ATTITUDES (Psych 201 - Chapter 7 - Spring 2014)

This Week’s Playlist
1. Matchbox Twenty
She’s So Mean
(Attitudes Not Predicting Behavior)
2. Bobby McFerrin
Don’t Worry, Be Happy
(Self-Perception Theory)
3. Enrique Iglesias, Pitbull, The WAV.s
I Like How It Feels
(Affective Component of Attitudes)
4. Kate Nash
We Get On
(Cognitive Dissonance)
5. Good Charlotte
Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous
(Extrinsic Motivators; System Justification)
6. Jessie J, B.o.B.
Price Tag
(Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Motivators)
7. Kanye West, Jay Z, Big Sean
Clique
(Effort Justification)
8. Jason Mraz
I Won’t Give Up
(Effort Justification; Cognitive Dissonance)

Melanie B. Tannenbaum, M.A.
Psych 201
Spring 2014
Attitudes, Behavior,  
and Rationalization

Chapter Topics
● What is an Attitude?
!
● Predicting Behavior from Attitudes
!
● Predicting Attitudes from Behavior
!
● Self-Perception Theory
!
● Broader Rationalization

What is an attitude?
● Evaluation of an object or behavior
● Categorization of an entity along an evaluation dimension
● Association in memory between an object and an evaluation
● Affective reactions elicited by an object
● Psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a
particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor

● Evaluation of an object or behavior
● Categorization of an entity along an evaluation dimension
● Association in memory between an object and an evaluation
● Affective reactions elicited by an object
● Psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a
particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor
!
● BASICALLY...how much you like or dislike something.

An attitude is an evaluation (ranging from positive to negative)
of a target object (e.g. a thing, person, idea, etc.)
Smoking
PowerPoint slides
Nicki Minaj
NFL Referees
Chicago Cubs
Review Sheets Social Psychology
Angelina Jolie
Romantic Lover
President Obama
New York Yankees
H1N1 flu
Broccoli
Recession

Attitude ABCs
● Affect: How the target makes you feel

Attitude ABCs
● Behavior: How you act towards the target

Attitude ABCs
● Cognition: Your knowledge/beliefs about the target

Attitude ABCs
● Cognition: Your knowledge/beliefs about the target
!
● These three parts of attitudes are often consistent with each
other, but occasionally are not
● You can know that a spider is harmless (cognition), but still feel
scared (affect) and run away from it shrieking (behavior).
!
● http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA3uryDJzI0

Attitudes & Behavior: Two-Way Street
● Previous behavior towards a target contributes to current attitude
!
● However, current attitudes also cause future behavior

Predicting Behavior From
Attitudes
This is harder than it seems!

Attitudes don’t always predict
behavior!
!
● Diet:
● http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51sIqzEo7h4&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLEA12D064EFCF6DE3
!
!
!
!
!
● Marshmallow Test:
● http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y6R5boDqh4&feature=relmfu

Do our attitudes predict our behavior?

● LaPiere (1934)
● Traveling across the U.S. with a Chinese couple in the 1930s, when anti-
Chinese prejudice was very high
● LaPiere contacted 250 restaurants to ask them if they would serve Chinese
customers, and 90% said that they would not.

● LaPiere (1934)
● Traveling across the U.S. with a Chinese couple in the 1930s, when anti-
Chinese prejudice was very high
● LaPiere contacted 250 restaurants to ask them if they would serve Chinese
customers, and 90% said that they would not.
● However... When they actually visited these restaurants, they were only
denied service at 1 of the 250 restaurants!
!
● Attitudes did not predict behavior.

● LaPiere’s study shook up the landscape of attitude research
● How can attitudes be bad at predicting behavior?! Sometimes
expressed attitudes don’t predict actual behavior at all!

● In a review of the existing literature on the link between attitudes
and behavior, they found very weak evidence for any connection
● People might be anti-Walmart but shop there anyway
● People might have a positive attitude towards doctors, but skip
their yearly check-ups

● In a review of the existing literature on the link between attitudes
and behavior, they found very weak evidence for any connection
● People might be anti-Walmart but shop there anyway
● People might have a positive attitude towards doctors, but skip
their yearly check-ups
!
● Can you think of a time when your attitude didn’t predict
your actual behavior?
!
A. Yes
B. No

Predicting Behavior
● Nowadays, we’re pretty good at using attitudes to predict
behavior with strong results

Predicting Behavior
!
● However, attitude research has historically struggled to
reliably predict behavior. Why?

