in short essay explain how attitudes influence behavior

Psychology Discussion

How attitude influences our behaviour.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

How Attitude Influences our Behaviour  – Answered!

Attitudes are said to influence our behaviour. But many times it may not be true. There are arguments on both sides. Some people say that our attitudes determine our behaviour. It is true also.

For example, if a person has a negative attitude towards some other person, he may not express it directly, rather he may not show any interest to join him in a party, or to share a common platform- with that person.

On the other hand, there are opinions which state that there is no valid proof to believe about the influence of attitude on behaviour.

An important contribution to the study of behavioural prediction from attitudes has been made by Martin Fishbein (1967, 1975). He argues that there is no good reason to believe that an overall measure of attitude toward an object will necessarily predict a specific behaviour.

According to him attitude is a hypothetical concept abstracted from the totality of a person’s feelings, beliefs and behavioural intentions regarding an object. Thus an isolated specific behaviour may be unrelated, or even negatively related to the overall attitude.

Fishbein maintains that, in order to predict a specific behaviour, we should not focus on people’s overall attitude toward the object of that behaviour, but on their attitude toward the behaviour.

Attitude about specific behaviour depends on such factors as evaluations of the likely consequences of the behaviour and social norms concerning the behaviour. For example, a person may have a positive attitude for inter-caste marriage, but because of social norms he may show negative behaviour like disapproving it.

At times we may not like to have certain attitudes. But such a tendency may lead to incompatibility among people in the society who are living together. At that time we try to develop attitudes according to situations.

This has been explained by a famous theory called ‘Balance theory’ (Heider, 1958). The basic tenet of this theory is that there is a tendency to maintain or restore balance in one’s attitude structures. Because unbalanced attitude structure leads to uncomfortable and unpleasant feelings.

Although the influence of attitudes on behaviour is not clearly discernible; two theories viz., (1) Cognitive dissonance and (2) Self- fulfilling prophecy help us to understand the direction of attitudinal influences.

Cognitive dissonance refers to the feeling of inconsistency in feelings, beliefs and behaviour (the three components of attitudes).

This feeling makes people uncomfortable. So they get motivated to rectify the situation by modifying their behaviours that cause dissonance or disagreement. For example, a nurse may have a negative feeling to work in a Tuberculosis ward with a belief that her health will be affected. But she will not show it directly in her behaviour, but try to get a change from that ward itself or remains absent from her duties.

Self fulfilling prophecy is the process by which we try to convert our attitudes, beliefs and expectations-into reality. If we predict that something is going to happen, we will try very hard to make it happen. For example, if we feel that we are competent, we will undertake challenging tasks.

A nurse who has a negative attitude to work in major operation theatre may take it as a challenge and develop skills to work there. Consequently, we gain experience and skills that make us more competent, so that we accomplish even more. However, if we have negative attitudes towards ourselves, we will not provide ourselves with the chance to become competent.

In this way road between behaviour and attitudes is a two-way street. In some situations our behaviour is influenced by our attitudes and some other times our behaviour will determine our attitudes. For example, when a person is asked whether he likes music, he will examine his own behaviour to decide his attitude position. “I must like it, because I am regularly listening to it” or “I must not like it, I rarely listen music”. Here, his attitudes are determined on the basis of his behaviour.

In this way the regulation of balance in society, cognitive dissonance, self fulfilling prophecies are the factors which influence our behaviours and attitudes.

Related Articles:

• 5 Important Determinants of Attitude
• Attitude: Compilation of Essays on Attitude | Human Behaviour | Psychology
• Essay on Attitude: Top 8 Essays | Human Behaviour | Psychology
• Measurement of Attitude: How to Measure Social Attitude?| Psychology

Why Does Our Behavior Affect Our Attitudes?

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Human behavior is an element of inborn traits and socialization traits; when human beings interact, they shape each other’s behavior, values, norms, and personal perception.

According to psychologists, behavior can be defined simply as an expression of one’s attitude, perception, values, and believe to an act; human behavior is molded by internal feelings, thoughts, and beliefs; what come-outs or the acts that human call behaviors are the end result (Freud & Strachey, 1976). Psychologists have accepted that there is a close link between human behavior and attitude; this paper analyzes why behavior influences attitude.

Human behaviors and attitude

An act can be said to have become a behavior when it a person has repeatedly acted in a certain direction; according to the literature of human behavior, it is personal but shaped by the external environment that someone is operating. It is appreciated that human beings develop a certain mode of behavior from factors arising from socialization right from childhood and these follow him to adulthood; however attitude follow behavior in some circumstances . Our values, beliefs and morals are largely influenced by the society we live in, culture, and hereditary factors. Some situations where behavior can shape our attitudes they include:

Self presentation or creation of a self image

In this case, a person may be confronted with as situation that he is expected to adopt a certain behaviors that he thought that the behaviors belonged to a certain class of people. He may be role-playing to seek conformity with a certain community or class of people. When in the role-playing, he may have his attitudes towards something that he has seen it differently changed.

For example, the case of person who feels that the poor are poor because they do not think on ways they can use to gain wealth, then the person may be shooting a certain film in the slums where he interacts with the people and assumes the role of being one of them to get information and shot his movie.

At the end of the stay with the slums people, the person learns that life is difficult and the people lack the basics that they need to think and be creative, as he had anticipated they needed to do. Such a person is more likely to change his attitude toward the poor and learn how to respect them.

Cognitive dissonance

It is not always that people advocate for what they have positive attitude; they may be the advocators of something they rarely can believe or even do; however with time they are conditioning their minds towards the thing and they will eventually find themselves having a changed attitude.

Take the example of a person who feels that his employer is not acting well and is a nuisance, when such a person is chosen to teach new entrants on the company’s core values, ethics, and its human resources policies. He will offer the positive side of the story and in the end; he or she will have his attitude changed because of the positive talks engaged.

Dissonance after decision

For deviant people in the society, some consequences are likely to follow them; from the experience they get from the consequences of their deviant behavior, they may be forced to change their attitude.

This mostly happens with offenders; the behavior that gets someone to jail may have resulted from inner perception or belief, when such a behaviors is punished, the person may change the behavior for the good. On the other hand, if someone was doing good anticipating some gains, but instead of gains, he got some setbacks, he is more likely to have a negative attitude toward the good behavior.

For example, in work places, hard work is advocated and employers promise to compensate, reward and recognize those people who have an outstanding results; hard work is a behavior. In the case that after successful satisfaction of the employer an employee is not rewarded or in worse situation someone who had not done as much gets credit, then the hard-worker is more likely to develop a negative attitude towards working hard as well as his employer.

Self-perception

After being engaged in a certain behavior that someone thinks is good, what follow is a self-reflection of the decision as well as the behavior and the results of our actions. In the case that the act injured someone who had not been anticipated or un-justified, someone feels a sense of guilt that can change his attitude towards the act (Harold & Beigel, 1990).

For example, a teacher who supports punishment of students may change his perception after punishing a student then the student faints. The teacher may feel responsible of the act and his attitude towards canning completely changed. When attitude follows behavior, a person must have a reflection of the actions undertaken and if there is cognitive dissonance, the change of attitude is likely to follow.

Harold, R., & Beigel, A. (1990). Understanding of human behavior for effective police work . New York: San Diego.

Freud, S., & Strachey, J. (1976). The complete psychological work of Sigmund Freud (standard edition) vol. (1-24 ).New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

• Cognitive Dissonance and Reduction Strategies
• Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games
• Cognitive Dissonance Definition
• History and Causes of the Sexual Deviants in People
• Sex and the city. Media Analysis
• The Psychoanalytic Approach to Personality
• Deviant behavior: Prostitution
• Causes of Different Personalities and Character Traits
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, September 20). Why Does Our Behavior Affect Our Attitudes? https://ivypanda.com/essays/why-does-our-behavior-affect-our-attitudes/

"Why Does Our Behavior Affect Our Attitudes?" IvyPanda , 20 Sept. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/why-does-our-behavior-affect-our-attitudes/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Why Does Our Behavior Affect Our Attitudes'. 20 September.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Why Does Our Behavior Affect Our Attitudes?" September 20, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/why-does-our-behavior-affect-our-attitudes/.

