, Straus and
11
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
2x2
13 x 17
Routine, highway driving
on straight road
Driving on crowded, curvy road in
the rain
12
With Systematic Processing
Attitude Change Thru Internalization

Reception of message  Elaboration  Persuasion
–
–
–

Quality of the argument wins
–
–
–

Are the facts right?
Is the argument coherent?
Are the conclusion warranted
Stronger arguments  more persuasion
Longer arguments (if strong)  more persuasion
Source credibility  more persuasion
E.g., Obama healthcare & anti-Romney ads
13
Depth of Processing in Attitude Change
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
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:
14
Two Routes to Persuasion
•High
ability
and motivation
•Source
•Systematic
processing
•Message •Audience
•Persuasio
•Low
ability
and motivation
•Heuristic
processing
15
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?”
Compliance rate
60%
Request, with legitimate rationale
“Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the
Xerox machine because I’m in a rush?”
94%
Request, with illegitimate rationale
“Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the
Xerox machine because I have to make
some copies”
?
16
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?”
Compliance rate
60%
Request, with legitimate rationale
“Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the
Xerox machine because I’m in a rush?”
94%
Request, with illegitimate rationale
“Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the
Xerox machine because I have to make
some copies”
93%
17
Systematic vs. Heuristic Processing
•Even
when we think we are systematically processing, heuristic
processing can influence us
18
Systematic Processing
Moderated by Involvement
–
Strong: Strong argument & solid
evidence
– Weak: weak, Based on anecdote &
personal opinion
Argument Strength & Involvement
Attitude after
communication
College students hear argument for new
exam as graduation requirement
 Evidence
.8
.6
.4
.2
.0
-.2
-.4
-.6
Strong
Weak
High
 Involvement
Low
Involvement
–
High: Exam will start next year
– Low: Exam will start in 10years
•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.
19
Using systematic to counter antivaccination altitudes

Many parents refuse
to vaccinate their
kids because they
fear vaccine
increases autism
risks.
–

Increase in CA from .8%
in 2000 to 3.2% in 2013
Directly refuting
these myths (ala
CDC info sheet)
don’t seem to work.
20
Vaccination attitude change experiment


Utility model:
–
U(vaccination)=P(prevention illness)*U+(remain healthy) + P(autism*U-(autism)
–
 emphasize dangers of illness (first term) rather than reduce fears of
autism (second term)
Experiment to compare persuasion effects
–
Reminding people of dangers of measles, mumps & rubella with
pictures & personal story of baby who almost died
– Reporting CDC data that vaccines are safe & don’t cause autism
–
Control condition: Scientific report not related to vaccines
21
•Horne,
Z., Powell, D., Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (2015). Countering antivaccination
attitudes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(33), 10321-10324.
Fear Appeals in Public Health Advertising
22
Fear advertising works
Ads that emphasize fear of serious risk & target the
viewer lead to more attitude & behavioral change
•Witte,
K., & Allen, M. (2000). A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeals:
Implications for Effective Public Health Campaigns. Health Education &
Behavior, 27(5), 591.
23
Why should fear advertising work?
•
Fear appeals on both sides of
immigration debate

Promotes deeper
processing
 Works best with those
who are more
sophisticated
–
–
Have data
Can understand the
links
24
Heuristic Processing


Use superficial cues to assess the validity of
message
Heuristics:
–
–
–
–
–
–
Social Proof
Authority
Liking
Reciprocity
Commitment and Consistency
Scarcity
25