Attitudes
Lecture 7
Attitude
• „Attitude” from Latin. Aptus (fit)
• Attitude:– Learned (conditioning, exposure, vicarious
learning etc.)– Stable (stable disposition)– Evaluation of a target object (emotional
component)– That influences behavior
Attitudes and other concepts
• Habits - behavioral• Values – general goals• Beliefs – probabilistic judgments• Opinions – elements of knowledge system
Functions of attitudes
• Cognitive – source of knowledge• Utilitarian – maximize gains and minimize
losses• Egotistic and defensive – protect values and
identities• Value expression
Structure of attitudes
• Three components of attitudes (ABC: Affective, Behavioral, Cognitive)– EMOTIONAL: evaluation of the target object – COGNITIVE: knowledge about the target object– BEHAVIORAL : behavior towards the target
object
• The most important (definitional) attitudinal componet: emotional
Attitudes form a structure
• Fritz Heider (1958): Concept of „cognitive unit”
• Objects = objects of attitudes• Relations between objects
– Emotional relations• liking • disliking
– Unit relations: • positive (eg. owning, approaching) • negative (eg. avoidance, ignoring, selling etc.)
Cognitive unit
Self
Object A Object B
R1 R2
R3
Cognitive unit
Self
Object A Object B
+ +
+
Balanced unit
Cognitive unit
Self
Object A Object B
+ +
-
Unbalanced unit
Cognitive balance
• Cognitive units may be balanced– My two friends like each other
• Or unbalanced– I am jealous of a friend of my boy-friend
• Affective consistency – condition for cognitive balance
Cognitive balance theory Abelson & Rosenberg (1960)
+
+
- -
-
+
- -
+ -
+ +
Balanced units Unbalanced units
Restoring balance
+
+
- -
-
+
- -
+ -
+ +
Balanced units Unbalanced units
Balanced structure
+
+
+
-+ -
-
-
+
-+
Unbalanced structure
+
+
+
-- +
-
+
-
+-
Theories of attitude change
• Two directions of the relationship between attitude and behavior
• Attitude Behavior– I like him therefore I will help him– He irritates me therefore I will attack him
• Behavior Attitude– I helped him, therefore I like him– I hurt him, therefore I don’t like him
Conditions of attitude change
• Attitude behavior– In order to change behavior one has to change
attitude
• Behavior attitude– In order to change attitude one has to change
behavior (attitude = justification of behavior)
Attitude behavior
• Theories of persuasion (Yale school)• Theory of reasoned action (M. Fishbein & I.
Ajzen)• Elaboration likelihood model (R. Petty & J.
Caccioppo)• Assimilation-contrast theory (M. Sherif)
Behavior attitude
• Theory of cognitive dissonance• Self-attribution theory
Leon Festinger (1957)
Theory of cognitive dissonance
Dissonance = any inconsistency between two beliefs, such that from one of them follows its contradiction
Inconsistency in Festinger’s theory
Behavior(-)
Self-evaluation(+)
I have lied but I am honest
I made a stupid decision but I am rational
I inserted lots of effort
but
I am reasonable
Insufficient reward paradigm
Boring task
Promised reward
Lie
Reward $1 Reward $ 20
Attitude measurement I
Attitudemeasurement II
Conclusions
• Low reward strong dissonance attitude change (behavior justification)
• High reward no dissonance no attitude change
Unjustified effort paradigm
Initiation to a group
No initiation
Boring task
Attitude measurement
Conclusions
• Difficult access to a group more dissonance the group more attractive
• We value more what is difficult to achieve
Post-decisional dissonance paradigm
A B C D E
Choice D Post-decisionaldissonance
Increase attractiveness of DDecrease attractiveness of
other alternatives
Strength of post-decisional dissonance
• Number of alternatives the more the stronger dissonance
• Similarity of alternatives the lower, the stronger dissonance
Who is more persuasive – liked or disliked superior?