Predicting Behavior
!
● However, attitude research has historically struggled to
reliably predict behavior. Why?
!
● Five Reasons:
● 1. Other powerful determinants
● 2. Attitudes can be inconsistent
● 3. Attitudes are sometimes based on secondhand information
● 4. Mismatch between specific and general
● 5. Automatic behavior can bypass conscious attitudes

#1: Other Powerful Determinants
!
● There are often other factors in our environment that shape our
behavior other than our attitudes.
!
!
● Attitudes can be thought of like personality traits (stable)
!
!
● Social psychology is all about the power of the situation and
how situational factors can overwhelm people’s dispositions!

#1: Other Powerful Determinants
● Darley & Batson (1973): “Good Samaritan Study”
● Those participants would have expressed attitudes that it is
important to help people in need, but the time pressure made this
attitude irrelevant
!
● LaPiere (1934)
● Social norms against “causing a scene”
!
● Milgram Study
● Most people probably would have expressed an attitude that they
would never shock somebody
● The powerful determinant of the authority figure (and obedience) had
a strong situational effect

#2: Attitudes Can Be Inconsistent
● People can hold ambivalent attitudes
!
● What does ambivalent mean?
● It does NOT mean neutral!
● It means you both like AND dislike something.
!
● Ambivalence = Ambi (both) + Valence (feelings)

● Affective and cognitive components of attitudes may conflict
Affective: Positive! ☺
Cognitive: Negative ☹
Affective: Negative ☹
Cognitive: Positive! ☺

● Affective and cognitive components of attitudes may
conflict
Affective: Positive! ☺
Cognitive: Negative ☹
Affective: Negative ☹
Cognitive: Positive! ☺

● True attitudes are not always accessible to conscious
introspection; we don’t always know why we feel some way
!
● When asked, we can come up with plausible responses, but they
may or may not predict actual behavior very well
● Why do you love your boyfriend/girlfriend?
● Why do you like this song?
!
● Introspection leads us to focus on the easiest-to-identify or
easiest-to-verbalize reasons for liking/disliking something,
possibly at the expense of identifying the real reasons
!
● Friends: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfuNqKhfin0

● LaPiere (1934)
!
!
● The restaurant owners might have been focusing on their
cognitions (negative) when answering the surveys.
!
!
● However...when the couple was actually in front of them, they
might have been overwhelmed by their affective reactions
(positive), wanting to be compassionate and help others.

#3: Attitudes sometimes based on
secondhand information
● Attitudes based on firsthand information predict behavior better
than attitudes based on secondhand information
● You probably have an attitude towards Miley Cyrus, but you
probably haven’t met her.
!
!
● If you’ve actually experienced something before, your
attitude will be a better predictor of behavior than if your
attitude is not based on personal experience

Attitudes towards
participation in research
predict actual rates much
more strongly among
previous participants
Attitudes towards flu shots
are a better predictor of
vaccination behavior in
people who have actually
gotten flu shots before

● Regan & Fazio, 1977: The Cornell Housing Study
● There was a housing shortage at Cornell, and many students had to
sleep on cots in the common areas of their dorms for months
● Some students had firsthand experience (they had to sleep on the
cots) whereas others did not
● Students were asked about their attitudes about the housing crisis
and were given an opportunity to write a letter to the administration
● Did their attitudes predict their behavior (letter-writing)?

● Regan & Fazio, 1977: The Cornell Housing Study
● Results
● For the students with firsthand experience (those who slept on the cots),
those with stronger attitudes were more likely to write a letter
!
● For the students with secondhand experience (did not have to sleep on the
cots), much weaker relationship between attitudes and letter-writing

● LaPiere (1934)
!
● Restaurant owners who had never encountered Chinese patrons
were probably much more likely to say they would refuse service;
those who had met Chinese patrons before probably knew that
they were no different than themselves
!
● The more experience that you have with a target, the more
“solidified” your attitude becomes
● More experience = You know how you actually feel about it

#4: Specific vs. General
!
● Typically, attitudes are pretty broad, but behaviors are specific.
!
!
● When attitudes and behavior are at the same level of specificity,
attitudes are better predictors of behavior.

● Which attitude would best predict what you do with your old
keyboard when you buy a new computer?
!
● A. What is your attitude toward the environment?
● B. What is your attitude toward recycling?
● C. What is your attitude toward recycling your old electronics?

