Changing Attitudes

549
Attitudes
of the attitude is in line with a subjective norm, our view of how the important people
in our lives want us to act. If there is a conflict between what we want to do and what
a subjective norm tells us we should do, we may end up behaving in ways that are
inconsistent with our attitudes (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005). For example, someone who
believes that the rights of gay men and lesbians should be protected might not go out
and campaign for this cause, because doing so would upset valued family members or
co-workers who are strongly against it. Third, attitude-consistent behavior is more likely
when people have perceived control, a belief that they can actually perform the behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005). The cognitive and emotional components of your attitude toward the homeless might be positive, but if you don’t believe you can do anything to help them, you are not likely to even try. Finally, direct experience with the
object of an attitude increases the likelihood of attitude-consistent behavior (Kenrick
et al., 2005). So you might be more likely to actively support, and perhaps even participate in, efforts to help the homeless if you have come to know a homeless person
on your campus than if you have only read about their plight.
Forming Attitudes
doing
2
learn
by
A REMINDER ABOUT
POVERTY Photographs such
as this one are used by fundraising organizations to remind us of the
kind thoughts and charitable feelings we
have toward needy people and other worthy causes. As a result, we may be more
likely to behave in accordance with the
cognitive and affective components of our
attitudes and make a donation to these
causes. Browse through several newspapers and popular magazines and calculate
the percentage of such photos you find in
ads for charitable organizations.
People’s attitudes about objects begin to appear in early childhood and continue to
emerge throughout life. How do these attitudes form? Genetics may have a certain
amount of influence on some attitudes (Abrahamson, Baker, & Caspi, 2002), but social
learning—what children learn from their parents and others—appears to play the
major role in attitude formation. Children learn not only the names of objects but also
what they should believe and feel about them and how they should act toward them.
For example, a parent may teach a child not only that snakes are reptiles but also that
they should be feared and avoided. So as children learn concepts such as “reptile” or
“work,” they learn attitudes about those concepts, too (Bohner & Schwarz, 2001).
Classical and operant conditioning can also shape positive or negative attitudes
(Baron, Byrne, & Branscombe 2006). Advertisers pair up enjoyable music, soothing colors, or sexy images with the products they try to sell (Pratkanis & Aronson, 2001), and
parents, teachers, and peers reward children for stating particular views. The mereexposure effect is influential as well. All else being equal, attitudes toward an object
become more positive the more frequently people are exposed to the object (Zajonc,
2001). One study even found that newborns preferred to listen to stories that had been
read aloud while they were still in the womb (Cacioppo, Berntson, & Petty, 1997). This
exposure effect helps explain why commercials and political ads are aired over and over
and why some rock bands won’t include new songs in a live concert until their fans
have repeatedly heard and come to like the recorded versions.
Changing Attitudes
The nearly $100 billion a year spent on advertising in the United States alone provides
just one example of how people constantly try to change our attitudes. Stop for a moment
and make a list of other examples, starting, perhaps, with the persuasive meslearn sages of groups concerned with abortion or gun control or recycling—and
by
doing don’t forget about friends who want you to think the way they do.
2
Whether a persuasive message succeeds in
changing attitudes depends mainly on three factors: (1) the person communicating the
message, (2) the content of the message, and (3) the audience who receives it (Johnson,
Maio, & Smith-McLallen, 2005). The elaboration likelihood model of attitude
change—illustrated in Figure 14.2—provides a framework for understanding when and
how these factors affect attitude change. The model is based on the idea that persuasive messages can change people’s attitudes through one of two main routes.
The first is called the peripheral route because, when it is activated, we devote little
attention to the central content of the persuasive message. We tend to be affected instead
by peripheral, or surrounding, persuasion cues, such as the confidence, attractiveness, or
Two Routes to Attitude Change
elaboration likelihood model
A model
of attitude change suggesting that people can change their attitudes through
a central route (by considering an argument’s content) or through a peripheral
route (by relying on irrelevant persuasion cues).
550
Chapter 14
FIGURE
Social Psychology
14.2
The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Attitude Change
The central route to attitude change involves carefully processing and evaluating a message’s content (high elaboration). The peripheral route
involves little processing and evaluation of message content (low elaboration) and relying instead on persuasion cues such as the attractiveness of the person making the argument (Cacioppo, Petty, & Crites, 1993).
Central route
High elaboration
Persuasive message
Careful processing
of information
Degree of attitude change
depends on quality of arguments
Careful processing
does not occur
Attitude change depends
on presence of persuasion cues
Peripheral route
Low elaboration
other characteristics of the person who delivers the message. These persuasion cues
influence attitude change even though they may have nothing to do with the logic or
accuracy of the message itself. Commercials in which movie stars or other attractive
nonexperts endorse pain relievers or denture cleaners are designed to encourage the
peripheral route to attitude change.
By contrast, when the central route to attitude change is activated, the core content
of the message becomes more important than the communicator’s characteristics in
determining attitude change. A person following the central route uses logical steps—
such as those outlined in the Thinking Critically sections of this book—to analyze the
content of the persuasive message, including the validity of its claims, whether it leaves
out pertinent information, alternative interpretations of evidence, and so on.
