P. 1
Attitude Concept Measurement 07

Attitude Concept Measurement 07

|Views: 1|Likes:
Published by Abhishek Chopra

More info:

Published by: Abhishek Chopra on Feb 16, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Defining Attitude Concept

Eagly & Chaiken (1993): emphasize the tripartite (multicomponent) classification. tendencies to evaluate an entity with some degree of favor or disfavor, ordinarily expressed in cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses and formed on the basis of cognitive, affective, and behavioral processes. Evaluating = refers to all classes of evaluative responding, whether overt (verbal) or covert (nonverbal), cognitive, affective, or behavioral.

Defining Attitude Concept
Tripartite ( trilogy of mind ) originally linked to Faculty Psychology Tripartite view of attitudinal responding: do attitudes have all three aspects? Grounded in 18th C. Enlightenment view of attitude (Cognition, Affection, Conation act of striving). Kant, Leibniz, Scottish School: interest in consciousness and introspection. Debates about how many innate faculties of mind existed.

Defining Attitude Concept
Preceded development of experimental psy in 19th C., and faded with its rise of latter in early 1920 s. Wundt, late 19th C in Germany, associationism was antianti-introspection and discredited Faculty Psychology. But trilogy of mind remained in Psychology s vocabulary. William McDougall (1923), Outline of Psychology (wrote 1st social psy text in 1908)

Defining Attitude Concept
McDougall (1923): We often speak of an intellectual or cognitive activity; or of an act of willing or of resolving, choosing, striving, purposing; or again of a state of feeling. But it is generally admitted that all mental activity has these three aspects, cognitive, conative, and affective

Defining Attitude Concept
Tripartite view in contrast to Thurstone (1931: Attitude is the affect for or against a psychological object. ); & later, Fishbein & Ajzen. Influenced Allport (1935): An attitude is a mental or neural state of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence on the individual s response to all objects and situations to which it is related.

Defining Attitude Concept Tripartite view played central role in attitude theory and attitude change research in its heyday in 50s and 60s. and the consistency of responses (formed on the basis of 3 different types of processes). Rosenberg & Hovland (1960) model: Attitude is an inferred property of the 3 response classes. .

past behaviors or behavioral intentions. Model suggest that attitudes are separate cognitive entities which may be accessed from memory independent of the affective. affective/emotional. cognitive. Do attitudes have to have all 3 aspects? Z&R: categorization of a stimulus object along an evaluative dimension based upon 3 general classes of information: cognitive.Defining Attitude Concept Zanna & Rempel (1986) evaluative appraisal model. or behavioral information on which they are based. .

3. the model becomes single component (evaluative.Defining Attitude Concept 6 implications of this view: 1. When evaluations are based primarily on affect produced by the object. 2. When evaluations are based primarily on utilitarian beliefs about an attitude object. That these classes of information can determine evaluations separately or in combination. preferences) . the model is belief based.

If attitudes are based on different sources of information. Are such attitudes differentially susceptible to different methods of persuasion? .Defining Attitude Concept 4. do equivalent evaluations based on different sources differentially predict and guide behavior? (Priming) 6. self5. When evaluations based on inferences from past behavior. model is like self-perception.

Defining Attitude Concept Attitudes as tendencies to evaluate . But the attitude is not the response per se. . Attitude is the tendency or latent property of the person that gives rise to judgments and categorizations.-there is an implicit or explicit response to an entity based on the evaluative residue of past experience (or beliefs or feelings) that predisposes the person to a favorable or unfavorable response. Attitudes can have varied antecedents on the input side. and varied consequences on the output side.

Some attitudes are relatively enduring (formed early in life and carry through life. others are formed then changed. N. Schwartz: Attitudes-as-construction view. Most if not all attitudes are unstable. Not same as context effects latent construct can be stable but sensitive to context. Equates variability in the expression of attitudes with variability in the evaluative tendency that constitutes attitudes. .Defining Attitude Concept Attitudes as Enduring or temporary constructions. constantly emerging anew in specific situations. some formed but fade) Attitudes-asview.

Attitudes of which the person is not conscious at the moment of action (implicit attitudes) are also strongly predictive of behavior.Implicit and Explicit Attitudes Chen & Bargh (1999): categorize good vs. bad. . Access attitude from memory. Nonconsciously predisposes behavior toward object.