● This was probably the biggest problem with old behavioral
predictions (mismatch between attitudes and behaviors)
!
!
● UIUC to the rescue!!
● Fishbein & Ajzen (1975)
!
!
● If you want to predict a specific behavior, you need to
ask for respondents’ attitudes toward that specific
behavior, not their general attitudes towards a larger
domain of interest.

● If you want to predict a specific behavior, ask a question
about the specific attitude!
!
● If you want to match specificity, make sure that the
behavior is at the same level of specificity!
!
● Examples of matching:
● How likely are you to watch TV in the next month/How often did
you watch TV in the last month?
!
● What is your attitude towards dark chocolate?/How often do you
eat dark chocolate?

● Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)
● Ajzen & Fishbein (2005)
● The currently accepted “best model” for predicting behavior
● It was developed here at UIUC!

Question!
● You have been hired by Netflix to do market research. Netflix is
interested in finding out how many people will watch the
second season of their show House of Cards.
● Which question should best predict that behavior?
!
!
!
!
!
● A. What is your attitude towards Kevin Spacey?
● B. What is your attitude towards Netflix?
● C. What is your attitude towards watching House of Cards?
● D. What is your attitude towards TV political dramas?

● Automatic behavior often bypasses conscious attitudes
!
!
● Think about priming!
● Priming “elderly” makes people walk slower
● Priming “rudeness” makes people more likely to interrupt
!
!
● Elderly Priming:
● http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g4_v4JStOU
#5: Automatic Behavior

!
● Elderly Priming Study, Revisited
● Bargh, Chen, & Burrows, 1996
● Participants were given a sentence completion task
● Half of them had to complete sentences that had words pertaining to
elderly people (Florida, gray, old, etc.)
!
People who were primed with “elderly” words
walked slower as they were leaving the study!

● Dijksterhuis & van Knippenburg (1998)
!
● Priming “professor” (relative to “supermodel”) makes people
perform better on Trivial Pursuit
!
● Priming specific smart people or supermodels (e.g. “Albert
Einstein” or “Claudia Schiffer”) makes people perform worse
(they are contrasting themselves with the super-dumb/smart
exemplars)

● Explicit Attitude Measures
● Attitudes that you verbally state out loud
● “I like puppies.”
● Example: Likert scales (scales from 1 to 7)
!
!
!
● Implicit Attitude Measures
● Unconscious attitudes
● Might be based on accessibility, response time, etc.
● Example: Implicit Association Test
● http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5Q5FQfXZag

● Automatic behavior can be predicted by implicit
attitudes
!
!
● The very simplified take-home point:
● Explicit measures of attitudes predict deliberate behavior
● Implicit measures of attitudes predict automatic behavior
!
!
● Explicit measures (“What’s your attitude toward ____?”)
don’t do a great job of predicting automatic behavior

!
● Implicit Measures
● Usually some sort of reaction-time task
● Example: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
!
!
!
● Implicit measures index schema activation
● Many people think the results actually represent “cultural/norm
knowledge” rather than “hidden” personal attitudes

● Non-RT implicit measures exist, but they aren’t as strong
!
● Example: You walk into a room and someone is sitting at a table.
The distance you put between yourself and the other person
changes depending on your implicit attitude toward the target.
!
● In the mimicry video from the last chapter, the dependent variable
(how far Alan Alda sat from the chair) was an implicit measure.

Predicting Behavior
● A politician recently proposed a bill that would give young
people a tax break and impose a tax increase on the elderly.
Your friend asks you what you think of this bill. Your
response to your friend will most likely be determined by...

A. Explicit Attitudes

B. Implicit Attitudes

Predicting Behavior
● You walk into a crowded movie theater and can’t find an
open row. You have to sit directly next to someone; you can
either sit directly next to a young person or an old person.
Who you sit next to will most likely be determined by...
!
A. Explicit Attitudes

B. Implicit Attitudes

Remember!
!
● Explicit Attitudes (those attitudes you verbalize) best
predict explicit, controlled behavior, like your responses to
policies or the things you express to your friends.
!
● Implicit Attitudes (those attitudes that are subconscious
and you can’t control) best predict automatic, uncontrolled
behavior, like body language.