1. IvyPanda . "Why Does Our Behavior Affect Our Attitudes?" September 20, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/why-does-our-behavior-affect-our-attitudes/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Why Does Our Behavior Affect Our Attitudes?" September 20, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/why-does-our-behavior-affect-our-attitudes/.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Write for us

• Sex Educations
• Social Exchange Theory
• Self-Determination
• Sexual Assault
• Emotional Contagion

Understanding Attitudes and Behavior: Exploring the Psychology behind Human Actions

Abstract: This comprehensive blog post explores the intricate relationship between attitudes and behavior in psychology. It delves into the nature of attitudes, including their definition, components, formation, and structure. The influence of internal factors, such as beliefs and values, as well as external factors like social norms and cultural influences, are examined. The blog post discusses theories and models that explain attitudes and behavior, including the Theory of Planned Behavior, Cognitive Dissonance Theory, Social Learning Theory, and Elaboration Likelihood Model. Real-life applications of attitudes and behavior are explored in various contexts, such as interpersonal relationships, the workplace, health behavior, and social change. The abstract concludes by emphasizing the importance of understanding attitudes and behavior for personal growth, improved relationships, and positive societal impact.

Attitudes and Behavior

Table of Contents

Attitudes and behavior are fundamental aspects of human psychology that shape the way we perceive, interpret, and respond to the world around us. In this blog post, we will explore the intricacies of attitudes and behavior, shedding light on the factors that influence them and the significance they hold in our lives.

The Nature of Attitudes

Components of attitudes.

Attitudes are evaluative judgments formed towards objects, people, or ideas. They consist of three main components: cognitive, affective, and behavioral.

• Cognitive component: This component reflects the beliefs and thoughts associated with the attitude. It involves the individual’s knowledge and understanding of the object of their attitude. For example, someone with a positive attitude towards recycling may believe that it helps protect the environment.
• Affective component: The affective component of attitudes involves emotions and feelings associated with the attitude. It represents the individual’s emotional response or evaluation of the object of their attitude. For instance, a person with a negative attitude towards spiders may experience fear or disgust when encountering one.
• Behavioral component: The behavioral component of attitudes reflects the behavioral intentions and actions resulting from the attitude. It pertains to how individuals are likely to behave towards the object of their attitude. For example, someone with a pro-environmental attitude may actively participate in recycling programs or reduce their energy consumption.

Formation and Structure of Attitudes

Attitudes are formed through a variety of processes, including social learning and direct experience. They can be structured hierarchically, with more influential attitudes at the core.

• Formation of Attitudes: Attitudes can develop through various means, such as observation, learning from others, and personal experiences. For instance, an individual may acquire a positive attitude towards volunteering after witnessing the positive impact it has on others.
• Hierarchy of Attitudes: Attitudes can be organized hierarchically, with central attitudes being more fundamental and resistant to change. Central attitudes are closely tied to an individual’s core values and beliefs. Peripheral attitudes are more malleable and less central to one’s identity. They may change more readily based on situational factors.
• Explicit and Implicit Attitudes: Attitudes can be explicit (conscious) or implicit (unconscious). Explicit attitudes are those that individuals are aware of and can readily report. Implicit attitudes are automatic and can influence behavior without conscious awareness. For example, someone may consciously hold egalitarian attitudes but unconsciously display implicit biases towards certain groups.

Attitude-Behavior Consistency

Attitude-behavior consistency refers to the alignment between attitudes and subsequent behavior. Several factors influence the strength of this relationship.

• Factors Influencing Consistency: The strength of the relationship between attitudes and behavior can vary. Factors such as the strength and importance of the attitude, personal relevance, and previous experiences can increase the likelihood of consistent behavior. For example, a person with a strong anti-smoking attitude is more likely to engage in behavior consistent with that attitude.
• Situational Constraints: Despite having a particular attitude, individuals may not always behave consistently due to situational constraints. Factors such as social norms, external pressures, or situational demands can limit the expression of attitudes in behavior. For instance, a person who strongly supports environmental conservation may not always engage in eco-friendly behavior if they are in a time-constrained situation.
• Attitude-Behavior Inconsistencies: In some cases, individuals may display inconsistencies between their attitudes and behavior. This can occur due to various factors, including cognitive dissonance (the discomfort caused by conflicting cognitions) or external influences. Inconsistencies may lead to attitude change or rationalization of behavior.

Attitude Change and Persuasion

Attitudes can change through persuasive communication and social influence. Several theories explain how attitude change occurs.

• Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM): The ELM explains how attitudes are changed through central and peripheral routes of persuasion. The central route involves deep processing and critical evaluation of persuasive messages. Individuals carefully consider the arguments and information presented before forming or changing their attitudes. The peripheral route, on the other hand, relies on superficial cues and heuristics to form or change attitudes, such as the credibility of the source or the emotional appeal of the message.
• Factors Influencing Attitude Change: Several factors can influence the effectiveness of persuasive communication in changing attitudes. Source credibility, message content, receiver characteristics, and the context of communication all play a role. A credible and trustworthy source, persuasive and relevant message content, and the receiver’s motivation and ability to process the information can enhance attitude change. For example, a well-respected expert delivering a persuasive message supported by strong evidence is more likely to influence attitude change.
• Cognitive Dissonance Theory: Cognitive dissonance theory explains how inconsistencies between attitudes and behavior can lead to attitude change. When individuals experience cognitive dissonance—the discomfort caused by holding conflicting beliefs or engaging in behaviors that contradict their attitudes—they are motivated to reduce the dissonance. This can be done by changing the attitude, changing the behavior, or rationalizing the inconsistency. For instance, a person who smokes but holds a negative attitude towards smoking may either quit smoking or rationalize their behavior to reduce cognitive dissonance.

Attitudes are multidimensional constructs consisting of cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. They are formed through various processes and can be influenced by factors such as social learning and direct experience. Attitude-behavior consistency can be influenced by the strength of attitudes, personal relevance, and situational constraints. Attitude change can occur through persuasive communication and social influence, and theories such as the Elaboration Likelihood Model and Cognitive Dissonance Theory help explain these processes. Understanding the nature of attitudes and their relationship with behavior provides valuable insights into human psychology and societal dynamics.

Influential Factors in Attitudes and Behavior

Social influences on attitudes.

• Social norms and cultural values shape the development of attitudes: Social norms are unwritten rules and expectations that guide behavior within a specific social group or culture. Cultural values, on the other hand, are shared beliefs and ideals upheld by a society. Both social norms and cultural values influence the formation and expression of attitudes.
• Social norms: They provide a framework for what is considered acceptable or appropriate behavior in a given social context. Adhering to social norms often leads to the adoption of corresponding attitudes.
• Cultural values: Cultural values shape individuals’ beliefs and attitudes by instilling certain principles and priorities. Attitudes are often aligned with the prevailing cultural values within a society.
• Conformity and social comparison influence attitudes and behavior: Conformity refers to the tendency to adjust one’s attitudes and behavior to match those of a particular group or social norm. Social comparison involves evaluating one’s attitudes and behavior by comparing oneself to others.
• Conformity: Individuals may conform to group attitudes to gain social acceptance, avoid conflict, or seek approval. This can result in the adoption of attitudes that may not align with their personal beliefs.
• Social comparison: People often evaluate their attitudes and behavior by comparing themselves to others. This comparison can influence the adoption or modification of attitudes to align with those of others.
• Group membership and social identity impact attitude formation and expression: Group membership and social identity play a significant role in shaping attitudes. People tend to identify with specific social groups and develop attitudes consistent with their group’s values and beliefs.
• Group membership: Belonging to a particular social group can lead to the adoption of group-specific attitudes. The desire for group cohesion and a sense of belonging motivates individuals to align their attitudes with those of their group.
• Social identity: Social identity refers to the aspects of an individual’s self-concept that derive from group membership. Attitudes associated with social identity are often strong and influence behavior to maintain group cohesion and positive self-image.
• Social influence can lead to both positive and negative changes in attitudes and behavior: The influence of others can lead to changes in attitudes and subsequent behavior, both in positive and negative ways.
• Positive social influence: Positive role models, mentors, and supportive social networks can promote positive attitudes and behavior. Observing and interacting with individuals who exhibit desirable attitudes and behaviors can inspire personal growth and positive change.
• Negative social influence: Negative social influences, such as peer pressure, can lead to the adoption of harmful attitudes and behaviors. Conforming to negative social norms or engaging in deviant behavior may result from the desire to fit in or gain acceptance.

