1 / 41

Attitude-Behavior Consistency

Attitude-Behavior Consistency. Psychology of Attitudes (PSY320). Outline. 1. The Principle of Aggregation  2. The Theory of Reasoned Action 3. Theory of Planned behavior 4. Attitude Accessibility  5. Personality Influences. Outline. Lack of consistency in human affairs LaPiere  Corey 

zelda
Télécharger la présentation

Attitude-Behavior Consistency

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Attitude-Behavior Consistency Psychology of Attitudes (PSY320)

  2. Outline 1. The Principle of Aggregation  2. The Theory of Reasoned Action 3. Theory of Planned behavior 4. Attitude Accessibility  5. Personality Influences

  3. Outline Lack of consistency in human affairs • LaPiere  • Corey  • Wicker's review 

  4. Psychometric Principle • Any single measure of behavior / psychological construct (single-act criterion) is not reliable due to the error associated with each single measure (e.g., she is an altruistic person, I need money therefore she will lend me some). SOLUTION? • Aggregation Principle • (e.g., she is an altruistic person, I need money will she lend me money? This is the first time I asked her; I helped her in the past numerous times; she just got a bonus pay at work; therefore she will likely lend me the money).

  5. Generality • The level of attitude-behavior consistency is related to the level of generality of the constructs that are correlated. • Attitudes are general and are measured in general terms (positive or negative), while actions like ‘praying before meals’ are very specific. • Therefore, we should measure attitude (i.e., general) by looking at the general trend among many behaviors (i.e., aggregation).

  6. Theory of Reasoned Action

  7. Theory of Reasoned Action • The Theory of Reasoned Action is premised on the belief that the immediate predictor of behavior is a behavioral intention.

  8. So what predicts behavioral intention? Behavior: Buying erotic magazines Attitude: includes salient beliefs/thoughts (‘it includes beautiful models,’ ‘it makes me feel good’ ‘it make me imagine the good times I will be having when I get married’) • Belief (R)– if you buy an erotic magazine, what is the probability of your salient beliefs coming true (expectancy)? (range from +3 to –3) • Evaluation (e)– how valuable is that salient belief to you? (range from +3 to –3)

  9. Attitude Toward behavior Belief (R) +2 +3 +1 +1 Evaluation (e) +3 +2 -3 +1 (R)(e) +6 +6 -3 +1 +10 Consequences Exciting entertainment Beautiful models Is sexist Funny jokes about sex Total (Σ) ATTITUDE = Σ(R)(e) +10 is pretty high, but will the person buy the magazine? It depends on the person’s subjective norms about the behavior.

  10. Subjective Norms About behavior (NB) -2 -1 +3 -3 (MC) +3 +1 +1 +2 (NB)(MC) -6 -1 +3 -6-10 Important Referents My girlfriend My father My neighbor People in the store Total (Σ) SUBJECTIVE NORMS = Σ(NB)(MC) NB – Normative beliefs (referents’ opinions on magazines?) MC – Motivation to comply (how important is their approval?)

  11. The Complete Model R e NB MC

  12. Meta-Analysis Results Attitudinal Beliefs .53 .62 .68 Normative Beliefs .53

  13. Conclusion • Theory of Reasoned Actions shows that sometimes attitudes fail in predicting / influencing behavior. • Social norms can trump attitude (i.e., exert a more important influence on behavior). • The relative influence of attitudes and social norms is influenced by situational and personality factors and may vary across attitude objects. • The theory does not account for situations in which people do not have control over their behavior (i.e., unable to carry out their intentions).

  14. Theory of Planned Behavior

  15. Theory of Planned behavior Ajzen (1985; 1991) proposed a modification to the Theory of Reasoned Actions. He suggested that perceived behavioral control influenced intention and behavior.

  16. Theory of planned behavior • Specific attitudesare better predictors of behavior than are general attitudes (Davidson & Jaccard, 1979). • Subjective norms: People’s beliefs about other’s view of the behavior in question. • Perceived behavioral control: Extent to which people believe they can perform the behavior.

  17. Theory of Planned Behavior Beh. Beliefs Attitudes Evaluations Intention Behavior Norm. Beliefs Subj. Norms Compliance Perceived Beh. Control

  18. Conclusion • The Theory of Planned Behavior uses attitudes towards behaviors to predict behavior, whereas the original problem was to link attitudes towards objects to behaviors. • The Theory of Planned Behavior neglects some additional influences on behavior. • Automated behavior (habits) may reflect neither attitudes nor social norms.

