Attitudes. Attitude Formation and Change - Essay Example

? What are attitudes? Discuss psychologists' attempts to explain attitude formation and change. Attitudes are relatively permanent evaluations that are made and used in understanding the world around us. According to Baron (1997; pp. 112), an attitude is a “lasting evaluation of the social world”. According to Eagly, & Chaiken, (1993; in Bhoner, 2001; pp 240), it is the “psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favour or disfavour”. On the basis of these definitions, it is possible to conclude that any given attitude has three component parts – the cognitive, the affective and the behavioural components. According to Rosenberg and Hoveland (1960; in Bhoner, 2001; pp. 241), all three – affective, cognitive and behavioural processes are involved in the formation of an attitude; and the said attitude is then manifested in all three domains to some extent. The cognitive component pertains to the thoughts and beliefs that the individual holds about the attitudinal object; the affective component contains all the emotions and feelings that one has about that said attitudinal object; and the behavioural component relates to the way in which an individual behaves towards the said attitudinal object (Hogg, & Vaughan, 2010; pp 149). Functions of Attitudes Research has found that people hold attitudes on almost every element of our daily lives because these attitudes help us in making sense of the things around us. Of the many functions that attitudes serve; the important ones are the knowledge function, the utilitarian function, the social identity function and the self esteem function (Bhoner, 2001; pp 242). The knowledge function of an attitude is the extent to which it helps us decide how the individual wants to respond to an attitudinal object as it presented itself. Essentially, attitudes work like heuristics and provide shortcuts for us to use when dealing with multiple stimuli (Sears, Peplau, Freedman & Taylor, 1988; pp 158). The utilitarian function of an attitude is the extent to which one associates the attitudinal object with rewards and punishments. This function is based in learning theory; and provides us with positive (possibility of rewards) and negative (possibility of punishment) information that one associates with the object (Eagly, & Chaiken, 1993; pp.488). On the basis of this information, one may take decisions about our behaviour. The social identity function is one that helps one in the expression of core values and ideas; and in adjusting oneself to the social atmosphere one finds oneself in. Attitudes also help in maintaining the level of self esteem by differentiating us from the negative elements observed around us; and also by finding similarities with the positive elements that are found around us. In this manner, one is able to see differences between oneself and others who one holds negative attitudes towards; and similarities with those one holds positive attitudes towards. Thus, though this comparison; one is able to boost our self esteem (Eagly, & Chaiken, 1993; pp. 485). Measurement of Attitudes Over the years, psychologists have tried to study and measure attitudes using a number of methods; and a branch of psychometrics is dedicated to the development of tools that measure attitudes effectively. The most often used and popular tools to measure attitudes are scaling methods (Hogg, & Vaughan, 2010; pp 176). The simplest among these are the scales designed by Likert; which measure the intensity and direction of the attitude for each element of the attitudinal object using simple statements. Often, the responses categories are on agree – disagree or like – dislike dimensions (Oppenheim, 1992; pp 195). While, traditionally the Likert scales have an odd number of response categories (usually 5 or 7), where the middle category represents a neutral category; some researchers do prefer to design tools that do not allow for neutral responses in order to do away with ‘safe’ response patterns of participants. Likert scales are popular since they are easy to use, and with multiple statements; the scores for each statement can be combined to mimic equal interval scores that may be used in further analysis. Another popular method of measuring attitudes is the use of Thurstone scales. The Thurstone scaling method involves the development of a set of attitude statements, which are then sorted into piles and graded by expert judges. The final order of the statements is such that they progress from the least intensity of the attitude to the highest at seemingly equal intervals (Oppenheim, 1992; pp. 190). The process of using the Thurstone scaling method is cumbersome and thus, not used very often by psychologists. On the other hand, another method that measures a single dimension of an attitude at a time is the Guttmann scaling method. The Guttmann scales are designed in such a way that the items are progressive in terms of attitude intensity; and the respondent typically will have marked all lower intensity items given that he / she has marked a higher intensity one (Oppenheim, 1992; pp.202). The uni-dimensionality of the scale is one of its chief problems. New methods of scaling have been developed and popularised over the years – Semantic differential scaling being one of the most often used. The semantic differential scales attempt to identify the ways in which people view attitudes and attempts to elicit the meanings ascribed to them using a (typically) 7 – point rating scale for each dimension of the attribute (Hogg, & Vaughan, 2010; pp 178). Over the last couple of decades, there has been growing interest in the qualitative understanding of attitudes and research into the value of using qualitative measures has been conducted by various researchers. For example, Haddock & Zaana (1998) have documented the qualitative