Cognitive Factors in Attitudes and Behavior

• Cognitive dissonance theory highlights the role of inconsistencies in shaping attitudes and behavior: Cognitive dissonance refers to the discomfort that arises from holding conflicting cognitions (thoughts, beliefs, attitudes). People strive to reduce cognitive dissonance by aligning their attitudes and behavior.
• Inconsistencies: When individuals encounter inconsistencies between their attitudes and behavior or between multiple attitudes, they experience cognitive dissonance. This discomfort motivates them to either change their attitudes or modify their behavior to restore consistency.
• Cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias and availability heuristic, influence attitudes: Cognitive biases are systematic errors in thinking that affect judgment and decision-making processes. These biases can influence the formation and maintenance of attitudes.
• Confirmation bias: This bias involves seeking and interpreting information in a way that confirms preexisting attitudes or beliefs while disregarding contradictory evidence. Confirmation bias reinforces existing attitudes and inhibits attitude change.
• Availability heuristic: The availability heuristic is a mental shortcut in which judgments are based on the ease Apologies for the cutoff.
• Here’s the continuation: with which examples or instances come to mind. The availability heuristic can influence attitudes by giving greater weight to easily recalled information, even if it is not representative or accurate.
• Belief perseverance explains the tendency to maintain attitudes despite contradictory evidence: Belief perseverance is the cognitive bias that leads individuals to cling to their initial attitudes or beliefs even when presented with evidence that contradicts them.
• Persistence of attitudes: When confronted with contradictory information, individuals may engage in selective attention, interpretation, and memory to maintain their existing attitudes. This bias prevents attitude change and reinforces initial beliefs.
• Motivated reasoning: People often engage in motivated reasoning, selectively accepting or interpreting information in a way that supports their existing attitudes and beliefs. This bias helps maintain cognitive consistency but can hinder objective evaluation.
• Implicit biases and stereotypes affect behavior without conscious awareness: Implicit biases are unconscious attitudes or stereotypes that influence behavior without individuals being consciously aware of them. These biases can shape behavior in subtle and unintentional ways.
• Implicit biases: Implicit biases can develop through socialization and exposure to cultural messages. They influence behavior by activating automatic associations and affecting judgments, decisions, and actions.
• Stereotypes: Stereotypes are widely held beliefs or expectations about certain groups of people. These stereotypes can shape attitudes and behavior, leading to prejudiced actions or discrimination even without conscious intent.

Emotional Influences on Attitudes and Behavior

• Emotions play a crucial role in attitude formation and behavioral responses: Emotions are powerful internal experiences that influence attitudes and behavior by shaping perceptions, evaluations, and decision-making processes.
• Emotional valence: Positive or negative emotional experiences can influence the formation of attitudes. Pleasant emotions tend to promote positive attitudes, while unpleasant emotions can lead to negative attitudes.
• Emotional priming: Emotions can prime certain attitudes by activating associated memories, thoughts, and physiological responses. For example, feeling happy may prime positive attitudes, leading to more favorable evaluations.
• Emotionally charged events can shape attitudes and trigger corresponding behavior: Emotionally charged events or experiences can leave a lasting impact on attitudes and elicit behavioral responses.
• Emotional experiences: Strong emotional experiences, such as trauma or intense positive events, can shape attitudes and influence subsequent behavior. These events can create emotional associations with specific objects, people, or ideas.
• Emotional contagion: Emotions can be contagious, spreading from one person to another through social interactions. Observing others’ emotional expressions can trigger similar emotional states, which can influence attitudes and behavior.
• Emotional intelligence and emotional regulation influence attitudes and behavior: Emotional intelligence refers to the ability to understand and manage one’s own emotions and empathize with others. Effective emotional regulation contributes to adaptive attitudes and behavior.
• Emotional intelligence: Individuals with high emotional intelligence are more adept at recognizing and understanding their own emotions and the emotions of others. This awareness can facilitate the formation of empathetic attitudes and pro-social behavior.
• Emotional regulation: The ability to regulate and control emotions is crucial for managing attitudes and behavior. Effective emotional regulation strategies, such as reappraisal or distraction, can help individuals respond to situations in a more adaptive manner.
• Emotional contagion can lead to the adoption of attitudes and behaviors through social interactions: Emotional contagion is the phenomenon where emotions spread from one person to another, leading to the adoption of similar attitudes and behaviors.
• Mimicry and empathy: When individuals observe others’ emotional expressions, they may unconsciously mimic those expressions, leading to shared emotional experiences. Empathy also plays a role, as individuals can adopt attitudes and behaviors that align with the emotions of others.
• Social dynamics: Emotional contagion occurs within social groups and can influence the overall Apologies for the cutoff.
• Here’s the continuation: emotional climate and collective attitudes and behaviors. It can occur through direct face-to-face interactions, as well as through indirect means such as social media or mass media.

Environmental Factors and Attitudes

• Physical environment and spatial contexts can influence attitudes and behavior: The physical environment and spatial contexts in which individuals live and interact can shape their attitudes and subsequent behavior.
• Environmental cues: Environmental cues, such as cleanliness, noise levels, or natural elements, can impact mood and subsequently influence attitudes and behavior. For example, a clean and organized environment may promote positive attitudes and pro-social behavior.
• Architectural design: The design and layout of spaces can influence attitudes and behavior. Factors such as open spaces, natural lighting, and accessibility can affect individuals’ perceptions and attitudes.
• Socioeconomic factors, such as income and education, can shape attitudes: Socioeconomic status (SES), including factors like income, education, and occupation, can influence attitudes and behavior.
• Income and attitudes: Individuals with higher income levels may have different attitudes compared to those with lower income levels. Attitudes towards wealth, social issues, and economic policies can be influenced by socioeconomic factors.
• Education and attitudes: Education plays a role in shaping attitudes by providing individuals with knowledge, critical thinking skills, and exposure to different perspectives. Attitudes towards social issues, politics, and cultural values can be influenced by educational experiences.
• Cultural and societal norms impact attitudes and behavioral patterns: Cultural and societal norms, which vary across different communities and societies, shape individuals’ attitudes and behavior.
• Cultural norms: Cultural norms define what is considered acceptable or appropriate behavior within a particular culture. They influence attitudes related to topics such as family values, gender roles, and social interactions.
• Societal norms: Societal norms encompass broader norms and expectations that exist within a society. They can influence attitudes towards topics such as social justice, equality, and moral values.
• Media and advertising play a significant role in shaping attitudes and behavior: Media, including television, movies, social media, and advertising, has a powerful influence on attitudes and behavior.
• Media portrayal: The way individuals and groups are portrayed in media can shape attitudes and perceptions. Media can reinforce or challenge stereotypes, influence opinions on social issues, and shape consumer behavior.
• Advertising effects: Advertising aims to influence attitudes and behavior by presenting products, ideas, or values in a persuasive manner. It can shape attitudes towards brands, influence purchasing decisions, and promote certain behaviors.

Attitudes and behavior are influenced by a variety of factors. Social influences, such as social norms and conformity, cognitive factors like cognitive biases and belief perseverance, emotional influences, including emotional experiences and contagion, and environmental factors, such as the physical environment and media exposure, all play a role in shaping attitudes and subsequent behavior. Understanding these influential factors provides insights into how attitudes are formed and how they impact our actions. By examining these factors, we can gain a better understanding of human psychology and promote positive attitudes and behaviors in ourselves and others.

Theories and Models Explaining Attitudes and Behavior

Theory of planned behavior.

• The Theory of Planned Behavior: (TPB) is a psychological model that seeks to explain the relationship between attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control in influencing behavior.
• Attitudes: Attitudes refer to a person’s positive or negative evaluations of a particular behavior. According to TPB, positive attitudes towards a behavior increase the likelihood of engaging in that behavior, while negative attitudes decrease the likelihood.
• Subjective Norms: Subjective norms involve the perceived social pressure or expectations to perform a behavior. These norms are influenced by the individual’s beliefs about what others think they should do. TPB posits that the stronger the subjective norms favoring a behavior, the more likely an individual is to engage in it.
• Perceived Behavioral Control: Perceived behavioral control refers to an individual’s perception of their ability to perform a behavior. It takes into account factors such as skills, resources, and situational constraints. TPB suggests that individuals with higher perceived control are more likely to engage in a behavior.
• Behavioral Intentions: Behavioral intentions represent a person’s motivation and readiness to perform a specific behavior. They are influenced by attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. TPB asserts that strong behavioral intentions increase the likelihood of actual behavior.
• Actual Behavior: TPB emphasizes that behavioral intentions are strong predictors of actual behavior. However, other factors such as external constraints or unforeseen circumstances may also impact the translation of intentions into behavior.
• Applications of TPB: The Theory of Planned Behavior has been widely applied in various fields, including health psychology, consumer behavior, and environmental psychology. It has helped researchers and practitioners understand and predict behaviors such as exercise, smoking cessation, purchasing decisions, and pro-environmental actions.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

