Attitudes
Learning objectives
5.1.1 Function and
measurement of attitudes
„ Understand the cognitive, affective and conative components of attitudes
„ Discuss the functional approach to understanding attitudes
„ Distinguish between indirect and direct measures of attitudes. (E.g. Likert scales, semantic differential and projective techniques)
„
Discuss the relationship between attitudes and
behaviour (including the concept of consistency)
5.1.2
Attitude and attitude change
„
Describe and evaluate research into attitude
organisation and change (including cognitive consistency, and cognitive
dissonance)
„
Discuss the nature of prejudicial attitudes and
how they are formed, the relationship between stereotypes and attitudes
(including cultural stereotypes and prejudice between cultures)
LINK
See also Attitude Notes
These are notes obtained via the internet. Although they are slightly advanced, they are still very useful and interesting!
Different psychologists have defined attitudes in many different ways. Haber & Fried (1975) say that attitudes are a predisposition to respond favourably or unfavourably to a particular situation in a particular way. Mednick et al (1975) suggest that an attitude is a predisposition to act in a certain way towards some aspect of the environment. (See Gross, page 435)
From the definitions given above, there are clearly different elements to attitudes. Rosenberg & Harland (1960) suggest that attitudes can be broken down into three components:
„ Affective component: relates to the feelings and emotions associated with a belief and these feelings are termed ‘values’.
„ Cognitive component: refers to the categorisation of the objects, persons or events towards which the attitude is formed.
„ Conative (behavioural) component: refers to the tendencies someone has towards certain actions. The tendencies can be classed as approach tendencies, where positive feelings are involved, or avoidance tendencies where negative feelings are involved.
Attitudes are essential for the well-being of an individual and they serve four functions:
„ Adaptive: we receive favourable responses from others by showing acceptable attitudes. Avoids unpleasant things.
„ Knowledge: attitudes help to structure our knowledge of the social world, making the world more predictable and safer.
„ Self-expressive: define what we are like (including our emotions and feelings) to others.
„ Ego-defensive: helps us to protect us from negative beliefs by, for example, projecting them onto others.
&
Hyperlink: Functions of Attitudes and Values
Notice that the Katz
and Braly model is not the only functional model. A useful exercise is to compare Katz and
Braly with Smith Bruner White.
Hewstone et al (1988) point to two factors which may have contributed to the development of negative attitudes between different cultural groups:
„ Social norms: pre-existing tendencies in society to respond in a certain way to members of other groups
„ Historical factors: attitudes of whole nations reflect the patterns of social and economic relations between cultures at different times in history
An example of this is the attitudes held by Americans
about the Japanese. These became very negative during the Second World War and
around the time of the bombing of
üActivity
Can you think of any other examples, similar to the one given above, where attitudes have changed between different cultures?
Examples like these suggest that the attitudes held by members of different groups towards each other have more to do with the objective relations between the groups than with the familial relations in which they grew up.
In addition to issues of conflict, differences in attitude may come from differences in upbringing and belief. This might be particularly the case with religious attitudes.
!SAQ 1
Outline (a) the functional, and (b) the structural approach to attitudes
Direct methods of measuring attitudes normally involve an interview or questionnaire containing questions about the attitude object (an attitude scale). Various indirect methods have been tried to overcome the problem of social desirability bias. Commonly used scales include:
The Likert scale (1932) is probably the most widely used attitude scale. Typically a set of about 30 statements are prepared about a topic, representing both pro and anti views. The subject rates each statement on a 5 or 7 point scale: (e.g., strongly agree — agree —undecided — disagree — strongly disagree). The attitude is calculated by adding the scores from each statement.
The Thurstone scale (1931) is a list of statements prepared and rated by judges in terms of how favourable or unfavourable they are with respect to the chosen topic. Each statement is then assigned an average value to reflect its status and a selection of statements chosen which represent pro- and anti- positions. Participants then indicate which statements they agree with and a score is calculated from the value assigned to their selected statements.