Predicting Attitudes From
Behavior
Balance Theory
Cognitive Dissonance Theory

If you don’t like something, change it.
If you can’t change it, change your attitude.
- Maya Angelou

Behavior Can Influence Attitudes!
● Why?
!
● People need to bring their attitudes in line with behavior
!
● We need to justify or rationalize our behavior to reduce
inconsistencies between our attitudes and our behaviors

Behavior Can Influence Attitudes!
!
● This is the basis of cognitive consistency theories
!
● Cognitive Consistency: The idea that people are motivated to
maintain consistency between their thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors
!
● When inconsistency is detected, we change something to get
consistency back, and we look for easy-to-change options
!
● Two Main Consistency Theories
● Balance Theory
● Cognitive Dissonance

Heider’s Balance Theory
● People try to maintain balance among their beliefs, cognitions, and
feelings.
!
● Imbalanced systems are unstable; they tend to change toward
balanced ones (usually by the path of least resistance)
!
● Think of a triangle; you fill in each side with a “+” or a “-,” and if
one side is blank, you “fill in” that side to make sure that the
product of all three sides is positive.

If you multiply all three
signs together, you want
the product to be
POSITIVE
− ✚
−
− − ✚ ✚ ✓× × =

● What does this mean?
● Imagine three people, and each one is a point on the triangle
● The three people’s feelings towards each other
should be balanced
Robert
NathanJames

● Let’s say that Robert doesn’t like James, but Nathan likes Robert.
How will Nathan feel about James?
● In order to balance the triangle, the third side needs to be
NEGATIVE ( – x – x + = +)
● Therefore, Nathan won’t like James.
Robert
NathanJames
− ✚

Question
● You’re hanging out with your friend Lauren.
● Lauren tells you about a movie that she really loved.
● According to Balance Theory, how should you feel?
#
A. You’ll like the movie
B. You’ll dislike the movie
C. Can’t be predicted

Balance Theory and Advertising

● 3 years ago, Abercrombie & Fitch publicly announced they
would pay “The Situation” from Jersey Shore to stop
wearing their clothes
#
● Why? Balance Theory!

Customer
The
“Situation”
A & F 
A&F Saw This

A&F Wanted This
Customer
The
“Situation”
A & F

So A&F Could
Avoid This
Customer
The
“Situation”
A & F

Balance Theory Examples
● Gossip
● If your friend (+) tells you something
negative about someone else (-), you will
probably also dislike this person (-).
● Partisan Politics
● If your chosen political party’s
platform (+) has a negative attitude
(-) towards an issue, you will
probably adopt this same negative
attitude (-).

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
You
Enemy
Enemy’s
Enemy ✚
−−

Balance Theory
● Draw a triangle.
#
● Multiply the signs.
#
● If the product is negative, it’s imbalanced and
something will need to change to restore balance.
#
● If the product is positive, it’s balanced.

● Proposed by Leon Festinger
● Remember him? Social comparison theory!
● This is another “cognitive consistency” model
#
● Inconsistency between thoughts,
feelings, and actions creates an aversive
state known as dissonance.
#
● This feeling leads people to put effort
into restoring consistency.
#
● We will change whatever is easiest in order to
reduce dissonance and restore consistency.

● Example: You are pro-environment, but you just dropped
a piece of trash and did not pick it up.
#
#
#
● Your behavior is now inconsistent with your attitude, so you
will experience discomfort (dissonance).
#
● To reduce dissonance, you could:
● Try to convince yourself that it’s not a big deal (cognition)
● Go back and pick up the trash (behavior)
● Decrease your pro-environment attitude (affect)

One Of This Week’s Readings
● Feedback About “Ecological Footprint”
#
● If your “green” attitudes are important to you and you think
you’re wasteful, you’ll change your behavior.
#
● If your “green” attitudes are not important to you and you
think you’re wasteful, you’ll change your attitude.
#
● People change whatever is easiest to change.
● If your attitude is strong, it’s easier to change your behavior
● If your attitude is weak, it’s easier to just change the attitude

#
● There are three main times when people experience CD:
#
● 1. After deciding between two (or more) alternatives
#
#
● 2. After undergoing a lot of effort to do something
#
#
● 3. After engaging in behavior that doesn’t match your attitude

1. Post-Decision Dissonance
#
● Where should I go to college?
#
● Which sorority/fraternity should I pledge?
#
● What major should I pick?
#
● We rationalize our decisions
to reduce dissonance and
restore consistency

#
● Bettors waiting in line at a horse track were more likely to say
their horses had a fair chance of winning when they were waiting
in line, but a great chance of winning after they had purchased
their tickets (Knox & Inkster, 1968)
#
● Other examples:
● Voter confidence in a candidate
● Product choice
#
#
● Why?
● It’s pretty impossible to change these behaviors!
● You will pick the easiest target for consistency.

