Behavior and

Attitudes
Week 4: Social Psychology
We will answer the
following questions

How well do our attitudes

predict our behavior?
When does a behavior affect
our attitudes?
Why does our behavior affect
our attitudes?
 Attitude
A favorable or unfavorable
evaluative reaction toward
something or someone (often
rooted in one's beliefs, and
exhibited in one's feelings and
intended behavior)
How well do our Wicker (1969), People's expressed attitudes
hardly predicted their varying behaviors:
Student attitudes toward cheating bore

Attitudes predict little relation to the likelihood of their

actual cheating
Attitudes toward the church were only
modestly linked with church attendance on
our Behavior? any given Sunday
Self-described racial attitudes provided
little clue to behaviors in actual situations

Batson and his colleagues (1997)

experimented about MORAL HYPOCRISY All in all, the developing picture
(appearing moral while avoiding the costs of of what controls behavior
being so) emphasized external social
Warnings about the dangers of smoking
affect only minimally those who already influences, such as others'
smoke behavior and expectations, and
Increasing public awareness of the played down internal factors, such
desensitizing and brutalizing effects of
violent programming - yet they still as attitudes and personality.
watch media murder as much as ever
 When Attitudes When SOCIAL INFLUENCES on
Predict Behavior what we say are minimal

When other influences on

behavior are minimal

Our behavior and expressed When attitudes specific to the

attitudes differ is that both are behavior are examined
subject to other influences.
Triandis (1982), said that our
attitudes do predict our behaviors When attitudes are potent
when these other influences on
what we say and do are minimal,
when the attitude is specific to a Bringing attitudes to mind
behavior, and when attitude is
potent
Forging strong attitudes through
experience
Social psychologists never
get a direct reading on
1.When SOCIAL
attitudes. Rather, we
measure expressed
attitudes. Like other
INFLUENCES on
behaviors, expression are
subject to outside
influences. Example: We
sometimes say we think
others want to hear
Today's social psychologists
have some clever means at
their disposal for minimizing
social influences on people's
attitude reports. Some of
these complement traditional
self-report measures of
EXPLICIT (conscious)
attitudes with measures of
IMPLICIT (unconscious)
attitudes
what we say
are minimal
IMPLICIT ASSOCIATION TEST
(IAT) - a computer driven
assessment of implicit
attitudes. The test uses
reaction times to measure
people's automatic
associations between attitude
objects and evaluate words.
Easier pairings (and faster
responses) are taken to
indicate stronger unconscious
associations.
Despite much excitement
over these recent studies
of implicit attitudes
hiding in the mind's
basement, the implicit
associations test is not
reliable enough for use in
assessing and comparing
individuals. And it
produces biases.
For attitudes formed early in
life, such as racial and
gender attitudes, implicit and
explicit attitudes frequently
diverge, with implicit
attitudes often being better
predictor of behavior. For
other attitudes, such those
related to consumer behavior
and support for political
candidates, explicit self-
reports are better predictor
On any occasion, it's not
only our inner attitudes
that guide us but also
the situation we face.
Social influences can be
2. When other influences on
enormous enough to
induce people to violate
their deepest
behavior are minimal
convictions.