The semantic differential technique LINK (Osgood et al, 1957) is a list of at least nine bi-polar adjectives, selected to include words representative of each of the three factors or dimensions of the attitude object. For example, rating the connative meaning of the word ‘pornography’:
FACTORS BI-POLAR ADJECTIVES
evaluative: good +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3 bad
potency: strong +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3 weak
activity: active +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3 passive
Participants are asked to indicate which value represents the meaning of the word in terms of the adjectives presented. The final score is a total of these values.
Social Distance Scale (Bogardus, 1925) is where attitudes are inferred from the actions of the participant. The participant indicates the degree of intimacy which would be acceptable towards an individual or group, e.g., ‘Would you live next door to one?’ Each question has a value assigned it, and the sum of these will indicate the strength of attitude.
Sociometry LINK (
Projective techniques, LINK such as the Rorschach, or Thematic Apperception Tests (TAT) can be used to express attitudes as well as personality measurement.
&
!SAQ 2
a) Distinguish between a Likert and Thurstone scale.
b) What are the advantages and disadvantages of each of these scales?
c) What is social desirability bias?
d) How do indirect methods (e.g. inconspicuous observation) attempt to overcome this bias?
üActivity
Carry out an attitude survey, using the Likert scale. For example you could design a questionnaire to survey attitudes towards social security recipients. If this were part of a coursework project, you could compare the responses between males and females, or two different age groups, younger (20-30 year olds) and older (50-60 year olds).
Attitudes represent predispositions to behave but how we really act in a situation will depend on the consequences of our behaviour and on situational factors. Sometimes there is a conflict between different attitudes and behaviour that may represent a compromise between them. Thus it is not surprising that psychologists have often found a lack of fit between attitudes and behaviour. A famous early investigation that attempted to demonstrate this was conducted by LaPiere (1934), (Gross, page 437, Box 18.1).
Ajzen and Fishbein (1977) suggest that attitudes can predict behaviour when very specific attitude-measurement techniques are used. A high degree of specificity of attitude and behaviour is required. (See the study by Davidson & Jaccard (1979), Gross page 437, Box 18.2)
&
!SAQ 3
a) Give at least three reasons why research does not always find a fit between attitudes and behaviour.
b) Explain what is meant by the ‘theory of reasoned action’.
How people change their attitudes is of considerable theoretical and practical significance. It should be no surprise, therefore, to find that the study of attitude change is a thriving area of social psychological research. Various theories (models) of attitude change have been proposed, and the most important of these are based on the principle of cognitive consistency. The pioneering work in this respect was conducted by Heider.
Heider believed that there is a psychological force that drives people to keep their beliefs about things in a state of balance. If you like Joe and Joe likes Freda, then if you also like Freda your cognitions are in balance. But problems arise if you don’t like Freda. In this unbalanced state you will feel some pressure to either like Joe a little less, or Freda a little more. Either way your attitudes will change as a result.
Heider’s theory conforms to many people’s experiences, but it also has some research support. For example, it has been found that balanced structures are easier to learn than unbalanced ones. DeSoto (1960) gave lists of people to participants, and a list of relations between these people (i.e. who liked whom). The lists varied to the extent to which they were balanced. The balanced ones had significantly better recall.
Because of its limited scope, balance theory was influential not so much in itself, but in the extent to which it stimulated other theories, including Osgood & Tannenbaum’s (1955) principle of congruity[1]. However, the most important development has been the cognitive dissonance theory.