● Spreading Of Alternatives Paradigm
● Participants were asked to rank 8 CDs in order of preference
#
● Experimenter said that as a gift for participation, each person could
pick one CD...but the only two available were the 4th
and 5th
choices
#
● Finally, participants were asked to rank all 15 CDs again

● What Happened?
● The CD that participants picked (either #4 or #5) was ranked
higher the second time around
#
● The CD that participants did not pick (either #4 or #5) was
ranked lower the second time around
#
● Why?
● After the decision, participants find flaws in what they didn’t
pick and hidden bonuses in what they did pick
#
● The alternatives are “spread” to help justify their decision

2. Effort Justification
● When you have devoted time, effort, or money to something
that has turned out to be unpleasant or disappointing, you tend
to justify why you spent all that time, effort, and money
#
#
● Examples
● Pet lovers
● Parents
#
#
Both groups may exaggerate the joy they get to justify
all of the effort they have to put into parenting/pet
ownership.

● Aronson & Mills, 1959
#
● Female undergraduates thought that they were joining an ongoing
discussion group about sex
#
● Participants were told that not everyone is good at speaking openly
about sex, so they would have to pass a test before joining
#
● Three Conditions
● Control (No Test)
#
● Mild (Had to read aloud a list of mildly embarrassing words)
#
● Severe (Had to read aloud a list of really obscene words and a passage
from a novel describing graphic sexual intercourse)

#
● Participants were told that for the first session, they would
just be listening to the conversation on headphones
#
● The group discussion was crafted to be incredibly boring
(the sex lives of invertebrates)
#
● Participants were then asked... “How interesting was it?”

● Women who had gone through the severe initiation rated the
group significantly more favorably than the other 2 conditions

● Fraternities/Sororities and hazing
● Hazing can (and does) increase
commitment to the group through effort
justification (have to justify why you went
through so much humiliation)
●Qualifying exams, MCATs, LSATS, etc.
● After going through so much effort, you will
justify it by saying that you “really learned a
lot” or by being super committed to your
career path (maybe less likely to drop out or
switch careers even if you don’t like it?)

3. Attitude-Discrepant Behavior
● Behaving in a way that’s not in line with your attitudes
(attitude-discrepant behavior) can also induce dissonance
#
● This is typically relieved by changing the attitude (it’s difficult
to “undo” a behavior you’ve already committed)
#
● Induced Compliance: Subtly making people engage in
attitude-discrepant behavior leads them to experience
dissonance, which leads to attitude change

Question
● Who would have a more positive attitude toward a given task?
#
A. Someone who was paid $1 to do it
#
B. Someone who was paid $20 to do it

● Festinger & Carlsmith (1959): The “Peg Study”
● Participants were asked to complete a very boring task for
an hour (turning pegs on a pegboard)
#
● Group A: Immediately sent to be interviewed by an RA
and asked about enjoyment of the task

● Participants were asked to complete a very boring task for
an hour (turning pegs on a pegboard)
#
● Group B: Asked to tell the next participant that the study
was interesting. Rewarded with either...
#
● $1 for telling the lie
#
● $20 for telling the lie
#
● How much did you enjoy the task?

● Participants in the $1 condition rated the task as significantly
more enjoyable than the $20 or control conditions!
● $20 condition = Sufficient justification for lying = No dissonance.
● $1 condition = Insufficient justification for lying = Dissonance
● Change attitudes to resolve the dissonance
● “I really did enjoy it! I wasn’t lying!”

● Saying something that you don’t believe with little justification
produces dissonance (e.g. saying you enjoyed a boring task)
#
● People changed their attitudes to reduce this dissonance;
remembered the peg task as being more enjoyable than it was

#
● Think about causal attribution processes!
● Why did I do this? Was it the situation or my personality?
● If there is a clear situational reason (lots of $$), probably the situation
● If there was no clear situational reason (little $$), it was probably all me
#
● It’s like applying covariation theory/discounting principle to ourselves!

When will attitude-behavior
inconsistency cause dissonance?
● Insufficient Justification
● The less incentive that someone has for performing a
counterattitudinal behavior, the more dissonance is experienced
#
● Threat
● We experience less dissonance when we are threatened to
perform an action (external reason)
#
● Choice
● Attitude-discrepant behavior creates dissonance only when the
behavior is freely chosen

Threat & Cognitive Dissonance
● Aronson & Carlsmith, 1963: The “Forbidden Toy”
#
● Children rated 5 toys before and after the RA left the room
#
● Children were told that they could not play with 2nd favorite toy
#
● High Threat Condition: “I will be very angry and will take all of
my toys and go home and never come back.”
#
● Low Threat Condition: “I will be annoyed.”