Predicting behaviors is like
predicting a baseball or
cricket's player hitting. The
outcome of any particular
turn at bat is nearly
impossible to predict,
because it is affected not
only by the batter but also
by what the pitcher throws
and by a host of chance
factors.
To use research example,
people's general attitude
toward religion poorly
predicts whether they will
go to worship services during
the coming week (because
attendance is also influenced
by the weather, the worship
leader, how one is feeling,
and so forth)
But religious attitudes predict
quite well the total quantity
of religious behaviors over
time. The findings define a
PRINCIPLE OF AGGREGATION:
The effects of an attitude
become more apparent when
we look at person's aggregate
or average behavior than
when we consider isolated
acts.
 3. When attitudes specific to the
behavior are examined
Other conditions further Further studies - more
than 700 studies with
improve the predictive For predicting behavior 260,000 participants -
accuracy of attitudes. says Ajzen and confirmed that specific,
As Ajzen and Fishbein relevant attitudes do
(1977) point out, when Fishbein's theory of predict intended and actual
we measured attitude planned behavior, is behavior. For example,
us a general one and knowing people's attitudes towards condoms
the behavior is very intended behaviors, strongly predict condom
specific we should not and their perceived use. And attitudes towards
recycling (but not general
expect a close self-efficacy and attitudes toward
correspondence between control environmental issues)
words and action predict participation in
recycling.
 4. When attitudes are potent
Much of our behavior is Such mindlessness is
automatic we act out
familiar scripts without adaptive. It frees
reflecting on what we're our minds to work on
doing. We respond to other things. For
people we meet in the habitual behaviors -
hall with an automatic seat belt use, coffee
"Hi." We answer the consumption, class
restaurant cashier's attendance -
question "How was your
meal" by saying, "Fine," conscious intentions
even we found it are hardly activated
tasteless.
 5. Bringing attitudes to
mind
Diener & Wallbom (1976)
If we were prompted to
think about our attitudes experiment on students of
before acting, would we University of Minnesota
be truer to ourselves? regarding their attitudes
Self-conscious people toward cheating. There
are 120 participants, half
usually are in touch with
their attitudes. That of them is not regulated
suggests another way to and another half can see
induce people to focus on themselves through
their inner convictions: mirror. Both are
instructed to finish once
Make them self aware,
perhaps by having them the bell has rung. The
act in front of a mirror. first half tend to cheat
way pass the bell ring.
6. Forging strong
attitudes through
experience
The attitudes that best predict
behavior are accessible (easily
brought to mind) as well as
stable. And when attitudes are
forged by experience, not jut by
hearsay, they are more
accessible, more enduring and
more likely to guide actions. In
one study, university students
all expressed negative attitudes
towards housing shortage. But
given the opportunities to act -
to a sign a petition, solicit
signatures, join a committee, or
write a letter - only those
whose attitude grew from direct
experience acted.
 When does our Behavior
affect our Attitudes?
Role Playing Evil and Moral
A c ts

Saying becomes Interracial

Believing Behavior and
Racial Attitudes

The Foot-in-the- Social

D oor Phenom enon M ovem ents
When does our Behavior affect our Attitudes?
Social Psychology has taught us that we
are likely not only to think ourselves in a
away of acting but also to act ourselves in
a way of thinking. It's true that we
sometimes stand up for what we believe.
But it's also true that we come to believe
in what we stand up for. As we engage
the evidence that behavior affects Sarah is hypnotized and told to take off her
attitudes, speculate why actions affect shoes when a book drops on the floor. Fifteen
attitudes. Consider the following incident: minutes later a book drops, and Sarah quietly
slips out of her loafers. "Sarah why did you take
of your shoes?" ask the hypnotist, "Well my feet
are hot and tired," Sarah replies. "It has been a
long day."
The mental aftereffects of our behavior also appear
in many social psychological phenomena. The
following examples illustrate such self-persuasion.
 Role Playing
Role - a set of norms that defines how people in a given social position ought to behave
Think of a time when you stepped on a new role - being in college. The first week on
campus, for example, you may have been supersensitive to your new social situation and
tried valiantly to act mature and to suppress your high school behavior. At such times, you
may have felt self-conscious. You observed your new speech and actions because they
weren't natural to you. Then one day, something amazing happened: You pseudo-intellectual
talk no longer felt-forced. The role began to fit as comfortably as your old new jeans and
tshirt.

In one study, college men volunteered to
spend time in a simulated prison constructed
in Standford's psychology department by
Philip Zimbardo. Zimbardo wanted to find
out: Is prison brutality a product of evil
prisoners and malicious guards? Or do the
institutional roles of guard and prisoner
embitter and harden even compassionate
people? Do the people make the place
violent? Or does the place make the people
violent?
John Jonhson (2007), when placed in a
rotten barrel, some people become bad apples
and others do not. behavior is a product of
both the individual person and the situation.,
and the prison study appears to have
attracted volunteers who were prone to
aggressiveness. The deeper lesson of the
role-playing studies is not that we are
powerless machines. Rather it concerns how
what is unreal (an artificial role) can subtly
evolve what is real.
 Saying becomes Believing
People often adapt what they say to please their listeners. They are quicker to tell
people good news than bad, and they adjust their message their listener's position.
When induced to give spoken or written support to something they doubt, people will
often feel bad about their deceit. Nevertheless, they begin to believe what they are
saying - provided they weren't bribed or coerced in doing so.
When there is no compelling external explanation, saying becomes believing.