Festinger’s version of balance theory, called cognitive dissonance theory, suggests that when people have in mind two or more inconsistent thoughts or beliefs, they experience a state of dissonance. This ‘negative drive state’ is unpleasant, so they are motivated to try to reduce it by altering one or more of the cognitions in order to re-establish a state of consonance. In this way, Festinger gave greater substance to Heider’s theory by identifying the actual force towards balance — an internal drive state. Moreover, the motivational effect of this drive state was, it was claimed, as real as drives such as hunger and thirst. Because the theory was much more specific in its predictions, it generated an enormous amount of research evidence designed to test the theory. For example, it has been established that the magnitude of dissonance depends on the following factors:
„ the importance of the dissonant element
„ the number of dissonant and consonant elements; the higher the ratio of dissonance to consonance, the greater the dissonance felt
„ the amount of cognitive overlap, i.e. two events with little in common cause greater dissonance (Choosing between walking and watching a video is more dissonant than the television and the video.)
„ the amount of commitment, i.e. issues of no importance to the person do not arouse dissonance
„ the degree of choice: if action is forced, the amount of dissonance may be minimised
„ personality: anxious people experience greater dissonance and have lower tolerance for it
üActivity
Identify examples of situations in which you have experienced cognitive dissonance. For example, you might have tried to give up smoking because you knew it was dangerous and expensive but still enjoyed the feeling of smoking. How, if at all, did you attempt to resolve the dissonance?
Situations in which dissonance has been aroused experimentally include:
„ Post-decisional dissonance
„ Dissonance resulting from effort
„ Forced-compliance or counter-attitudinal behaviour
&
Studies in these areas have provided some impressive support for the theory of cognitive dissonance, but it has not been without its critics. For one thing, it has been pointed out that there are alternative theories that can explain the results of the studies just as well. Other psychologists have questioned whether it is possible to infer dissonance independently of the attitude change.
&
!SAQ 4
a) Distinguish between dissonance and consonance
b) What sort of attitude change can result from making a decision?
c) Outline Aronson & Mills’ (1959) study.
d) What is self-perception theory? How does it differ from dissonance theory?
There are some important terms to clarify at the outset. Prejudice is defined as an attitude and discrimination as an action. They may not be consistent. I might be prejudiced toward someone but not prepared (for fear of legal action, for example) to discriminate against them. Stereotypes are over-simplifications that may lead to prejudice or discrimination. They can lead to people being treated purely on the basis of the group to which they belong, and not as individuals.
&
üActivity
Think about some people you know who appear to have prejudiced attitudes against a minority group. Do you think it is because of their personality, the experiences they have had or the influences of other people?
!SAQ 5
a) Distinguish between prejudice, discrimination and stereotyping.
b) What is meant by the terms ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’?
Allport (1954) argued that there are five stages of discrimination and the degree of discrimination develops from the early to the later stages. They are:
„ anti-locution: verbal attacks against another group.
„ avoidance: systematically avoiding contact with another group, particularly through defining features that make the group identifiable (colour, language, style of dress etc.)
„ discrimination: poorer treatment of the other group in terms of civil rights, freedom, employment etc.
„ physical attack: individual attacks on members of the other group or on their property.
„ extermination: deliberate attempts to destroy an entire group (genocide).
Sadly, the 20th Century contains numerous examples where discrimination has developed to final stage of genocide.
In explaining the origins of prejudice, one important group of theories suggests that prejudice has a strong emotional component and that its roots can be found in the personality — certain personalities are more likely to be prejudiced than others.
As is considered in detail in Unit 1.3, frustration is an important source of aggression. Prejudice is a displaced form of aggression onto minority groups (out-groups) who act as scapegoats.
& Reading: Gross pages 462-463 ‘Scapegoating: frustration, aggression & prejudice’
Another important theory that emphasises emotional needs is the authoritarian personality theory by Adorno et al (1950). These researchers wanted to find out the reasons why people were anti-Semitic (it was, of course, the immediate aftermath of the war against Nazi Germany). They found that anti-Semitic individuals tended to be ethnocentric — they had a strong belief in the superiority of their own ethnic group and were hostile to all other groups. They also tended to be authoritarian — an intolerance for weakness, a belief in strong punishment for wrongdoers, and a submissive respect for their in-group’s leaders. In short, they possessed all the characteristics of a stereotypically fascist personality.