• Cognitive Dissonance Theory: Cognitive Dissonance Theory, developed by Leon Festinger, posits that individuals strive for consistency between their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. When inconsistencies arise, it creates psychological discomfort called cognitive dissonance.
• Attitude-Behavior Inconsistency: Cognitive dissonance occurs when there is a mismatch between an individual’s attitudes and their behavior. For example, if someone holds a negative attitude towards smoking but continues to smoke, it creates a state of cognitive dissonance.
• Dissonance Reduction: To reduce cognitive dissonance, individuals may modify their attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors. They may either change their attitude to align with their behavior, change their behavior to align with their attitude, or rationalize the inconsistency through selective exposure to information.
• Selective Exposure: Selective exposure is a cognitive process where individuals seek information that supports their existing attitudes and avoids information that contradicts them. It helps individuals reduce dissonance by maintaining consistency in their belief system.
• Justification and Rationalization: Cognitive dissonance theory suggests that individuals tend to justify or rationalize their behavior to minimize the discomfort caused by inconsistency. This may involve finding alternative explanations or minimizing the perceived negative consequences of their actions.
• Impact on Attitude Change: Cognitive dissonance theory highlights that changing behaviors can lead to changes in attitudes. By engaging in actions that are incongruent with existing attitudes, individuals may adjust their attitudes to restore consistency.
• Real-Life Applications: Cognitive dissonance theory has been applied in various contexts, such as persuasive communication, decision-making, and attitude change. It has helped marketers influence consumer behavior, policymakers shape public opinion, and individuals resolve conflicts between their beliefs and actions.

Social Learning Theory

• Observational Learning: According to Social Learning Theory, individuals learn by observing the behavior of others and the consequences that follow. They imitate or model the observed behavior if they perceive it as rewarding or if the model is respected and influential.
• Vicarious Reinforcement and Punishment: Social Learning Theory suggests that individuals are motivated to adopt or reject certain attitudes and behaviors based on the consequences experienced by others. If they witness positive outcomes (reinforcement) resulting from a behavior, they are more likely to adopt it. Conversely, if they observe negative outcomes (punishment), they are more likely to avoid that behavior.
• Modeling and Identification: Role models play a significant role in social learning. Individuals are more likely to imitate behaviors and adopt attitudes of those they identify with or admire. This identification can be based on similarities in characteristics, values, or aspirations.
• Self-Efficacy: Social Learning Theory emphasizes the importance of self-efficacy, which refers to an individual’s belief in their ability to perform a behavior. Higher self-efficacy leads to increased motivation, effort, and persistence in adopting attitudes and behaviors.
• Reinforcement and Punishment: In addition to observational learning, Social Learning Theory recognizes the influence of direct reinforcement and punishment on attitudes and behavior. Positive reinforcement (rewards) strengthens desired behaviors, while punishment weakens undesired behaviors.
• Applications of Social Learning Theory: Social Learning Theory has found applications in various domains, including education, therapy, and behavior modification programs. It has helped shape interventions aimed at promoting positive attitudes, reducing aggressive behavior, and enhancing social skills.

Elaboration Likelihood Model

• The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) explains how attitudes are changed through two routes of persuasion: the central route and the peripheral route.
• Central Route: The central route involves a deep level of cognitive processing. When individuals are motivated and have the ability to process information critically, they carefully evaluate the content of persuasive messages. They focus on the logical arguments, evidence, and facts presented to form or change their attitudes.
• Peripheral Route: The peripheral route relies on superficial cues and heuristics rather than detailed analysis. Individuals may be influenced by factors such as the attractiveness of the communicator, the use of emotional appeals, or the consensus of others without deeply scrutinizing the message content.
• Motivation: According to the ELM, motivation plays a crucial role in determining the route of persuasion. When individuals have a personal involvement or vested interest in the topic, they are more likely to engage in central processing. If the topic is of low relevance or they lack motivation, they are more susceptible to peripheral cues.
• Ability: The ability to process information also affects the route taken. Factors such as cognitive capacity, time constraints, and distractions can hinder the ability to engage in central processing. When individuals lack the resources or mental effort required for central processing, they rely on peripheral cues.
• Contextual Factors: The Elaboration Likelihood Model recognizes that contextual factors, such as the expertise of the communicator, message clarity, and situational distractions, can influence the effectiveness of persuasive communication.
• Practical Implications: Understanding the central and peripheral routes of persuasion can help communicators tailor their messages accordingly. Depending on the audience’s motivation and ability to process information, persuasive strategies can be designed to emphasize logical arguments or peripheral cues to maximize attitude change.

Theories and models in psychology provide valuable frameworks for understanding attitudes and behavior. The Theory of Planned Behavior explains the role of attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control in predicting behavior. Cognitive Dissonance Theory explores the discomfort caused by attitude-behavior inconsistencies and how individuals strive for consistency.

Attitudes and Behavior in Everyday Life

Attitudes in interpersonal relationships.

• Attitudes shape interpersonal interactions and the formation of relationships: Attitudes, including beliefs, values, and preferences, significantly impact how individuals engage and connect with others. People tend to be drawn to others who share similar attitudes, as they provide a sense of familiarity and compatibility.
• Compatibility of attitudes contributes to relationship satisfaction and longevity: When individuals share common attitudes, there is a greater likelihood of understanding, acceptance, and agreement within the relationship. This alignment fosters a sense of connection and satisfaction, leading to healthier and more enduring relationships.
• Conflicting attitudes can lead to relationship conflicts and breakdown: Divergent attitudes between partners or individuals in a relationship can create tension and disagreement. Conflicts arising from conflicting attitudes may escalate if not effectively addressed, potentially leading to relationship deterioration or even dissolution.
• Attitude alignment and compromise are essential in maintaining healthy relationships: In order to maintain harmonious relationships, individuals need to practice attitude alignment and compromise. This involves actively seeking understanding, finding common ground, and finding ways to accommodate differences in attitudes. Open communication and willingness to find solutions together contribute to relationship resilience.

Attitudes in the Workplace

• Attitudes influence job satisfaction, motivation, and organizational commitment: Positive attitudes towards work, colleagues, and the organization contribute to job satisfaction, motivation, and commitment. Individuals with positive attitudes are more likely to be engaged and productive, leading to a healthier work environment.
• Positive attitudes contribute to a harmonious work environment and productivity: When employees have positive attitudes, they tend to foster a cooperative and supportive work environment. Positive attitudes also enhance teamwork, communication, and collaboration among colleagues, resulting in increased productivity and efficiency.
• Negative attitudes can lead to conflict, absenteeism, and reduced performance: Negative attitudes, such as cynicism, apathy, or hostility, can undermine workplace dynamics and productivity. They contribute to interpersonal conflicts, absenteeism, and reduced performance. Negative attitudes can also spread among team members, negatively affecting the overall work atmosphere.
• Organizational culture and leadership play a role in shaping attitudes within the workplace: The organizational culture and leadership style greatly influence the attitudes exhibited within a workplace. A positive and supportive organizational culture, along with effective leadership, can foster positive attitudes among employees. Conversely, a toxic or unsupportive work culture can contribute to negative attitudes and hinder productivity.

Attitudes and Health Behavior

• Attitudes impact health-related behaviors, such as exercise, diet, and substance use: Attitudes play a significant role in determining individuals’ health-related behaviors. Positive attitudes towards healthy lifestyles and preventive measures, such as exercise and balanced diet, can lead to the adoption of healthy habits. Conversely, negative attitudes or beliefs can contribute to unhealthy behaviors and risk-taking.
• Health promotion campaigns aim to change attitudes and promote healthy behaviors: Public health initiatives often target attitudes as a key factor in behavior change. Health promotion campaigns utilize various strategies to educate, persuade, and shift attitudes towards healthier choices. They aim to create awareness, provide information, and influence individuals’ attitudes to encourage positive health behaviors.
• The Theory of Planned Behavior is often applied to understand health behavior change: The Theory of Planned Behavior posits that attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control collectively influence behavioral intentions, which, in turn, shape behavior. It provides insights into how attitudes interact with other factors to influence health-related decision-making and actions.
• Attitude-behavior consistency is crucial for maintaining healthy lifestyles: For individuals to maintain healthy lifestyles, there should be consistency between their attitudes and behaviors. When attitudes and behaviors align, individuals are more likely to engage in sustained healthy practices. Efforts to bridge any gaps between attitudes and behaviors through self-reflection, goal-setting, and behavior change strategies are crucial for maintaining long-term health.