Higgins and colleagues (1978) illustrated

how saying becomes believing. They had
university students read a personality Asked to recall what they had read, they
description of someone and then summarize it remembered the description as more positive
for someone else, who was believed wither to as it was. In short, people tend to adjust
like or dislike that person. The students their messages to their listeners, and having
wrote a more positive description when the done so, to believe the altered message.
recipient liked the person. Having said
positive things, they also then liked the
person more themselves.
 The-Foot-in-the-Door Phenomenon
Foot-in-the-door phenomenon - the tendency for people to have first agreed to a small
request to comply later with a larger request
Experiments suggest that if you want people to do a big favor for you, an effective
strategy is to get them do small favor first.
Researchers posing as drive-safely volunteers asked Californians to permit the
installation of huge, poorly lettered "Drive Carefully" signs in their front yards. Only
17% consented. Others were first approached with a small request: Would they display
three-inch "Be a safe driver" window signs? Nearly all readily agreed. When
approached two weeks later to allow the large ugly signs, 76% consented.

When people commit themselves to public

behaviors and perceive those acts to be their own
doing, they come to believe more strongly in what
they have done. The foot-in-the-door phenomenon is a lesson
worth remembering. Someone trying to
Cialdini and his collaborators (1978) explored a seduce us - financially, politically, sexually
variation of foot-in-the-door phenomenon which - will often use this technique to create a
is the LOW-BALL TECHNIQUE - a tactic for momentum of compliance. The practical
getting people to agree to something. People who lesson: before agreeing to a small request,
agree in initial request will often still comply think about what may follow.
when the requester ups the ante. People who
receive only the costly request are less likely to
comply with it.
 Evil and Moral Acts
After telling a white lie and thinking well that wasn't so bad, the person may go on to tell
bigger lie
Another way in which evil acts influence attitudes is the paradoxical fact that we tend not only
to hurt those we dislike but also to dislike who we hurt.
Attitudes also follow behavior in peacetime. A group that holds another in slavery will likely
come to perceive the slaves as having traits that justify their oppression.
Prison staff who participate in executions experience moral disengagement by coming to believe
(more strongly than do other prison staff) that their victims deserve their fate
Action and attitudes feed each other, sometimes to the point of moral numbness. The more one
harms another and adjusts one's attitudes, the easier harm doing becomes. Conscience is corroded

To stimulate the "killing begets killing" process,

Martens and colleagues (2007) asked University
of Arizona students to kill some bugs. They Others, who initially killed five bugs, went
wondered: Would killing initial bugs in a on "kill" significantly more bugs during an
"practice" trial increase students' willingness to ensuing 20-second period.
kill more bugs later?
To find out, they asked some students to dump
one bug into the coffee grinder and then press the Harmful acts shape the self, but so,
"on" button for 3 seconds (No bugs were actually thankfully, do moral acts. Our character is
killed. An unseen stopper at the base of the insert reflected in what we do when we think no
tube prevented the bug from actually entering the one is looking. Ex. patience test with kids
opaque killing machine, which had torn bits of
paper to stimulate the sound of killing)
Interracial behavior and Racial Attitudes
If moral action feeds moral attitudes, will positive interracial behavior reduce
racial prejudice - much as mandatory seat belt use, has produced more favorable
seat belt attitudes?
US Supreme Court's 1954 decision to desegregate schools, their argument is: If we
wait for the heart to change - through preaching and teaching - we will wait a
long time for racial justice. But if we legislate moral action, we can, under the
right conditions, indirectly affect heartfelt attitudes