Myers (1990): our attitudes predict our actions if. Bias toward the conscious operation of attitudes. not automatic activation. Greenwald & Banaji (1995) on implicit attitudes: attitudes: Implicit attitudes are introspectively unidentified (or inaccurately identified) traces of past experience that mediate favorable or unfavorable feeling. we are conscious of our attitudes (p.Implicit and Explicit Attitudes D. as we act. .90). thought. or action toward social objects.

one of which is more accessible than the other? Dual Attitude Model (Wilson. 2000) . & Schooler.Implicit and Explicit Attitudes What about those times when people have more than one evaluation of the same attitude object. Lindsey.

What is this person s attitude toward African Americans? . As an adult. he adopts egalitarian views and abhors prejudice of all kinds.Dual Attitude Model Working Example: A White American reared in a racist family who learned to be prejudiced against African Americans.

other is explicit attitude). .Dual Attitude Model Dual Attitude Model (Wilson. Proposes that the attitude people endorse at any point in time depends on whether they have the capacity to retrieve the explicit attitude. and whether explicit overrides implicit. which are different evaluations of the same attitude object (one is automatic. & Schooler. Lindsey. 2000) Model proposes that people can have dual attitudes. implicit attitude.

. and influence implicit responses (uncontrollable responses and ones that are not seen as an expression of attitude and therefore are not controlled) Greenwald & Banaji. 1995. are activated automatically.Dual Attitude Model Remember: Implicit attitudes are evaluations that have an unknown origin (people are unaware of the basis of their evaluation).

.Dual Attitude Model 5 Basic Hypotheses: 1. A(e) requires more capacity and motivation to retrieve from memory. it overrrides A(i) and A(e) is reported. 2. When able to retrieve A(e). A(i) is automatically activated. A(e) and A(i) toward same attitude object can coexist in memory. When dual attitudes exist.

e.. Even when A(e) is retrieved.g. whereas Ai.Dual Attitude Model 3.. Attitude change techniques target A(e) but not A(i). A(e) s change relatively easily. A(i) influences implicit responses (i. 4. change more slowly. neural imaging). uncontrollable responses like nonverbal behaviors) or responses that they do not view as an expression of their attitude and do not attempt to control (e. like old habits. .

. People with dual attitudes report the attitude that is most accessible. dual attitudes. Dual attitudes not same as ambivalent attitudes or attitudes with discrepant affective and cognitive components.Dual Attitude Model 5. Define attitudinal ambivalence vs. don t experience a subjective state of conflict from holding dual attitudes.

Segue to Measurement Direct measures: rely on self-reported attitudes. feelings. Indirect measures: do not alert respondents to the measures: identity of the object of the attitude being measured. Indirect measures rely on more circuitous methods of obtaining info. or behaviors toward attitude objects. . Assume that self-reports are of questionable validity selfbecause people are frequently unaware of their attitudes or unwilling to disclose them publicly. measures: selfAsked direct questions about their thoughts.

Different Types of Evaluative Response .

Lack of introspective access to implicitly assessed attitudes (introspection may increase awareness). selfprejudicial attitudes). 5. 2005) 5 accounts for low r s between explicit and implicit: 1.g. lack of correspondence ).ImplicitImplicit-Explicit Measures (Hofmann... MethodMethod-related characteristics of the two measures (e. 2. . 3. A(e) that are spontaneous correlate more highly with A(i)] 4. et al. Motivational biases in explicit self-reports (e. Factors influencing the retrieval of information from memory [dual attitudes model. Complete independence of the underlying constructs.g.

24 (sd=. research topic involved. effortful retrieval? higher r s with spontaneous self-report self(less thought) . Overall effect size = .. various explicit measures used.ImplicitImplicit-Explicit Measures (Hofmann. et al. 2005) Quantitative meta-analysis (126 studies) metaUsed IAT as implicit measure. awareness of A(i).g.14) Moderators (e.

Attitude Measurement .

Attitude Measurement .

Attitude Measurement .