Threat & Cognitive Dissonance
● The “Forbidden Toy”
#
● In the high threat condition, children
still reported liking the toy at the
second evaluation (they weren’t
playing with it because they were
threatened, not because they don’t
like it)
#
#
● In the low threat condition, children
lowered their ratings of the toy!

Self-Perception Theory
An alternative to “cognitive consistency” theories

#
● Daryl Bem
#
● Critique of cognitive dissonance theory
#
● Provides an alternative account of dissonance findings
#
● People come to know their own attitudes by looking at
their behavior and the context in which it occurred
and inferring what their attitudes must be

● People infer their attitudes not by looking inward and analyzing
how they think and feel, but by looking outward at their behaviors
and the contexts in which they occur.
#
● Applies primarily when prior attitudes are weak or ambiguous
#
● Sort of like applying the covariation principle to ourselves.
● What’s the consensus/distinctiveness/consistency?
#
● Example: You don’t feel very hungry, but then you eat three
helpings of spaghetti. “I guess I was hungrier than I thought!”

● Consensus: No one else ate
as much as I did (low)
#
● Distinctiveness: I didn’t eat
this much yesterday (high)
#
● Consistency: I wouldn’t eat
this much again (low)
#
● Conclusion: Odd situational
attribution (low consistency)
#
● “I must have been really
hungry!”

● According to this theory, people are simply engaging in
dispassionate inference processes.
#
#
● We don’t experience dissonance and we don’t change our
attitudes; we just use behavior to infer what attitudes must be!
#
#
● Bem also argued that there is often no stored attitude to retrieve
and report...that is why we often need to infer our own attitudes.

How to test SPT vs. CDT?
● The two theories make the same predictions about attitudes
● One way in which they differ is the role of arousal
● Cognitive Dissonance: Dissonance is an aversive
physiological state that involves arousal.
● Self-Perception Theory: There is no implied arousal state
because people are merely observing their behaviors and
inferring attitudes.
● If you can figure out whether or not people are
aroused, we might be better able to support one of
the theories.

Dissonance vs. Self-Perception
● Zanna & Cooper, 1974: Misattribution of Arousal
#
● Participants given a “drug” (placebo); told that it would (a) have
no effect, (b) make them feel tense, or (c) make them feel relaxed.
#
● Participants then wrote an essay in support of a position they
had previously said they opposed.
#
● They either had free choice or no choice to write about this
position.
#
● Researchers measured their attitude toward the position again.

● Among those who were told the
drug would have no effect,
saw the standard dissonance
effect (attitude changed more in
those with a free choice)
#
● Among those who were told
they’d be tense, the dissonance
effect disappeared
#
● Among those who were told
they’d be relaxed, even
stronger dissonance effect than
usual!

● Tense: Experienced arousal, but
attributed it to the drug; no need
to change attitude to reduce
arousal.

arousal.
#
● Relaxed: Expected to feel
relaxed, but felt unpleasant
arousal; even greater attitude
change than usual.

arousal.
#
● Relaxed: Expected to feel
relaxed, but felt unpleasant
arousal; even greater attitude
change than usual.
#
● This seems to support
cognitive dissonance theory.

But really...both theories are at work.
● Cognitive Dissonance Theory is at work for stronger held,
controversial, and highly valued attitudes.
#
#
● Self-Perception Theory is at work for vague, ambiguous
attitudes.
#
#
● Keep in mind that we hold many attitudes that are somewhat
ambiguous or weak; self-perception is still thought to influence
many attitudes in our lives.

● Zanna & Cooper (1974) shows that people do experience
negative arousal in response to certain situations, and the
way we deal with this arousal can influence attitudes
#
● It does not prove that self-perception doesn’t happen
● Self-perception could happen in addition to this
#
● Remember other examples of seemingly contradictory
theories that can just work in different situations!
● Self-Evaluation Maintenance vs. Self-Verification Theory

● In fact, to misattribute the arousal in this experiment,
participants had to self-perceive and use causal attribution
#
● “I feel aroused, I took a pill that would increase (decrease)
arousal, therefore my emotions do (do not) make sense.”
#
● The generally accepted view is that both cognitive
dissonance and self-perception theory occur
● Cognitive Dissonance: When we behave in a way that is
inconsistent with pre-existing, clear, important attitudes
● Self-Perception Theory: When we don’t have a clear,
solidified attitude (e.g. we’re ambivalent) or when the attitude
isn’t important (e.g. it is weak).

