Attitudes & Attitude Change
Chapter 7
What are attitudes?
Evaluations of people, objects
and/or ideas that often determine
what we do
Where do attitudes come from?
They may be indirectly linked to genes
via temperament, personality, etc.
They definitely come from social
experiences.
The social component of attitudes:
Has three sub-components:
Cognitive: rests on relevant facts
Affective: connected to emotions, values
Behavioral: works by self-perception only
when the initial attitude is ambiguous
The affective component of attitudes:
May have gained its emotional values
from:
Values, morals or religion
Sensory experiences/aesthetics
Classical conditioning
Operant conditioning
The affective component of attitudes:
Is not rational
Is not based on logic
Explicit vs. Implicit Attitudes
 - are often contradictory
 Explicit attitudes are consciously endorsed
 Implicit attitudes are non-conscious and at times may
be involuntary and/or uncontrollable
How do attitudes change?
By what others have to say
By changing behavior (Cognitive
Dissonance/internal justification)
Persuasive communication
Yale Attitude Change Approach
Source
A credible source (expert) is more likely
to be believed that one less credible
An attractive source (physical or
personality) is more likely to be believed
than one less attractive
Nature of the Communication
People are more persuaded if they believe
that the communication was not designed
to persuade them.
A two-sided communication is generally
more persuasive than a one-sided one.
However, the communicator should be
careful to refute the counterarguments.
The Nature of the Audience
A distracted audience is easier to persuade.
An audience of lower intelligence is easier to
persuade than a more intelligent one.
The audience with moderate self-esteem is
easier to persuade than one with high or low
self-esteem.
People between the ages of 18-25 are
easier to persuade. Attitudes will become
more stable and resistant to change as we
age.
Paying Attention
Distraction
Fatigue
Boring Speaker
Need for cognition
Motivation to pay attention
Speaker credibility
Topic relevance/ personal relevance
Elaboration Likelihood Model
Central Route to Persuasion
Listeners are likely to elaborate
Logic matters
Listeners must be able and motivated to pay
attention
Peripheral Route to Persuasion
Listeners are not likely to elaborate
Logic does not matter
Listeners take mental shortcuts
Motivation to Pay Attention
Personal Relevance
With high personal relevance,
arguments are important
With low personal relevance, sources
are important (also when you are just
unable to pay attention)
Targeting Your Ads
Is the attitude emotional or is the attitude
cognitive?
Utilitarian products
Social Identity products
Those with both aspects – and possibly
different for different people
Attitude Inoculation
 How do you resist attempts to change your attitude?
 Thinking about it beforehand
 Small doses of arguments
 Cultural truisms
 Being alert to product placement
 Peer pressure
 Values and emotions
 Fear of rejection
Reactance Theory
When persuasion attempts
boomerang.
Too much fear - dissociation
Strong prohibitions - resistance
When do attitudes predict behavior?
La Piere, 1934 went cross-country
with a young Chinese
couple.
Did attitudes predict behavior?
Attitudes predict spontaneous behaviors
only when they are highly accessible
When do attitudes predict behavior?
 Theory of Planned Behavior:
When people have time to contemplate how
they are going to behave, the best predictor of
their behavior is their intention
Intention is determined by three things:
Attitudes toward the behavior
Subjective norms
Perceived behavioral control
(Must be specific attitudes.)
Subliminal Advertising
Is this a form of mind control?
Is advertising in general a form of
mind control?
Hidden persuasion
Product placement
Confidence in Your thoughts and
attitude Change
 Headphone Study (Brinol & Perry, 2003) – Did you shake your head
up and down or side to side?
 Results differed for strong and weak arguments.