Liked superior Disliked superior
Attitude towardseating grasshoppers
Eatinggrasshoppers
Measurement of attitude towardsfood from grasshoppers
Cognitive dissonance theory
• The first dynamic model in social psychology• Continuation
– Paradigm of post-decisional dissonance:• Descriptive models of decision making: pre-decisional
vs. post-decisional dissonance, regret theory of decision making
– Paradigm of insufficient reward• Theory of intrinsic motivation and engagement
– Paradigm of unjustified effort• Theories of entrapment
Effects of insufficient reward
Theory of intrinsic motication E. Deci i R. Ryana• Two motivational systems: extrinsic
(instrumental) and intrinsic• Factors that suppress intrinsic motivation:
– money– deadlines– grades and tokens– competition
Post-decisional vs. pre-decisional dissonance
• L. Festinger –POST-decisional dissonance
• Contemporary descriptive models of decision making (e.g. H. Montgomery) – seeking information in a way to prevent post-decisional regret
PREFERENCES
A B C D E F G
B D E F
B D E F
E
Screening
Choice of promising alternative
Final choice
Decision as search for a dominant structure
Decision making as dominance testing
• Screening stage: elimination of the negatuve• Non-negative stage• Choice of a promising alternatuve• Dominance testing
– Focus on the promising alternative– Increase in attractiveness of the promising alternative
• Creating dominance– Manipulating weights and preferences– Perspective changes
• Final choice (of the promising alternative)
Entrapment – mechanisms and consequences
Rational or rationalizing?
• What does it mean to be „rational”?– Logical and consistent: if you said A you
should say B)– Justified: you should act in a justified way, you
should have good reasons for doing something– Efficient: you should choose the best means to
an end– Critical: you should objectively analyze an
issue from many points of view
Rational decisions
• Have clear goals: know what you want• Don’t decide hastily: consider many possibilities
and many aspects of each alternative• Don’t be involved in wishful thinking – what you
would like to happen doesn’t always happen• Be efficient: choose optimal means to your ends• Be efficient: avoid losses, maximize gains• Learn from your mistakes
Do people always act rationally?
• Sunk costs effect
• Entrapment or to much invested to quit
• Commitment
• Escalation behavior
• Perseverance on unrealistic goals
• Status quo bias
Decision traps
Sunk costs effect
• B. Staw (1976) • Big enterprise produces technical goods• Two main sections
– Consumer products– Industrial products
• Subject: vice-director for finances
„Sunk costs” effect
• $ 10 millions to be assigned to one of two sections• Two conditions:
– Subject decides which section should be given money– Subject has no influence on assignement
• Feedback information on consequences of money assignment:– Positive – the section flourishes– Negative – the section loses
Experimental conditions
department
subjectprofit loss
responsible
notresponsible
New prospects
• Additional $ 20 millions• Distributing the money between the two
sections• Subject decides how much each section gets
Results
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
gain loss
ass
igned a
mount
responsiblenot responsible
Results
• More money assigned to the loser• More money assigned if the subject felt
responsible
Teger (1980) One-dollar auction game
• Rules of the game:– Buying one dollar– Any number of players can bid (minimum two)– Bids should be relatively small and escalate slowly
(e.g., 5c)– This player who bids the highest amount gets the
dollar– The player who bids the next highest amount must
also pay
Two turning points
• Profit for the experimenter: 50c – 55c• Loss for the players: $ 1,05
Results
• Bids up to $10 in order to buy one dollar
Decision traps or entrapment
• Entrapment = a decision making process whereby individuals escalate their commitment to a previously chosen, though failing, course of action in order to justify or „make good on” prior investments
Too much invested too quit
• Waiting for a bus• Continuing a failing marriage/relationship• Staying on unsatisfactory job• Escalation of war which has no chance for
quick resolution• Hazard and gambling: continuing to invest
beyond rational limits• Face-losing politicians
Situational determinants of entrapment
• The decision maker’s investments in the pursuit of the goal can be interpreted as irretrievable expenses („sunk costs”)
• The decision maker must be able to choose between entering/remaining in the entrapping situation or not
• It is never entirely certain that the decision maker’s goal will be realized
• In order to achieve their objective, the decision makers must make investments repeatedly (continual rather than „one-shot” decisions)
When do we fall into a trap?
• Freedom of choice• The sunk costs cannot be retrieved• The goal is uncertain• Continuous investment
How does the entrapment work?