techniques that may be used in the development of qualitative research questions in the process of attitude measurement. Association with Behaviour The main reason why the measurement of attitude has been of interest to psychologists is that there is a common-sense notion that attitudes are linked to behaviour (Hogg, & Vaughan, 2010; pp 156). But time and again, psychologists have found that the correlation between attitude and behaviour is quite weak (LaPiere, 1934; Triandis, 1982; Kraus, 1995 [in Baron, & Bryne, 1997; 120-4]); and a number of factors have been identified as determinants of whether attitudes will lead to action. Situational variables like the prevailing Norms of the society, rules and constraints that inhibit certain behaviour, processing time, and peer influence do have a strong effect on the extent to which an individual will act on an attitude he / she holds. Still more factors that influence the attitude – behaviour link are related to the attitudes themselves. The strength of an attitude is probably the most significant factor that does influence the extent to which one acts upon that attitude (Kraus, 1995; in Baron, & Bryne, 1997; pp 124). The attitudes that are older, stronger and more important to an individual in terms of its ability to define the individual are more likely to be acted upon. It is also important that the attitude be accessible to the individual at that point in time (Eagly, & Chaiken, 1993; pp 131). Research has found that the more often an attitude is activated; the less time it takes for the individual to act upon it (DeBono & Snyder, 1995; in Baron, & Bryne, 1997; pp 125). Also, attitudes that are formed from firsthand experience are more likely to get acted upon than second – hand attitudes (Regan & Fazio, 1977; in Bhoner, 2001; pp 275). Another important aspect of the attitude is the extent to which it is Specific to a particular attitudinal object rather than about a general class of objects. A number of studies have shown that specific attitudes have stronger links to action as compared to general attitudes. The extent to which the said attitude is consistent with other attitudes held by the individual also plays an important role in predicting the possibility of action (Norman, 1975; in Bhoner, 2001; pp 274). Given all these and more factors; the relationship between attitudes and action is not a simple one; but contingent on a large number of variables. This underlines the value of understanding the process of forming and changing attitudes. Development of Attitudes Attitude formation has been studied by psychologists in an attempt to understand how an individual develops attitudes towards so many elements of their lives. It has been accepted by most theorists that attitudes are formed through the process of learning. In an attempt to understand the process of forming attitudes; the theories of learning have been applied to the process of forming attitudes (Baron, & Bryne, 1997 [pp. 113-4]; Hogg, & Vaughan, 2010 [pp. 169 – 72]). The most accepted of these in terms of attitude development are the theories of Social Learning and Classical Conditioning. According to researchers like Staats & Staats (1958; in Baron & Bryne, 1997; pp 114) children are likely to form attitudes that they learnt to exhibit as a result of forming associations between the attitudinal object and the experiences of self and responses of significant others. A typical example would be the negative attitude a child exhibits towards medical settings given that experience with such settings only occur during a negative experience; the child typically associates negative feelings and thoughts with medical settings and may exhibit this attitude during further visits (Eagly, & Chaiken, 1993; pp 392). Children also learn a number of attitudes from significant others; and often mimic their attitudes (Eagly, & Chaiken, 1993; pp 637). Often, these processes are not conscious; and an indication that attitude formation has occurred is only apparent in retrospect. Cacioppo, Priester & Berntson (1993; in Baron & Bryne, 1997; pp 115) verified that learning of attitudes could even be influenced by the muscle movement made during exposure to the attitudinal object. Studies have shown that instrumental conditioning and social comparison also play a role in the process of attitude formation. Edwards (1954; in Sears et al, 1988; pp 164) stated that people take positions that are potentially positive – i.e. – they provide positive reinforcements as compared to those that provide negative reinforcements. He called this the Expectancy – Value Approach. The Cognitive response theory of Ostrom and Brock (1981; in Eagly, & Chaiken, 1993; pp 59) has also been used in explaining the development of attitudes and through associating with positive or negative thoughts. Maio, Esses and Bell (1994; in Baron & Bryne; 1997; pp 117) have provided evidence that individuals are capable of forming attitudes about individual objects or groups of objects without ever having had direct contact with the concerned attitudinal objects; but through the attitudes of others deemed significant. Thus, social comparison and social influence do become an important part of attitude formation. Research in the 1990’s attempted to identify genetic links to attitude formation (Baron & Bryne; 1997; pp 118). Studies of note include the research of Waller et al (1990; in Baron & Bryne; 1997; pp 118) and Knox (1994; in Baron & Bryne; 1997; pp 118) who found that twins who are identical have more similar attitudes as compared to fraternal twins, and unrelated persons. While it is tempting to consider this as proof of heritability of attitudes; it is necessary to note that other more heritable aspects of personality like temperament and intelligence are more likely to be implicated in the similarity of attitudes shared my monozygotic twins. Changes