In the 10 years after the Civil Rights Act

The idea that runs counter to the presumption of 1964, the percentage of White
that "you can't legislate morality." Yet Americans who described their
attitude change has, as some social neighborhood as all White declined by
psychologists predicted, followed about 20% for each of those measures.
desegregation. Consider: Interracial behavior was increasing.
Following the Supreme Court decision, the More uniform national standards against
percentage of White Americans favoring discrimination were followed by
integrated schools jumped and now decreasing differences in racial attitudes
includes nearly everyone among people of differing religions,
classes, and geographic regions
 Social Movements
We have now seen that society's laws and, therefore, its behavior can have a
strong influence on its racial attitudes. A danger lies in the possibility of
employing the same idea for political socialization on a mass scale.
For many Germans during the 1930's, participation in Nazi rallies, displaying
the Nazi flag, and especially the public greeting "Heil Hitler" established a
profound inconsistency between behavior and belief. Historian Richard
Grunberger (1971) reports that for those who had their doubts about Hitler,
"the German greeting" was a powerful conditioning device. Having once
decided to intone it as an outward token of conformity many experienced
discomfort at the contradiction between their words and their feelings.
Prevented from saying what they believed, they tried to establish their
psychic equilibrium by consciously making themselves believe they said.
 Why does our Behavior
affect our Attitudes?
We have seen that several streams of evidence
merge to form a river: the effect of actions on
attitudes. Do these observation contain any clues
to why action affect attitudes? Social psychology's
detective suspect three possible sources. SELF
PRESENTATION THEORY assumes that for strategic
reasons we express attitudes that make us appear
consistent. COGNITIVE DISSONANCE THEORY
assumes that to reduce discomfort we justify our
actions to ourselves. SELF-PERCEPTION THEORY
assumes that our actions are self-revealing (when
uncertain to feelings or beliefs, we look to our
own behavior, much as anyone else would)
 Self-Presentation:
Impression Management
We spend countless money
The first explanation on clothes, diets, cosmetics,
for why actions affect skin care, and now plastic
surgery - all because of
attitudes began as our fretting over what
simple idea that you others think. We see making
may recall in Chapter good impression as a way to
2. Who among us does gain social and material
rewards, to feel better
not care what people about ourselves even to
think? become more secure in
ourselves and social
identity.
No one wants to look
foolishly inconsistent. To
avoid seeming so, we
express attitudes that match
our actions. To appear
consistent we may pretend
those attitudes. Even if that
means displaying a little
insincerity or hypocrisy, it
can pay off in managing the
impression we are making,
or so self-presentation
theory suggest.
 Self-Justification:
Cognitive Dissonance

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE -
tension that arises when Dissonance theory pertains
one is simultaneously It assumes that we feel mostly to discrepancies
aware of two inconsistent tension, or lack of harmony between behavior and
cognitions. For example, (dissonance), when two attitudes. We are aware of
dissonance may occur when simultaneously accessible both. Thus, if we sense
we realize that we have, thoughts or beliefs some inconsistency, perhaps
with a little justification, (cognitions) are some hypocrisy, we feel
acted contrary to our psychologically inconsistent. pressure for change. That
Festinger argued that to helps explain why British
attitudes or made a reduce this unpleasant and US cigarette smokers
decision favoring one arousal, we often adjust our have been much less likely
alternative despite reasons thinking. than nonsmokers to believe
favoring others that smoking is dangerous.
 Self-Perception Theory

Self-Perception Theory
(proposed by Daryl Bem, Hearing our selves talk We infer our emotions by
1972) assumes that we informs us of our attitudes, observing our bodies and
make similar inferences seeing our actions provide behaviors. A stimulus such
when we observe our own clues to how strong our as growling bear confronts a
behavior. When our beliefs are. This is woman in the forest. She
attitudes are weak or specially so when we can't tenses, her heartbeat
ambiguous, we are in the easily attribute our behavior increases, adrenaline flows,
position of someone to external constraints. The and she runs away.
observing us from the acts we freely commit are Observing all this, she then
outside. self-revealing. experiences fear.
 Why do actions affect Attitudes?
Self-Presentation Self-Justification Self-Perception
(Impression Management) (Cognitive Dissonance) (Self-observation)

been
I'v e y for
.
Ah. g all da
a itin his
w t
I know smoking is bad Here I am smoking again.
I look like a cool smoker for me the statistics aren't as
awful as they say. Anyway, I must like smoking.
I am very healthy I won't
get sick
Thank You
Any questions?
 Face to face class next
week (Feb 16)

Reminders! Consultation of your term

paper can be done online

Long quiz, capturing Lesson

1-4

Lecture and Discussion