Attitudes and Social Change

• Attitudes play a vital role in driving social change and influencing collective behavior: Social change often begins with a shift in attitudes. When individuals develop new perspectives and beliefs, they are more likely to challenge existing norms, advocate for change, and engage in collective action.
• Attitude-behavior discrepancies can motivate activism and advocacy efforts: When there is a misalignment between attitudes and the current state of affairs, individuals may be motivated to take action. Attitude-behavior discrepancies can fuel activism, leading individuals to advocate for social causes, raise awareness, and work towards societal improvements.
• Public attitudes shape policy-making and societal norms: The attitudes held by the general public have a significant influence on policy-making processes and the establishment of societal norms. Public opinion, driven by attitudes, can shape the development of laws, regulations, and social expectations that reflect the values and beliefs of a given society.
• Social movements rely on attitude change to create lasting impact: Social movements often aim to challenge prevailing attitudes and promote new perspectives on issues such as civil rights, environmental protection, or gender equality. By raising awareness, mobilizing supporters, and challenging existing attitudes, social movements seek to create lasting change in society.

Attitudes and behavior intertwine in various aspects of everyday life. In interpersonal relationships, attitudes shape the formation and dynamics of connections, with compatibility fostering satisfaction and conflicts arising from divergent attitudes. In the workplace, attitudes influence job satisfaction, productivity, and organizational harmony, with positive attitudes promoting a healthy work environment. Attitudes also play a crucial role in health behavior, where positive attitudes towards healthy choices contribute to well-being. Additionally, attitudes are instrumental in driving social change, shaping policies, and fueling activism for societal improvements. Understanding the complex relationship between attitudes and behavior allows individuals to navigate their personal and social lives with greater awareness and intentionality.

Attitudes and behavior are intricately linked, shaping our thoughts, actions, and interactions with the world. By understanding the nature of attitudes, influential factors, theoretical frameworks, and real-life applications, we gain insight into the complexities of human psychology. Developing a greater understanding of attitudes and behavior can lead to personal growth, improved relationships, and positive social change.

To leverage the knowledge gained from this blog post, consider the following takeaways:

• Self-reflection: Reflect on your own attitudes and how they influence your behavior.
• Understanding others: Recognize that individuals have diverse attitudes shaped by their unique experiences and backgrounds. Seek to understand others’ perspectives and empathize with their attitudes and behaviors.
• Influence of social factors: Be mindful of the influence of social norms, cultural values, and media on attitudes and behavior. Critically evaluate messages and media content, and question societal norms that may perpetuate harmful attitudes.
• Promoting positive attitudes: Cultivate positive attitudes that contribute to healthy relationships, a positive work environment, and personal well-being. Practice open-mindedness, empathy, and respect in your interactions with others.
• Health behavior change: Be aware of the impact of attitudes on health-related behaviors. Strive to develop positive attitudes towards health and well-being, and make conscious efforts to adopt healthy behaviors.
• Advocacy and social change: Recognize the power of attitudes in driving social change. Engage in advocacy efforts aligned with your values and work towards promoting attitudes that foster equality, justice, and sustainability.
• Continuous learning: Stay curious and keep exploring the field of psychology to deepen your understanding of attitudes and behavior. Stay updated with the latest research and theories to broaden your perspective and knowledge.

By applying these takeaways to your own life, you can actively shape your attitudes and behavior in a way that aligns with your values and contributes to personal growth and positive societal impact.

• Attitudes: Evaluative judgments formed towards objects, people, or ideas. Attitudes consist of cognitive, affective, and behavioral components.
• Cognitive Component: The element of attitudes that represents beliefs and thoughts associated with a particular attitude.
• Affective Component: The emotional and feeling aspect of attitudes, reflecting the emotional response associated with a particular attitude.
• Behavioral Component: The behavioral intentions and actions resulting from a specific attitude.
• Central Attitudes: Core attitudes that are more resistant to change and have a stronger impact on behavior.
• Peripheral Attitudes: Attitudes that are more malleable and subject to change based on external influences.
• Explicit Attitudes: Conscious attitudes that individuals are aware of and can articulate.
• Implicit Attitudes: Unconscious attitudes that influence behavior without conscious awareness.
• Attitude-Behavior Consistency: The alignment between attitudes and subsequent behavior.
• Elaboration Likelihood Model: A model explaining how attitudes are changed through central and peripheral routes of persuasion.
• Cognitive Dissonance Theory: The theory that proposes individuals strive for consistency between attitudes and behavior, and inconsistencies create psychological discomfort, motivating attitude change or behavior modification.
• Social Learning Theory: A theory that suggests individuals acquire attitudes and behaviors through observation and imitation of others, with vicarious reinforcement and punishment playing a significant role.
• Theory of Planned Behavior: A theory explaining the relationship between attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, where behavioral intentions strongly influence actual behavior.
• Vicarious Reinforcement: Learning through observing others being rewarded for their behavior, which influences the adoption or rejection of attitudes and behaviors.
• Attitude Alignment: The process of adjusting attitudes to match those of others in order to reduce cognitive dissonance.
• Selective Exposure: A cognitive bias where individuals seek out information that aligns with their existing attitudes and beliefs.
• Rationalization: The process of justifying or explaining away inconsistencies between attitudes and behavior to reduce cognitive dissonance.
• Interpersonal Relationships: Connections and interactions between individuals, influenced by attitudes, compatibility, and attitude alignment.
• Job Satisfaction: The level of contentment and fulfillment individuals experience in their work, influenced by attitudes towards the job.
• Organizational Commitment: The extent to which individuals identify with and are dedicated to their organization, influenced by attitudes towards the workplace.
• Health Behavior: Behaviors related to health and well-being, such as exercise, diet, and substance use, influenced by attitudes.
• Health Promotion: Efforts to promote and encourage healthy behaviors through campaigns, education, and awareness.
• Social Change: The transformation of societal attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, often driven by attitude-behavior discrepancies and activism.
• Activism: Active efforts to promote social or political change based on attitudes and beliefs.
• Advocacy: Public support and promotion of a particular cause or issue based on attitudes and values.

Last worded from Author

As we conclude this journey through the intricate world of attitudes and behavior, I hope this exploration has shed light on the fascinating dynamics that shape our thoughts and actions. Remember, you possess the power to understand and influence your attitudes, and consequently, your behavior. By cultivating self-awareness and actively examining the alignment between your attitudes and actions, you can pave the way for personal growth and positive change. Embrace the potential within you to challenge, adapt, and shape your attitudes, contributing to a better understanding of yourself and creating a ripple effect on the world around you. Your journey towards self-discovery starts now.

Attitudes and behavior are closely interconnected. Attitudes serve as evaluative judgments that influence how we perceive and respond to the world. While attitudes provide insights into our beliefs and values, they don’t always directly translate into behavior. The relationship between attitudes and behavior can be influenced by various factors, including social norms, situational constraints, and individual characteristics. Stronger attitudes, personal relevance, and consistency between attitudes and behavior increase the likelihood of behavior alignment.

Yes, attitudes can change over time. Attitude change can occur through various processes, such as exposure to new information, persuasive communication, personal experiences, and social influences. Cognitive dissonance, which arises from inconsistencies between attitudes and behavior, can also motivate attitude change. However, changing attitudes is not always easy, as individuals may hold onto their beliefs due to factors like cognitive biases, emotional attachments, and social pressures. Attitude change often requires a combination of critical thinking, open-mindedness, and exposure to alternative perspectives.

Social influences play a significant role in shaping attitudes and behavior. Social norms, cultural values, and group membership influence the development of attitudes. Conformity and social comparison can impact how individuals adopt or modify their attitudes to align with the beliefs and behaviors of others. Additionally, social learning theory suggests that individuals acquire attitudes and behaviors through observation and imitation of others, including role models and influential figures. Peer pressure, social expectations, and the desire for acceptance can all influence attitudes and subsequent behavior.

While attitudes can provide valuable insights into behavior, they do not always predict behavior with absolute accuracy. Attitudes serve as predispositions that influence our intentions and inclinations, but they are subject to numerous factors that can inhibit or facilitate behavior expression. Situational constraints, external pressures, and conflicting motives can affect the translation of attitudes into behavior. Additionally, the strength and accessibility of attitudes, along with the level of personal relevance, can impact the consistency between attitudes and behavior. It is important to consider multiple factors beyond attitudes alone when predicting behavior.