CDT vs. SPT
● You have very strong attitudes against tanning; you’ve donated
money to cancer research charities, you strongly believe that
tanning causes skin cancer, and you think it’s a dangerous hobby.
You’re going to a formal event with your friend Alex; Alex
convinces you to go tanning so you look good for the event.
Despite your strong attitudes, you agree to go – just once.
Afterwards, you realize you feel pretty good and you like how you
look, so you think that maybe it’s not SO bad – after all, plenty of
people tan, and not all of them get cancer, right? What is most
likely at work here?
#
A. Cognitive Dissonance Theory
#
B. Self-Perception Theory

CDT vs. SPT
● You tried running once about 5 years ago, and you didn’t
really enjoy it. Ever since, you’ve told people that you just
don’t really like running; of course you like the health
benefits, but you don’t really love how it feels. Your friend
Jordan convinces you to go running, and during the run you
actually feel pretty good. You start to think that maybe you
like running after all. What is most likely at work here?
#
A. Cognitive Dissonance Theory
#
B. Self-Perception Theory

Overjustification Effect
● One way that self-perception might affect our everyday lives
#
● Overjustification Effect: Tendency to devalue activities
that we perform in order to get something else (Lepper et al.,
1973)
#
● Using extrinsic rewards can
decrease intrinsic
motivation.

Example: LEARNING
● Children are often intrinsically motivated to learn (they find
learning fun in its own right; are naturally curious)
#
● When children are given extrinsic motivation to learn (e.g. good
grades, gold stars, chocolate, money, etc.) they might start to
attribute their desire to learn to the extrinsic rewards
#
● This leads children to reduce their levels of intrinsic
motivation (“I must be doing this because of gold stars, not
because I want to”)

Example: LEARNING
● Pay for Grades (Greene et al., 1976)
#
● Experimenters introduced a set of math games into an
elementary school during the “free play” period
#
● Initially, kids liked the games and played with them
because they genuinely wanted to!

Example: LEARNING
● Pay for Grades (Greene et al., 1976)
#
● Next, experimenters introduced a “token economy” for
several days, in which students were given points every
time they played one of the math games and they could
redeem the points for prizes
#
● Finally, the token economy was removed but the math
games stayed in the classroom; kids could play if they
wanted to.

Example: LEARNING
● The token economy
did increase how
much the kids played
with the math games.

Example: LEARNING
● The token economy
did increase how
much the kids played
with the math games.
#
● However...once the
prizes were taken
away, participation
dropped down
significantly!

Example: LEARNING
● Before Prizes: “I like these games! I’m playing these games
because I want to play with them!”
#
● During Prizes: “I like these games!” ! “I’m getting prizes
to play with these games!”
#
● Begin to attribute playing time to the prizes...
#
● After Prizes: “Where did the prizes go? I was only playing
with the games because of the prizes. No more math games!”

Good or Bad?
● If you want someone to do something right now, external rewards
can be helpful!
#
● Remember, the token economy did increase how much the kids played
with the math games!
#
● However, if you want someone to do something from now on,
even in the absence of external rewards, use minimal/no rewards
#
● Extrinsic rewards will result in overjustification
#
● No extrinsic rewards will result in effort justification and/or a search for
internal causes of behavior, which will ultimately increase motivation
to pursue the behavior in the future!

Good or Bad?
● Extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic motivation!
#
● They can be a good motivator for activities for which
someone does not already have intrinsic motivation.
#
● However, if someone does genuinely enjoy something,
providing extrinsic rewards can be bad.
#
● This is why so many people stop enjoying things once they
get paid for doing them (it “ruins” it).