. Fishbein & Ajzen s behavioral criteria: Self-report Selfvalidity problems can also be addressed by measuring behavior appropriately.Behavioral Indicators Assumption: that proper measurement on the behavior side is equally important and that we do not have to abandon attitude construct as long as we use properly scaled behavioral criteria and a valid attitude measure.


Specific act or single act criterion: Should criterion: include 4 elements (action. Repeated observations of same single act: repeated observations of same behavior at different observation times (e. 2.. time. unobtrusive measure of popularity of an art exhibit). Measure can be dichotomous or continuous. Observations combined into repeated observation criterion.Behavioral Indicators 1. . context.g. target).

Multiple act criterion: Observation of criterion: different behaviors.Behavioral Indicators 3. . Multiple act. repeated observation: Gold observation: standard. averaged. Cell entries can be summed. scaled. 4.

Attitude Measurement .

behavioral components. affective.Return to Multimethod Approach Guglielmi (199): Multidimensional view of prejudicial attitudes that makes use of multimethod strategies . Argues for both implicit and explicit measures of cognitive. focused on psychophysiological methods. . Esp.

used info collected earlier to establish accuracy . Sigall and colleagues (1971): trying to account for decline in anti-Black sentiment antiusing the adjective checklist procedure.Return to Multimethod Approach Long history. attached electrodes. Was the change due to social desirability? Hooked up participants to fancy machine. beginning with Bogus Pipeline.

Return to Multimethod Approach The asked to rate on 7-point scale how 7characteristic each of 22 traits was of Blacks and Whites (half rated each group). . no machine. In order to determine to what extent people are in touch with their real feelings E allegedly checked participant s verbal response against machine s reading. Control: same task.

Same with No Lie MRI. . Same concept as polygraph and lie detection suspects need to believe that the machine will unmask their deception.Return to Multimethod Approach Found that students were much more likely to assign negative traits to Blacks under the bogus pipeline condition than Control. leads to them spilling their guts. Significant racial prejudice exposed. and the polygraph industry claiming efficacy. Inc.

Return to Multimethod Approach Which approaches are best? How does one choose? Does it really matter which technique one uses? What general conclusions should be reached? .

intergroup attitudes). . One s choice of measurement strategy can affect the results obtained and conclusions drawn about focal attitude (esp.  Various assessment techniques are not interchangeable.Some general conclusions Caveat: Answers depend in part on the attitude objects under investigation.

race.Some general conclusions 2. ethnicity). . but social desirability biases more problematic in certain contexts than others (atts toward fat and toward gay/lesbian people vs. 3. etc. Use of more subtle self-report measures and indirect selfmeasures yields a different picture. physiological reactions. Which set of findings more closely represents true attitudes? Results from direct measures must be viewed with some skepticism.g. reaction times following racial primes.) uncover more negative feelings and beliefs. Responses that are difficult to control (e.. gender.

Need such an approach to detect attitudinal subtleties (e.Some general conclusions 4. 1995) . A combination of indirect and direct measures may be needed to fully understand people s attitudes toward some groups and other attitude objects..g. Fazio et al.

do not try to hide their negative feelings (either because prejudice is OK or because they fail to recognize that their attitudes are prejudiced) . truly prejudiced : high scores on both direct and indirect measures. low prejudice scores on both direct and indirect measures.Some general conclusions Fazio et al: Whites can be divided into three categories with respect to attitudes towards Blacks: truly nonprejudiced : no negative beliefs or feelings about Blacks.

but negative attitudes selfmore apparent on more subtle measures (e. .g. but are motivated to control their prejudiced responses. Point: one needs to adopt a multi-method multiapproach and compare responses to both direct and indirect measures to detect these differences.Some general conclusions mixed group: have automatic negative reactions to Blacks.g.. RTs). look nonprejudiced on direct.. some behavioral measures) or measures that tap uncontrollable responses (e. self-measures.

Physiological measures tap affective component. 6. . stereotype measures more cognitive. but in fact only modestly correlated.Some general conclusions 5. cognitive. and behavioral measures are equivalent. Different instruments are designed to measure different aspects of intergroup and other kinds of attitudes. Tempting to always think that affective. unobtrusive behavioral measures and social distance measures intended to assess discriminatory tendencies.