What determines which route people will follow? Personal involvement with the content of a message is an important factor. The elaboration likelihood model predicts that
the more personally involving a topic is, the more likely it is that the central route will
be activated (Fabrigar et al., 2005; Holbrook et al., 2006). Suppose, for example, that
you hear someone arguing for the cancellation of all student loans in Chile. This message might persuade you through the peripheral route if it comes from someone who
looks attractive and sounds intelligent. However, you are more likely to follow the central route if the message proposes eliminating student loans at your own school. You
might still be persuaded, but only if the logic of the message is clear and convincing.
This is why celebrity endorsements tend to be more effective when the products being
advertised are relatively unimportant to the audience.
Persuasive messages are not the only means of changing attitudes. Another approach
is to get people to act in ways that are inconsistent with their attitudes in the hope that
they will adjust those attitudes to match their behavior. Often, such adjustments do
occur. Cognitive dissonance theory attempts to explain why.
Online Study Center
Improve Your Grade
Tutorial: Cognitive
Dissonance Theory
cognitive dissonance theory
A theory
that attitude change is driven by efforts to reduce tension caused by inconsistencies between attitudes and
behaviors.
Cognitive Dissonance Theory Leon Festinger’s (1957) classic cognitive dissonance theory holds that people want their thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes to be in
harmony with one another and with their behavior. When people experience inconsistency, or dissonance, among these elements, they become anxious and are motivated to
make them more consistent (Elliot & Devine, 1994; Olson & Stone, 2005). For example, someone who believes that “smoking is dangerous” but who must also admit that
“I smoke” would be motivated to reduce the resulting dissonance. Because it is often
difficult to change behavior, people usually reduce cognitive dissonance by changing
attitudes that are inconsistent with the behavior. So rather than quit smoking, the
smoker might decide that smoking is not so dangerous after all.
551
Attitudes
Attitude toward the task
Favorable
12
11
10
9
8
7
Unfavorable
$20.00
$1.00
Experimental condition
High justification (low dissonance)
Low justification (high dissonance)
Source: Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)
FIGURE
14.3
Cognitive Dissonance and
Attitude Change
in review
According to cognitive dissonance theory,
people given $20 to say that a boring task
was enjoyable had clear justification for
lying. So they should experience little
dissonance between what they said and
what they felt about the task. In fact, their
attitude toward the task did not change
much. However, people who received only
$1 had little justification to lie and reduced
their dissonance mainly by displaying a
more positive attitude toward the task.
In one of the first studies of cognitive dissonance, Festinger and his colleague Merrill
Carlsmith (1959) asked people to turn pegs in a pegboard, a very dull task. Later, some
of these people were asked to persuade a person who was waiting to participate in the
study that the task was “exciting and fun.” Some were told that they would be paid $1
to tell this lie. Others were promised $20. After they had talked to the waiting person,
their attitudes toward the dull task were measured. Figure 14.3 shows and explains the
surprising results. The people who were paid just $1 to lie liked the dull task more than
those who were paid $20 (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959).
Hundreds of other experiments have also found that when people publicly engage
in behaviors that are inconsistent with their privately held attitudes, they are likely to
change their attitudes to be consistent with their behavior (Stone & Cooper, 2001).
These experiments have found that attitude-behavior inconsistency is likely to change
attitudes when (1) the inconsistency causes some distress or discomfort in a person and
(2) changing attitudes will reduce that discomfort. But why should attitude-behavior
inconsistency cause discomfort in the first place? There is considerable debate among
attitude researchers about this question (Wood, 2000).
Currently, the most popular of several possible answers is that discomfort results
when people’s positive self-concept (e.g., “I am honest”) is threatened by recognizing
that they have done something inconsistent with that self-concept. For example, if they
have encouraged another person to do something that they themselves didn’t believe
in or that they themselves wouldn’t do, this inconsistency makes most people feel
uncomfortable. So they change their attitudes to reduce or eliminate the discomfort
(Stone & Cooper, 2001; Stone, 2003). In other words, if people can persuade themselves
that they really believe in what they have said or done, the inconsistency disappears,
their positive self-concept is restored, and they can feel good about themselves again.
The circumstances that lead to cognitive dissonance may be different in the individualist cultures of Europe and North America than in collectivist cultures such as
Japan and China. In individualist cultures, dissonance typically arises from behaving
in a manner inconsistent with one’s own beliefs, because this behavior causes selfdoubt. But in collectivist cultures, dissonance typically arises when such behavior
causes the person to worry about one’s reputation with others (Kitayama et al., 2004).
Cultural values also operate in shaping dissonance-reducing strategies. For example,
people from individualistic cultures can reduce the unpleasant feelings that accompany
FORMING AND CHANGING AT TITUDES
Type of Influence
Description
Social learning and
conditioning
Attitudes are usually formed through observation of how
others behave and speak about an attitude object, as well
as through classical and operant conditioning.
Elaboration
likelihood model
People change attitudes through either a central or
peripheral route, depending on factors such as personal
involvement.
Cognitive
dissonance
Holding inconsistent cognitions can motivate attitude
change.
?
1. According to the elaboration likelihood model, people are more likely to pay close
attention to the content and logic of a persuasive message if the
route
to attitude change has been activated.
2. Holding attitudes that are similar to those of your friends illustrates the
importance of
in attitude formation
3. According to cognitive dissonance theory, we tend to reduce conflict between
attitudes and behaviors by changing our
.