  19. Predicting Spontaneous Behavior

  20. Accessibility Theory (Fazio) • Core Notion - Attitudes will predict behavior if (and only if) they can be activated from memory at the time of the decision. • Attitude must come spontaneously in the situation • Attitude must influence perceptions of an issue or person, serving as a “filter through which the object is viewed”.

  21. Accessibility Theory • According to Fazio’s model, all the information about a specific subject is contained in one node. • The summary evaluation (i.e., attitude +/-) about the subject is contained in another node, connected to the subject node. • The strength of the association between the subject node and the summary evaluation node determines attitude accessibility.

  22. Accessibility Theory • Weak association between the subject and the summary evaluation→ attitude is inaccessible and unlikely to influence behavior. • Instead, arbitrary aspects of the situation/context will tend to determine behavior.

  23. Accessibility Theory • When attitudes are expressed many times, a strong association develops between the summary evaluation and the subject. • Strong association between the two nodes, then spreading occurs quickly from one node to the other (attitude is very accessible) → influence behavior.

  24. Response Latency • Response latency has been used as a measure of accessibility – i.e., “How long does it take for someone to provide an answer/attitude...?”

  25. Moderators of Attitudes/Behavior Consistency • Three key variables which can moderate the relation between attitudes and behavior: • Qualities of the attitude (attitude factors/nature), • Aspects of the situation (situational factors) • Characteristics of the individual (personality factors).

  26. Qualities of Attitudes • Attitude Strength • Strong attitude are more likely to influence behavior • Ambivalence. People recognize positive and negative aspects of an attitude object - can moderate the relation between attitude and behavior. • High ambivalence: Behavior can be influenced by the positive or the negative aspects (inconsistent). • Low ambivalence: Only positive or negative aspects are activated (consistent).

  27. Self-Monitoring • Self-monitoring is a personality variable thought to influence behavior. • People who are highin self-monitoring behave according to the situation (most likely behave inconsistently). • People who are lowin self-monitoring draw on feelings and attitudes when behaving (behavior is normally much more consistent across situations).

  28. Conclusion • Whether attitudes influence behaviors depends on several factors. • Attitudes have a stronger effect when they are activated by situational cues. • Attitudes have a stronger effect when people are self-aware. • Consistent attitudes have a stronger effect on behavior than ambivalent attitudes.

  29. Are we consistent in our attitudes?

  30. LaPiere Road Trip (1930) • Trip with a Chinese couple through the USA – the couple was refused service only once. • LaPiere wrote to the owners and asked them if they would serve a Chinese couple at their establishment - 90% of the replies said ‘NO.’ Results: • negative attitudes (questionnaire) and positive behaviors (actually serving)!

  31. Corey (1937) • Attitude-behavior consistency and cheating. • Objective: predict from the attitude survey (your attitude towards cheating) who would cheat Results: • No correlation between attitude and behavior.

  32. Wicker’s Review • Wicker (1969) reviewed all the studies on attitude-behavior consistency. Conclusion: • The relationship between attitudes and behavior was very weak. • Psychologists should abandon the concept of an “attitude” (Wicker, 1971).

  33. Psychological foundations of consistency • Consistency and regularity in the physical word are taken for granted. • Human thoughts and feelings are not physical events. They are malleable and modifiable, not compelled by physical forces but obeying laws of their own. • Is consistency in the eye of the beholder? (Michel, 1969)

  34. Psychological foundations of consistency Preference for consistency (Heider, 1944, 1958) We tend to like people who agree with us, to associate positive properties with objects or people we value, to help people we admire, etc. Functional consistency. Need for effective action (a need to maintain consistency between the affective and cognitive components of our attitudes). Need for coherence

  35. Inherent consistency neurophysiological dispositions logical consistency

  36. Empirical evidence • Behavioural consistency • Little evidence • 1930s LaPierre, and others

  37. Predictive validity ? • Do attitudes predict the behaviours? • Ajten and Fishbein (1977) meta analysis 109 investigations, revealed very low correlations and many ns. Results. Correlations between subjective measures of mood and arousal and physiological measures – problematic. Thayer (1970) has shown, self-reports of arousal correlate with physiological measures more so than physiological measures correlate with each other. Thus measures of arousal based on self-reports may be better than measures based on physiological variables.

  38. Video clip

  39. Video clip

More Related