Example: LEARNING
● This is one of the arguments often used by alternative school
systems (like Montessori) in which children are not given
grades and are allowed to learn in a freer context
#
● Remember the discounting principle – when you are
given multiple possible causes for something (gold stars,
grades, enjoyment) you will give less weight to each cause
(you will think that you enjoy learning less).
#
● http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFbonVv-
bI0&feature=related
● http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s4qTifYWe4

Self-Perception In Action
● Facial Feedback (Strack et al., 1988)
● Participants holding a pencil in their mouths (to force a smile) rated
cartoons as more amusing than control participants

● Head Nodding (Wells & Petty, 1980)
● Participants “tested headphones” by listening to music and an
editorial
#
● They were either told to move their heads up and down to test the
quality (“nodding”) or to move their heads left to right (“shaking”)
#
● Participants who nodded were more likely to agree with the
editorial

● Arm Flexing/Extending (Cacioppo et al., 1993)
● Participants were pressing down on a table (pushing away) or lifting
up (pulling towards) while rating Chinese ideographs
#
● Students who were flexing (pulling towards) rated them more
favorably

● Cold/Hot Beverages (Williams & Bargh, 2008)
● Participants holding a hot beverage judged other people as
being warmer, more compassionate, more friendly
● Participants holding a cold beverage judged other people as
being colder, more aloof, less friendly

● Weighty Topics (Ackerman et al., 2010)
● Participants holding a heavy clipboard while reading about an
issue actually rated that issue as being more important
(“heavier”) than those holding a light clipboard

● These findings are known as embodied cognition
#
● This is the study of how thoughts are influenced by the body
and physiological sensations
#
● The body and the mind are inherently linked; many bodily
actions are associated with certain cognitions
● Nodding head ! Yes, correct, good, right
● Clenching fists ! Anger
#
● Even though we normally think about cognition ! body
posture, if the posture has been strongly and repeatedly linked
with a certain cognition, it can go the other way as well

Funny side effect...
● If you no longer have full use of certain body parts, you
might feel dampened affect
● “The effects of botox injections on emotional experience”
(Davis et al., 2010)
#
● Botox injections led to decreased happiness in response to
mildly positive movie clips
#
● Self-perception matters for mild or ambiguous attitudes!
● If it’s a mildly funny clip, not being able to smile !
you won’t think it’s as funny
● If it’s incredibly funny, not being able to smile won’t
fool you into not liking it.

System Justification Theory
● People feel a need to justify broader social systems
#
#
● Most people believe that the world is fair (or should be fair)
#
#
● When we come across evidence that the world is not fair, it
creates ideological dissonance

#
● It is often easier to justify why the social system is the way that it
is (or the way that it should be) than to protest
#
#
● As a result, people tend to justify and defend the status quo, even
if it doesn’t necessarily support them.

● Examples
#
● In the US, lower-income groups tend to support status quo
economic policies rather than more egalitarian ones
#
● Compensatory Stereotypes: The belief that people in less
privileged roles reap other benefits
#
● Low-income people might be poor, but they’re happier than the
rich!
#
● Women may be disenfranchised, but they’re much more nurturing!

Review: Chapter 7
● What is an attitude?
● Positive or negative evaluation of a target
● Components of Attitudes
● Affect
● Behavior
● Cognition
● Predicting Behavior from Attitudes is Tricky
● 1. Other powerful determinants
● 2. Sometimes inconsistent
● 3. Based on secondhand information
● 4. Mismatch between specific & general
● 5. Automatic Behavior

Review: Chapter 7
● Predicting attitudes from behavior
● Balance theory: Product of the signs should be positive
● Cognitive dissonance theory
● 1. Post-Decision Dissonance
● 2. Effort Justification
● 3. Attitude-Discrepant Behavior
● Alternative to cognitive dissonance
● People observe their own behavior and infer their attitudes
● Other rationalizations
● System justification theory: People support the status quo,
even when it doesn’t support them.

Ch. 7: Most Important Points
● When Attitudes Predict
Behavior
● Matching Specificity
● Firsthand Information
#
● Cognitive Dissonance
● Confidence After Making a
Bet
● Peg Study Findings
#
● Effort Justification
● What is it?
● Does hazing work?
● Balance Theory
● What does a balanced triad look like?
#
● Overjustification Effect
● If you want someone to internalize
what you got them to do, should you
pay them a little or a lot?
● What happens if you pay someone
for something they already like to do?
#
● Works when prior attitudes are
WEAK
● Head Nodding/Shaking Study
● Embodied Cognition

ATTITUDES (Psych 201 - Chapter 7 - Spring 2014)

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (16)

Ähnlich wie ATTITUDES (Psych 201 - Chapter 7 - Spring 2014)

Ähnlich wie ATTITUDES (Psych 201 - Chapter 7 - Spring 2014) (20)

Mehr von Melanie Tannenbaum

Mehr von Melanie Tannenbaum (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

ATTITUDES (Psych 201 - Chapter 7 - Spring 2014)