Adorno et al. found correlations between authoritarian attitudes and a harsh, punitive upbringing, and explained this link in Freudian terms: repressed hostility projected onto outgroups; insecurity leading to an excessive concern with power and status; and an inflexible way of thinking that made it difficult to tolerate doubt and ambiguity. Authoritarians tended to be submissive to those above them, and aggressive towards those beneath them. Not everyone accepts this Freudian perspective, however. Other researchers suggest that social learning theory can offer a more straightforward explanation for the development of the authoritarian personality, in that authoritarian parents act as models for their children to imitate.
Despite criticisms
of their methodology, and the fact that their study ignored authoritarianism of
the left (i.e. Stalinism), the findings of Adorno’s team are widely supported
by research. There are indeed people whose fears and hostilities surface
as prejudice (Altemeyer, 1992) and for whom feelings of moral superiority
combine with brutality to people perceived as inferiors. Apartheid in
&
[See also Section 5.2.2 on obedience to authority.]
üActivity
If we accept that prejudice is a feature of a particular personality type, what implications do you think this might have for reducing prejudice?
!SAQ 6
What are the limitations of the personality approach to prejudice? (See Gross, page 463.)
Competition is also a source of
frustration. Winning at
According to realistic conflict theory, competition for material resources leads to
„ hierarchical (authoritarian) organisation
„ increased loyalty to the ‘ingroup’
„ derogation (hatred) of the ‘outgroup’
„ biased evaluation of in-group and out-group products and achievements
& Reading: Gross pages 464-465 ‘Intergroup conflict: realistic conflict theory’
!SAQ 7
What does Sherif’s study, the Robbers’ Cave, tell us about the nature of prejudice?
Racism may be linked to the view that the
outgroup is interfering with the symbols of the culture of the ingroup.
Marching on the 12th July is a statement of Protestant hegemony in
We have a tendency at times to see the world as divided into ‘us’ (the ingroup) and ‘them’ (the outgroup). Tajfel has suggested that it takes very little to get people to show favouritism to the ingroup and unfairness to the outgroup. Even when the us-them distinction is made on the most trivial grounds, people still show some bias to the ingroup. This was demonstrated by Tajfel using the so-called minimal group paradigm.
Because we evaluate ourselves (and derive our social identity) partly in terms of the
groups we belong to, seeing our own group as superior helps to boost our
self-esteem. The price for this, unless we are very careful, is that we may
come to discriminate against others who do not belong to our group. This
process may be harmless enough, if the distinctions are based on identifying
with a band or a football team; but in places like
Social identity theory is also discussed in Unit 5.5.2.
Once established, prejudice is difficult to shift. If prejudice becomes the norm, people will find it easier to be prejudiced than not. In such cases, prejudice arises not from hatred and aggression, but from the need to be accepted and liked.
& Reading: Gross pages 463-464 ‘The impact of social norms: prejudice as conformity’
If you concluded in the previous Activity that prejudice embedded in the personality would be difficult to eradicate, then it is now time to be more positive. As new norms emerge and fashions change, then prejudice can (and will) disappear.
These approaches suggest that prejudice is largely a matter of belief. Racist and sexist people believe that Blacks and women are inferior to Whites and men. How they come to develop these attitudes is not the result of experiencing frustration or having had a particularly harsh upbringing. It is instead the result of inaccurate ideas about what these groups are really like — in other words stereotypes.
Stereotypes may arise because we have a tendency to see outgroup members as less varied than they actually are (the outgroup homogeneity effect). An extreme example of this is when someone says, in relation to another ethnic group, ‘They all look the same to me!’ A number of studies have shown that when White students are shown pictures of faces of Whites and Blacks, and then pick them out later, they are more accurate in recognising White faces. This own-race bias is also shown by Blacks and Hispanics (Spanish speaking Americans).