in Attitudes Although attitudes are believed to be relatively permanent and not easily changeable; there are constant efforts made by the world to influence and change the attitudes that people hold (Eagly, & Chaiken, 1993; pp 234). The advertisements and appeals that are encountered on a daily basis are examples of such efforts. While there is evidence that attitudes do change over time in order to make attitudes more consistent across conditions; overall, the longer an attitude has been held, the more likely it is that the attitude will be stronger and more difficult to change (Tesser, 1978; in Eagly, & Chaiken, 1993; pp 143). When there is an attempt to change the attitude of an individual; there are a number of factors that play a role. The message, the communicator, the receiver of the message and the situation itself all contribute to the relative success or failure of attitude change. Traits of the communicator like his / her expertness, trustworthiness, likability, reference groups, attributions made to the communicator, and such factors play an important role in the likelihood that this individual will influence the attitudes of the target (Eagly, & Chaiken, 1993; pp 247-9). The message needs to be consistent in itself, and discrepant from the alternate perspective that is unhelpful to the target audience (Hogg, & Vaughan, 2010; pp 201). Messages that arouse fear and stress are more likely to be responded to given that individuals are motivated to reduce such experiences. It has also been noted that messages that present aggressive and strong arguments are more likely to be noticed and responded to; as they are more likely to intrude upon the attention of individuals (Sears, Peplau, Freedman & Taylor, 1988; pp 207). The medium through which the message is sent and the frequency with which the message is sent to the target audience and the relevance of the message to that audience also play a role in the possibility that the message will lead to a change in attitudes in the expected direction (Zajonc, 1968; in Sears et al, 1988; pp. 209). Individuals who respond to attempts at persuasion are open to new information; unwary of the message being sent, or interested in the subject matter of the message. Typically, individuals who get persuaded without their active involvement have lower self esteem, a low need for cognition and lower awareness of the attempts at persuasion (Hogg, & Vaughan, 2010; pp 203). Situational factors like the presence or distracters and the forewarning of intent to persuade do affect the likelihood of persuasion occurring. Attitude change requires that the message being projected is learnt and the position taken is understood by the receiver. It is also equally important that the emotional associations with the attitudinal object are transferred (Lorge, 1936; in Sears et al, 1988; pp 196). The extent to which the target attitude is consistent with other attitudes held also plays a very important role (Sears, Peplau, Freedman & Taylor, 1988; pp 196). A state of consonance leads to the strengthening of the attitude; while a state of dissonance contributes to the change in attitude strength and direction (Festinger, 1957; Eagly, & Chaiken, 1993 [pp. 506]). According the Festinger (1957; in Sears et al, 1988; pp 167), the likelihood that an individual changes his / her attitudes increases with the increase in the amount of dissonance they feel. Given that dissonance is a negative experience; the individual is motivated to reduce it; and thus is likely to effect an attitude change in order to achieve consonance. According to the Elaboration Likelihood model of Petty and Cacioppo (1986; in Sears et al, 1988; pp. 164); there is a relationship between the complexity of the message and the amount of attention paid to it. A complex or important message is likely to lead to attitude change only when the central route that involves higher processing of the message is used (Sears, Peplau, Freedman & Taylor, 1988; pp. 197); whereas non – important and simple messages are more likely to see success when processed by the peripheral route that involves the use of heuristics to evaluate the message (Hogg, & Vaughan, 2010; pp 205). There are many example – in research as well as anecdotal when persuasion fails; and attitudes do not change (Baron & Bryne; 1997; pp 136). This typically happens because of reactance that the recipient of the message has towards the attempt at attitude change (Rhodewalt & Davison, 1983; in Baron, & Bryne, 1997; pp 136); previous knowledge of the attempt at attitude change (Petty and Cacioppo, 1981; in Baron & Bryne, 1997; pp 137) and selectively avoiding the message so as not be influenced by it. Thus, it is seen that attitudes are an important area of research not only for the Psychologists interested in understanding the way human experiences occur; but also for the Applied Psychologists who are interested in finding ways to enhance the experiences of human beings. References Baron, R.A., & Bryne, D. (1997). Social psychology, (8th ed.). New York: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon Eagly, A.H. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.  Hogg, M.A. & Vaughan, G.M. (2010). Social Psychology. (6th ed). London: Prentice Hall. Haddock, G. & Zanna M.P. (1998). On the use of open-ended measures to assess attitudinal components. British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol.37, pp. 129-149.  Oppenheim A.N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement (2nd edn). London: Pinter. Sears, D.O., Peplau, L.A., Freedman, J.L., & Taylor, S.E. (1988). Social Psychology. (6th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Bhoner, G. (2001) Attitudes. In M. Hewstone, W. Stroebe & G.M. Stephenson (eds), Introduction to Social Psychology :A European perspective (3rd ed). Oxford: Blackwell. Pp. 239 - 284 Read More