Aligning attitudes and behavior requires self-awareness, introspection, and intentional action. Start by examining your beliefs and values, and identify any inconsistencies between your attitudes and behavior. Reflect on the underlying reasons for these discrepancies. Strive for clarity and self-reflection to understand the motivations behind your attitudes. Consider the influence of external factors and social pressures on your behavior. With this understanding, set realistic goals to align your behavior with your desired attitudes. Make a conscious effort to act in ways that are consistent with your beliefs, and continuously monitor and adjust your actions to ensure alignment.

Emotions play a crucial role in attitude formation and behavioral responses. Emotionally charged events can shape attitudes and trigger corresponding behavior. Emotions can influence the evaluation of information, the encoding of memories, and the decision-making process. Positive emotions can enhance the likelihood of adopting attitudes and engaging in behavior, while negative emotions can have the opposite effect. Emotional intelligence and regulation also impact how attitudes and behaviors are expressed and managed in social interactions. It is essential to recognize and understand the emotional influences on attitudes and behavior to foster healthy and adaptive responses.

(1) Relationship between Attitude and Behavior – theintactone. https://theintactone.com/2019/06/28/mpob-u3-topic-8-relationship-between-attitude-and-behavior/ .

(2) What Is Attitude in Psychology? Definition, Formation, Changes. https://www.verywellmind.com/attitudes-how-they-form-change-shape-behavior-2795897 .

(3) Attitudes | SpringerLink. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1777-1 .

(4) Components of Attitude: ABC Model – Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/attitudes.html .

• The Relationship Between Attitudes and Behavior: Explained in Detail
• Attitude: A Key to Personal Growth and Success

Dr. Deeksha Mishra

Dr. Deeksha Mishra is a highly accomplished psychology counselor and training specialist with over a decade of experience. She holds a doctrine from Banaras Hindu University and has made significant contributions in her field.With a diverse background, Dr. Mishra has worked at esteemed institutions such as All India Institute of Medical Sciences [AIIMS], New Delhi, Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi and Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences [IHBAS], New Delhi. She has served as a Psychology Counselor and Training Specialist at Hindustan Latex Family Planning Promotion Trust (HLFPPT), Lucknow, contributing to government projects.Dr. Mishra's expertise extends beyond traditional settings, as she continues to provide therapy and counseling to patients through video calls and phone consultations. Her commitment to mental health and well-being is unwavering, and she has positively impacted countless lives through her empathetic approach and insightful guidance.Join Dr. Deeksha Mishra on our blog site as she shares her extensive knowledge, experiences, and valuable insights. Discover the transformative power of psychology and gain inspiration to enhance your own well-being.

Related Articles

How To Control Ego : Strategies for Self-Mastery

Abstract: In this blog post, we delve into the profound topic of...

Understanding Aggressive Attitude: Causes, Effects, and Strategies for Managing it

Abstract: This blog post aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of aggressive...

Attitude and Character: Unveiling the Distinctions

Abstract: In this blog post, we will delve into the intriguing contrasts...

How To Stop Being An Introvert And Embrace a More Social Lifestyle

Abstract: In this blog post, we will explore How To Stop Being...

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Acquisition
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music and Religion
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business Strategy
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Systems
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

3 (page 33) p. 33 Attitudes and influence

• Published: August 2015
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

‘Attitudes and influence’ discusses how attitudes form, change, and predict behaviour; and how they are inherently social, defined, and refined in response to people in the world around us. Attitudes are a set of beliefs about an object, person, or issue and can be simple and clear, or complex and multifaceted. They are the basic building blocks of our mental models and inform and guide our ideals, aspirations, values, and ideologies. Attitudes predict our behaviour, and are therefore integral to who we are, what we do, and why we do it. The impact of persuasion, social influence, social norms, conformity, leadership, and social facilitation on our behaviour is also considered.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]
• Google Scholar Indexing

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Affective Science
• Biological Foundations of Psychology
• Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
• Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational/School Psychology
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems of Psychology
• Individual Differences
• Methods and Approaches in Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational and Institutional Psychology
• Personality
• Psychology and Other Disciplines
• Social Psychology
• Sports Psychology
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Attitudes and behavior.

• Geoffrey Haddock , Geoffrey Haddock Department of Psychology, Cardiff University
• Sapphira Thorne Sapphira Thorne Postdoctoral Research Associate, Cardiff University
•  and  Lukas J. Wolf Lukas J. Wolf Department of Psychology, Cardiff University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.449
• Published online: 27 August 2020

Attitudes refer to overall evaluations of people, groups, ideas, and other objects, reflecting whether individuals like or dislike them. Attitudes have been found to be good predictors of behavior, with generally medium-sized effects. The role of attitudes in guiding behavior may be the primary reason why people’s social lives often revolve around expressing and discussing their attitudes, and why social psychology researchers have spent decades examining attitudes.

Two central questions in the study of attitudes concern when and how attitudes predict behavior. The “when” question has been addressed over decades of research that has identified circumstances under which attitudes are more or less likely to predict behavior. That is, attitudes are stronger predictors of behaviors when both constructs are assessed in a corresponding or matching way, when attitudes are stronger, and among certain individuals and in certain situations and domains.

The “how” question concerns influential models in the attitudes literature that provide a better understanding of the processes through which attitudes are linked with behaviors. For instance, these models indicate that other constructs need to be taken into account in understanding the attitude-behavior link, including intentions to perform a behavior, whether individuals perceive themselves to be in control of their behavior, and what they believe others around them think the individual should do (i.e., norms). The models also describe whether attitudes relate to behavior through relatively deliberative and controlled processes or relatively automatic and spontaneous processes. Overall, the long history of research on attitude-behavior links has provided a clearer prediction of when attitudes are linked with behaviors and a better understanding of the processes underlying this link.

• attitude strength
• behavioral intentions
• deliberative and spontaneous behavior

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Psychology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 30 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.148.24.167]
• 185.148.24.167

Character limit 500 /500

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

5.1 Exploring Attitudes

Learning objectives.

• Define the concept of attitude and explain why it is of such interest to social psychologists.
• Review the variables that determine attitude strength.
• Outline the factors affect the strength of the attitude-behavior relationship.

Although we might use the term in a different way in our everyday life (“Hey, he’s really got an attitude !”), social psychologists reserve the term attitude to refer to our relatively enduring evaluation of something , where the something is called the attitude object . The attitude object might be a person, a product, or a social group (Albarracín, Johnson, & Zanna, 2005; Wood, 2000). In this section we will consider the nature and strength of attitudes and the conditions under which attitudes best predict our behaviors.

Attitudes Are Evaluations

When we say that attitudes are evaluations, we mean that they involve a preference for or against the attitude object, as commonly expressed in such terms as prefer , like , dislike , hate , and love . When we express our attitudes—for instance, when we say, “I love Cheerios,” “I hate snakes,” “I’m crazy about Bill,” or “I like Italians”—we are expressing the relationship (either positive or negative) between the self and an attitude object. Statements such as these make it clear that attitudes are an important part of the self-concept—attitudes tie the self-concept to the attitude object, and so our attitudes are an essential part of “us.”

Every human being holds thousands of attitudes, including those about family and friends, political parties and political figures, abortion rights and terrorism, preferences for music, and much more. Each of our attitudes has its own unique characteristics, and no two attitudes come to us or influence us in quite the same way. Research has found that some of our attitudes are inherited, at least in part, via genetic transmission from our parents (Olson, Vernon, Harris, & Jang, 2001). Other attitudes are learned mostly through direct and indirect experiences with the attitude objects (De Houwer, Thomas, & Baeyens, 2001). We may like to ride roller coasters in part because our genetic code has given us a thrill-loving personality and in part because we’ve had some really great times on roller coasters in the past. Still other attitudes are learned via the media (Hargreaves & Tiggemann, 2003; Levina, Waldo, & Fitzgerald, 2000) or through our interactions with friends (Poteat, 2007). Some of our attitudes are shared by others (most of us like sugar, fear snakes, and are disgusted by cockroaches), whereas other attitudes—such as our preferences for different styles of music or art—are more individualized.

Table 5.1 “Heritability of Some Attitudes” shows some of the attitudes that have been found to be the most highly heritable (i.e. most strongly determined by genetic variation among people). These attitudes form earlier and are stronger and more resistant to change than others (Bourgeois, 2002), although it is not yet known why some attitudes are more genetically determined than are others.

Table 5.1 Heritability of Some Attitudes

Our attitudes are made up of cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. Consider my own attitude toward chocolate ice cream, which is very positive and always has been, as far as I can remember.

In terms of affect:

In terms of behavior:

I frequently eat chocolate ice cream.

In terms of cognitions:

Chocolate ice cream has a smooth texture and a rich, strong taste.