üActivity
Try a discrimination test, like the one mentioned above, using Trolls, or some similar group of toys. Do people your age perform as well in recognition tests as ten-year-olds? Does this support the outgroup homogeneity effect?
Stereotypes cannot be explained without taking account of cultural factors (LeVine &
Campbell, 1972). They are the products of social
perception, after all. The stereotype of Blacks in
While this view is a plausible account of how stereotypes develop, it does not explain how they persist in the face of so much disconfirming evidence. The explanation given by cognitive psychologists is the phenomenon known as illusory correlation: if we expect to see a correlation between two things (Asians and shop-keeping, for example) then we will see it no matter what. A relatively few instances of Asian shopkeepers confirm that the correlation is true; we either ignore, or forget, the many exceptions. One way or another, stereotypes are difficult to overcome.
&
!SAQ 8
Explain what is meant by (i) the outgroup homogeneity effect, and (ii) the illusory correlation.
Each of the theories advanced to explain prejudice also leads to a logical strategy for the reduction of prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behaviour.
üActivity
Imagine that you live in a
divided community such as
&
One of the most commonly cited approaches to the reduction of prejudice is intergroup contact. The aim is to increase contact between different groups. Research suggests that mere contact alone is not sufficient but that it must be interdependent and co-operative. There must be equal status contact and pursuit of common goals.
&
It was suggested that there are five key conditions necessary for reduction of prejudice (Cook, 1978):
1. Co-operation between groups: when groups work together toward a common goal prejudice is reduced
2. Familiarity: getting to know members of the outgroup individually on a personal basis
3. Equal status: it is necessary for groups to have equal status in order to work together co-operatively
4. Support: any attempts at co-operation must be supported by a social network such as the government and the community
5. Exposure to non-stereotypical individuals: prejudices will change more quickly when more people are encountered who don’t fit into the stereotyped system
[See also Unit 5.5.2; Conflict and conflict resolution.]
The cognitive perspective suggests that stereotypes are the foundation of prejudice and discrimination. Therefore, they must be challenged if attitudes are to change.
& Reading: Gross pages 471-472 ‘Conclusions: what to do about stereotypes’
!SAQ 9
Describe each of the following ways of reducing prejudice: pursuing common goals, increased social contact, and decategorisation.
Exam question
Can a change in attitude be the cause of a change in behaviour? Discuss with reference to appropriate theories, concepts and empirical studies (20)
Answer notes
In your answer, you should include reference to:
„ the components of attitudes
„ the consistency and inconsistency between attitudes and behaviour. (You could use the LaPiere study as a basis for arguing that behaviour is determined by factors other than attitudes.)
„ theories of attitude consistency and change (particularly cognitive dissonance). Remember to mention the reliability and validity of attitude measures.
Show an appreciation of the shortcomings of studies and theories and try to give some alternative explanations.
Ajzen,
Fiske, S. T. and Taylor, S. E. (1991) Social Cognition. 2/e.
Myers, D. G. (1996) Social psychology. 5/e. McGraw Hill
Chapter 11: ‘Prejudice: disliking
others’.
Zebrowitz, L. A. (1990) Social
Perception.
Shorter than the Fiske
and Taylor book but very thorough.
Zimbardo, P. G. and Leippe, M. R. (1991) The Psychology of Attitude Change and Social
Influence.
Discusses attitude
change in the broad context of social influence.
Allport, G. W. (1954) The Nature of
Prejudice.
Adorno, T.W. et al (1950) The Authoritarian Personality. NY: Harper & Row.
LeVine, R. A. & Campbell, D. T. (1972)
Ethnocentrism.
Moscovici, S (1976) Social Influence and Social Change.
Tajfel, H. & Fraser, C. (1978) Introducing social psychology.
[1] Our view is that detailed consideration of this mathematically based (and rather dated) theory is inappropriate for A level studies.