• Growing conflict whether to make continued investments (the pressures to both withdraw from and remain in the situation grow over time)
• An important shift in the decision maker’s definition of involvement– First: clear economic or rational reasons to enter the
situation– Later: shift to „emotional” reasons (attachment,
saving face etc.)– From rational to rationalizing
Experimental demonstrations of entrapment
• Milgram’s experiment on obedience• Zimbardo’s experimental prison
Behavior of „teachers”
100
80
60
50
40
20
10
Light Moderate Strong Very strong
Intense Very intense
Dangerous 450V
„the victim pounded on the wall again, then gets silentThe victim
pounded on the wall in protest at this point Fully 65% of the subjects
obeyed the experimenter’scommand to deliver a 450Volt shock to the learner
% subjects
Labels on the shock generator
How does the trap work – Learning from Las Vegas...
Impressive exteriors
Equally impressive interiors
Improbable scenery
Elegantly served (and cheap!) food
Luxurious rest
Never ending amusement
And last but not least... The play machines everywhere
Good bye Las Vegas...
How to get out of the trap?
• To set an upper limit of investments (money, time, number of victims?)
• „To stop for a moment” – to decide if I want to invest further
• To state that I have lost less than I have thought and in fact I have even gained
• To admit that the future is unknown and that I can lose even more
• Stop worrying about what the others will say• To look into the mirror
Interrupting escalating behavior (1)
• Setting limits (how much can I spend – time, money?)
• Stopping after having reached the limit – do I want to continue?
• Taking a new decision
Interrupting escalating behavior (2)
• To state that I have l lost less than I have thought, in fact I have even gained
• Entrapment = risk-seeking behavior
• Kahneman & Tversky (1979): Prospect theory– People are risk averse for gains and risk-
seeking for losses
Task 1: what would you prefer?
To get:
(A)1 000 PLN for sure
(B) 2 000 PLN if even numbers (2, 4, 6)
nothing if odd numbers (1, 3, 5)
Task 1: what would you prefer?
To give away:
(A)1 000 PLN for sure
(B) 2 000 PLN if even numbers (2, 4, 6)
nothing if odd numbers (1, 3, 5)
Utility curve
Computing Expected Value (EV) of a lottery
• Gains (utility of alternative A vs. B)– (A) + 1 000 PLN x 1,00 = +1 000 PLN
– (B) less then + 2 000 PLN x 0,50 = less then + 1 000 PLN
• Losses (utility of alternative A vs. B)– (A) -1 000 PLN x 1,00 = -1 000 PLN
– (B) less then - 2 000 PLN x 0,50 = less then -1 000 PLN
To leave or to continue?
• Imagine how much you have gained so far risk averse attitude leaving the entraping situation
• Imagine how much you have lost so far risk seeking attitude continuing the entrapment
Interrupting escalating behavior (3)
• To admit that the future is unknown and that I can loose even more– Role of closeness: „impact of goals is inversely
related to their distance – each further step close leads to an increase in the attractive motive force” (Fox and Hoffman, 2002, p. 278)
– Clarity of completion: „increasing clarity of the road to the goals that one has set enhances the motivational strength to persevere in attaining them...” (Fox and Hoffman, 2002, p. 279)
Interrupting escalating behavior (4)
• Stop worrying what the others will say
Interrupting escalating behavior (5)
• Switch from subjective to objective self-awareness (focus on targets beyond the individual vs. self-focus)
Robert Wicklund – theory of objective vs. subjective self-awareness
Myself(subject)
object
Subjective self-awareness
Objective self-awareness (self-focus)
Stimuli triggering objective self-awareness
mirrors
Own voice tape-recorded
Monitors (own image)
audience
Psychological consequences of self-focused attention
• Unpleasant tension• Discrepancy between the standard (e.g.,
norms, values) and behavior• Feeling of guilt• Interruption in executing programs (editing
behavior)• Increasing value-behavior congruency
More and more often I think about face lifting
Increasing value-behavior consistency
Ways used to divert attention
• Gesticulation• Playing with small objects• Cigarettes/alcohol• „starters” in speech (well, uhhmm, yyy...)
How entrapment works: Zimbardo’s prison experiment
http://www.prisonexp.org
When is escalation a good thing?
• Positive forms of involvement– Intrinsically motivating behaviors– Passions