My attitude toward chocolate ice cream is composed of affect, behavior, and cognition.

Although most attitudes are determined by cognition, affect, and behavior, there is nevertheless variability in this regard across people and across attitudes. Some attitudes are more likely to be based on beliefs, some more likely to be based on feelings, and some more likely to be based on behaviors. I would say that my attitude toward chocolate ice cream is in large part determined by affect—although I can describe its taste, mostly I just like it. My attitudes toward my Toyota Corolla and my home air conditioner, on the other hand, are more cognitive. I don’t really like them so much as I admire their positive features (the Toyota gets good gas mileage and the air conditioner keeps me cool on hot summer days). Still other of my attitudes are based more on behavior—I feel like I’ve learned to like my neighbors because I’ve done favors for them over the years (which they have returned) and these helpful behaviors on my part have, at least in part, led me to develop a positive attitude toward them.

Different people may hold attitudes toward the same attitude object for different reasons. Some people voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 elections because they like his policies (“he’s working for the middle class”; “he wants to increase automobile fuel efficiency”), whereas others voted for (or against) him because they just liked (or disliked) him. Although you might think that cognition would be more important in this regard, political scientists have shown that many voting decisions are made primarily on the basis of affect. Indeed, it is fair to say that the affective component of attitudes is generally the strongest and most important (Abelson, Kinder, Peters, & Fiske, 1981; Stangor, Sullivan, & Ford, 1991).

Human beings hold attitudes because they are useful. Particularly, our attitudes enable us to determine, often very quickly and effortlessly, which behaviors to engage in, which people to approach or avoid, and even which products to buy (Duckworth, Bargh, Garcia, & Chaiken, 2002; Maio & Olson, 2000). You can imagine that making quick decisions about what to avoid

snake = bad ⟶ run away

or to approach

blueberries = good ⟶ eat

has had substantial value in our evolutionary experience.

Because attitudes are evaluations, they can be assessed using any of the normal measuring techniques used by social psychologists (Banaji & Heiphetz, 2010). Attitudes are frequently assessed using self-report measures, but they can also be assessed more indirectly using measures of arousal and facial expressions (Mendes, 2008) as well as implicit measures of cognition, such as the Implicit Association Test (IAT) . Attitudes can also be seen in the brain by using neuroimaging techniques. This research has found that our attitudes, like most of our social knowledge, are stored primarily in the prefrontal cortex but that the amygdala is important in emotional attitudes, particularly those associated with fear (Cunningham, Raye, & Johnson, 2004; Cunningham & Zelazo, 2007; van den Bos, McClure, Harris, Fiske, & Cohen, 2007). Attitudes can be activated extremely quickly—often within one fifth of a second after we see an attitude object (Handy, Smilek, Geiger, Liu, & Schooler, 2010).

Some Attitudes Are Stronger Than Others

Some attitudes are more important than others, because they are more useful to us and thus have more impact on our daily lives. The importance of an attitude, as assessed by how quickly it comes to mind , is known as attitude strength (Fazio, 1990; Fazio, 1995; Krosnick & Petty, 1995). Some of our attitudes are strong attitudes, in the sense that we find them important, hold them with confidence, do not change them very much, and use them frequently to guide our actions. These strong attitudes may guide our actions completely out of our awareness (Ferguson, Bargh, & Nayak, 2005).

Other attitudes are weaker and have little influence on our actions. For instance, John Bargh and his colleagues (Bargh, Chaiken, Raymond, & Hymes, 1996) found that people could express attitudes toward nonsense words such as juvalamu (which people liked) and chakaka (which they did not like). The researchers also found that these attitudes were very weak. On the other hand, the heavy voter turnout for Barack Obama in the 2008 elections was probably because many of his supporters had strong positive attitudes about him.

Strong attitudes are attitudes that are more cognitively accessible—they come to mind quickly, regularly, and easily. We can easily measure attitude strength by assessing how quickly our attitudes are activated when we are exposed to the attitude object. If we can state our attitude quickly, without much thought, then it is a strong one. If we are unsure about our attitude and need to think about it for a while before stating our opinion, the attitude is weak.

Attitudes become stronger when we have direct positive or negative experiences with the attitude object, and particularly if those experiences have been in strong positive or negative contexts. Russell Fazio and his colleagues (Fazio, Powell, & Herr, 1983) had people either work on some puzzles or watch other people work on the same puzzles. Although the people who watched ended up either liking or disliking the puzzles as much as the people who actually worked on them, Fazio found that attitudes, as assessed by reaction time measures, were stronger (in the sense of being expressed quickly) for the people who had directly experienced the puzzles.

Because attitude strength is determined by cognitive accessibility, it is possible to make attitudes stronger by increasing the accessibility of the attitude. This can be done directly by having people think about, express, or discuss their attitudes with others. After people think about their attitudes, talk about them, or just say them out loud, the attitudes they have expressed become stronger (Downing, Judd, & Brauer, 1992; Tesser, Martin, & Mendolia, 1995). Because attitudes are linked to the self-concept, they also become stronger when they are activated along with the self-concept. When we are looking into a mirror or sitting in front of a TV camera, our attitudes are activated and we are then more likely to act on them (Beaman, Klentz, Diener, & Svanum, 1979).

Attitudes are also stronger when the ABCs of affect, behavior, and cognition all line up. As an example, many people’s attitude toward their own nation is universally positive. They have strong positive feelings about their country, many positive thoughts about it, and tend to engage in behaviors that support it. Other attitudes are less strong because the affective, cognitive, and behavioral components are each somewhat different (Thompson, Zanna, & Griffin, 1995). My affect toward chocolate ice cream is positive—I like it a lot. On the other hand, my cognitions are more negative—I know that eating too much ice cream can make me fat and that it is bad for my coronary arteries. And even though I love chocolate ice cream, I don’t eat some every time I get a chance. These inconsistencies among the components of my attitude make it less strong than it would be if all the components lined up together.

When Do Our Attitudes Guide Our Behavior?

Social psychologists (as well as advertisers, marketers, and politicians) are particularly interested in the behavioral aspect of attitudes. Because it is normal that the ABCs of our attitudes are at least somewhat consistent, our behavior tends to follow from our affect and cognition. If I determine that you have more positive cognitions about and more positive affect toward Cheerios than Frosted Flakes, then I will naturally predict (and probably be correct when I do so) that you’ll be more likely to buy Cheerios than Frosted Flakes when you go to the market. Furthermore, if I can do something to make your thoughts or feelings toward Frosted Flakes more positive, then your likelihood of buying that cereal instead of the other will also increase.

The principle of attitude consistency (that for any given attitude object, the ABCs of affect, behavior, and cognition are normally in line with each other ) thus predicts that our attitudes (for instance, as measured via a self-report measure) are likely to guide behavior . Supporting this idea, meta-analyses have found that there is a significant and substantial positive correlation among the different components of attitudes, and that attitudes expressed on self-report measures do predict behavior (Glasman & Albarracín, 2006).

Although there is generally consistency between attitudes and behavior, the relationship is stronger in certain situations, for certain people, and for certain attitudes (Wicker, 1969). The theory of planned behavior , developed by Martin Fishbein and Izek Ajzen (Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), outlined many of the important variables that affected the attitude-behavior relationship, and some of these factors are summarized in the list that follows this paragraph. It may not surprise you to hear that attitudes that are strong, in the sense that they are expressed quickly and confidently, predict our behavior better than do weak attitudes (Fazio, Powell, & Williams, 1989; Glasman & Albarracín, 2006). For example, Farc and Sagarin (2009) found that people who could more quickly complete questionnaires about their attitudes toward the politicians George Bush and John Kerry were also more likely to vote for the candidate that they had more positive attitudes toward in the 2004 presidential elections. The relationship between the responses on the questionnaires and voting behavior was weaker for those who completed the items more slowly.

• When attitudes are strong, rather than weak
• When we have a strong intention to perform the behavior
• When the attitude and the behavior both occur in similar social situations
• When the same components of the attitude (either affect or cognition) are accessible when the attitude is assessed and when the behavior is performed
• When the attitudes are measured at a specific, rather than a general, level
• For low self-monitors (rather than for high self-monitors)

Attitudes only predict behaviors well under certain conditions and for some people. The preceding list summarizes the factors that create a strong attitude-behavior relationship.