(Dovidio.29Point: Researchers measurement strategies will be shaped by the particular facets of the attitudes of greatest interest to them. yet experience negative feelings toward those groups. and often they will find it necessary to use more than one type of measure. Can t assume that tripartite attitude model holds all or even most of the time (Schneider. pp. Others deny having negative beliefs about outgroups.29-30).. Brigham.g. 2004.Some general conclusions e. . pp. & Gaertner. Johnson. yet believe it is wrong to act on them. 1996): Some people hold negative beliefs about outgroups.

In a worstworst-case scenario.46) . p. Or make kids smokers. it could reverse a halfhalf-century of antismoking education. (Gertner. policy and litigation in a flash. the more it might encourage smokers not to quit.IntraIntra-attitudinal Structure Matters: The allure of safer tobacco products  The more successfully a cigarette reduces risk. It might. Or lure ex-smokers to resume extheir habit. do exactly the opposite of what it is intended to do. in other words. 2005.

Tobacco harm reduction Availability of low-yield cigarettes has led to lowpublic perceptions of safer cigarettes. Myers. underscoring need for science to fill the information gap on attitudes toward harm reduction and federal regulation of reduced harm products (H. Similar concerns have been raised about the marketing of reduced harm products. 2000. NEJM).R. 140. Ashes . 2004. American Journal of Public Health. Title V FDA Regulations of Tobacco Products. 2/14/03) . Out of the Health. but with no resultant decrease in morbidity (Fairchild & Cosgrove. referred to House Subcommittee on Health.

. Potentially reduced-exposure products (PREPs): reduced(PREPs): tobacco products that have been modified or designed in some way to reduce users exposure to tobacco toxins. lozenges.. Two categories variants of traditional tobacco cigarettes (e. new cigarettes that heat rather than burn tobacco). nicotine patch).g.. or pharmaceutical agents that are meant to aid in smoking cessation (e.Two Key Background Concepts   Harm reduction: relates to actually seeing a reduction: reduction in mortality or morbidity with the use of a product.g. nicotine gum. smokeless tobacco.

Consistent with prior research in other social issue domains. .The Psychology of Attitudes: Role of Attitude Structure: Structure: Cognitive versus affective bases Experience with smoking / harm reduction Knowledge about smoking / harm reduction Stark. Borgida. & Pickens (2006): The psychological bases of attitudes may influence the way consumers respond to ads about reduced harm/reduced risk products. Kim.

and Wisconsin).2 years  21. 95.Method Survey: Minnesota Center for Survey Research sent to 1. Fall 2003 438 adult participants returned the survey (38% return rate)  58. North Dakota. Iowa.9% smoked in last 30 days.7% Caucasian  Mean age: 54. .300 randomly selected households in 5-state 5Upper Midwest region (Minnesota.9% Male. South Dakota.

163. p<.163. p<.346  Consistency: b=.551.Predicting attitudes toward harm reduction: reduction:  Affective score and experience significantly predict  More positive feelings.006 Experience: .099  Knowledge: b=.0001 Score:  Cognitive Score: b=. being a smoker.055.099  Experience: b= -. lead to more positive harm reduction attitudes  Affective Score: b=.394. p<. p<. p<.

079. p<.0001  Cognitive score: b= -. Predicting attitudes toward harm reduction by level of experience: experience: Smokers attitudes are best predicted by their feelings. p<.44  NonNon-smokers:  Affective score: b=.477.0001 . non-smokers attitudes are best nonpredicted by their thoughts and beliefs  Smokers:  Affective score: b=. p<.414.122. p<.534  Cognitive score: b=.

Does structure matter and for whom?   For smokers. toward harm reduction. . thoughts and beliefs were the primary predictor. relaxation) may create positive attitudes that are difficult to counter with information on the health risks of these products. reduction of cravings. for non-smokers. their feelings about harm reduction smokers. were the primary predictor of overall attitudes non-smokers. Feelings associated with smoking (taste.

Persuading smokers to use these products to reduce their health risk. Structural bases of attitudes may matter when: when: Educating people about these products and their associated risks. Strong feelings toward harm reduction might result in resistance towards some types of health messages increased interest in resistance processes in persuasion field. .

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->