People who have strong attitudes toward an attitude object are also likely to have strong intentions to act on their attitudes, and the intention to engage in an activity is a strong predictor of behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Imagine for a moment that your friend Sharina is trying to decide whether to recycle her used laptop batteries or just throw them away. We know that her attitude toward recycling is positive—she thinks she should do it—but we also know that recycling takes work. It’s much easier to just throw the batteries away. Only if Sharina has a strong attitude toward recycling will she then have the necessary strong intentions to engage in the behavior that will make her recycle her batteries even when it is difficult to do.

The match between the social situations in which the attitudes are expressed and the behaviors are engaged in also matters, such that there is a greater attitude-behavior correlation when the social situations match. Imagine for a minute the case of Magritte, a 16-year-old high school student. Magritte tells her parents that she hates the idea of smoking cigarettes. Magritte’s negative attitude toward smoking seems to be a strong one because she’s thought a lot about it—she believes that cigarettes are dirty, expensive, and unhealthy. But how sure are you that Magritte’s attitude will predict her behavior? Would you be willing to bet that she’d never try smoking when she’s out with her friends?

You can see that the problem here is that Magritte’s attitude is being expressed in one social situation (when she is with her parents) whereas the behavior (trying a cigarette) is going to occur in a very different social situation (when she is out with her friends). The relevant social norms are of course much different in the two situations. Magritte’s friends might be able to convince her to try smoking, despite her initial negative attitude, when they entice her with peer pressure. Behaviors are more likely to be consistent with attitudes when the social situation in which the behavior occurs is similar to the situation in which the attitude is expressed (Ajzen, 1991; LaPiere, 1936).

Research Focus

Attitude-Behavior Consistency

Another variable that has an important influence on attitude-behavior consistency is the current cognitive accessibility of the underlying affective and cognitive components of the attitude. For example, if we assess the attitude in a situation in which people are thinking primarily about the attitude object in cognitive terms, and yet the behavior is performed in a situation in which the affective components of the attitude are more accessible, then the attitude-behavior relationship will be weak. Wilson and Schooler (1991) showed a similar type of effect by first choosing attitudes that they expected would be primarily determined by affect—attitudes toward five different types of strawberry jam. Then they asked a sample of college students to taste each of the jams. While they were tasting, one-half of the participants were instructed to think about the cognitive aspects of their attitudes to these jams—that is, to focus on the reasons they held their attitudes, whereas the other half of the participants were not given these instructions. Then all the students completed measures of their attitudes toward each of the jams.

Wilson and his colleagues then assessed the extent to which the attitudes expressed by the students correlated with taste ratings of the five jams as indicated by experts at Consumer Reports . They found that the attitudes expressed by the students correlated significantly higher with the expert ratings for the participants who had not listed their cognitions first. Wilson and his colleagues argued that this occurred because our liking of jams is primarily affectively determined—we either like them or we don’t. And the students who simply rated the jams used their feelings to make their judgments. On the other hand, the students who were asked to list their thoughts about the jams had some extra information to use in making their judgments, but it was information that was not actually useful. Therefore, when these students used their thoughts about the jam to make the judgments, their judgments were less valid.

MacDonald, Zanna, and Fong (1996) showed male college students a video of two other college students, Mike and Rebecca, who were out on a date. However, according to random assignment to conditions, half of the men were shown the video while sober and the other half viewed the video after they had had several alcoholic drinks. In the video, Mike and Rebecca go to the campus bar and drink and dance. They then go to Rebecca’s room, where they end up kissing passionately. Mike says that he doesn’t have any condoms, but Rebecca says that she is on the pill.

At this point the film clip ends, and the male participants are asked about their likely behaviors if they had been Mike. Although all men indicated that having unprotected sex in this situation was foolish and irresponsible, the men who had been drinking alcohol were more likely to indicate that they would engage in sexual intercourse with Rebecca even without a condom. One interpretation of this study is that sexual behavior is determined by both cognitive factors (“I know that it is important to practice safe sex and so I should use a condom”) and affective factors (“sex is enjoyable, I don’t want to wait”). When the students were intoxicated at the time the behavior was to be performed, it seems likely the affective component of the attitude was a more important determinant of behavior than was the cognitive component.

One other type of “match” that has an important influence on the attitude-behavior relationship concerns how we measure the attitude and behavior. Attitudes predict behavior better when the attitude is measured at a level that is similar to the behavior to be predicted. Normally, the behavior is specific, so it is better to measure the attitude at a specific level too. For instance, if we measure cognitions at a very general level (“do you think it is important to use condoms?”; “are you a religious person?”) we will not be as successful at predicting actual behaviors as we will be if we ask the question more specifically, at the level of behavior we are interested in predicting (“do you think you will use a condom the next time you have sex?”; “how frequently do you expect to attend church in the next month?”). In general, more specific questions are better predictors of specific behaviors, and thus if we wish to accurately predict behaviors, we should remember to attempt to measure specific attitudes. One example of this principle is shown in Figure 5.1 “Predicting Behavior From Specific and Nonspecific Attitude Measures” . Davidson and Jaccard (1979) found that they were much better able to predict whether women actually used birth control when they assessed the attitude at a more specific level.

Figure 5.1 Predicting Behavior From Specific and Nonspecific Attitude Measures

Attitudes that are measured using more specific questions are more highly correlated with behavior than are attitudes measured using less specific questions. Data are from Davidson and Jaccard (1979).

Attitudes also predict behavior better for some people than for others. Self-monitoring refers to individual differences in the tendency to attend to social cues and to adjust one’s behavior to one’s social environment. To return to our example of Magritte, you might wonder whether she is the type of person who is likely to be persuaded by peer pressure because she is particularly concerned with being liked by others. If she is, then she’s probably more likely to want to fit in with whatever her friends are doing, and she might try a cigarette if her friends offer her one. On the other hand, if Magritte is not particularly concerned about following the social norms of her friends, then she’ll more likely be able to resist the persuasion. High self-monitors are those who tend to attempt to blend into the social situation in order to be liked; low self-monitors are those who are less likely to do so. You can see that, because they allow the social situation to influence their behaviors, the relationship between attitudes and behavior will be weaker for high self-monitors than it is for low self-monitors (Kraus, 1995).

Key Takeaways

• The term attitude refers to our relatively enduring evaluation of an attitude object.
• Our attitudes are inherited and also learned through direct and indirect experiences with the attitude objects.
• Some attitudes are more likely to be based on beliefs, some more likely to be based on feelings, and some more likely to be based on behaviors.
• Strong attitudes are important in the sense that we hold them with confidence, we do not change them very much, and we use them frequently to guide our actions.
• Although there is a general consistency between attitudes and behavior, the relationship is stronger in some situations than in others, for some measurements than for others, and for some people than for others.

Exercises and Critical Thinking

• Consider some of your attitudes toward people, products, or other attitude objects. Are your attitudes strong or weak? Are they determined more by affect or by cognition? How do the attitudes influence your behavior?
• Consider a time when you acted on your own attitudes and a time when you did not act on your own attitudes. What factors do you think determined the difference?

Abelson, R. P., Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D., & Fiske, S. T. (1981). Affective and semantic components in political person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42 , 619–630.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179–211.

Albarracín, D., Johnson, B. T., & Zanna, M. P. (Eds.). (2005). The handbook of attitudes (pp. 223–271). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Banaji, M. R., & Heiphetz, L. (2010). Attitudes. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 353–393). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Raymond, P., & Hymes, C. (1996). The automatic evaluation effect: Unconditional automatic attitude activation with a pronunciation task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32 (1), 104–128.

Beaman, A. L., Klentz, B., Diener, E., & Svanum, S. (1979). Self-awareness and transgression in children: Two field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (10), 1835–1846.

Bourgeois, M. J. (2002). Heritability of attitudes constrains dynamic social impact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 (8), 1063–1072.

Cunningham, W. A., & Zelazo, P. D. (2007). Attitudes and evaluations: A social cognitive neuroscience perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11 (3), 97–104.

Cunningham, W. A., Raye, C. L., & Johnson, M. K. (2004). Implicit and explicit evaluation: fMRI correlates of valence, emotional intensity, and control in the processing of attitudes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16 (10), 1717–1729.

Davidson, A. R., & Jaccard, J. J. (1979). Variables that moderate the attitude-behavior relation: Results of a longitudinal survey. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (8), 1364–1376.

De Houwer, J., Thomas, S., & Baeyens, F. (2001). Association learning of likes and dislikes: A review of 25 years of research on human evaluative conditioning. Psychological Bulletin, 127 (6), 853–869.

Downing, J. W., Judd, C. M., & Brauer, M. (1992). Effects of repeated expressions on attitude extremity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (1), 17–29.

Duckworth, K. L., Bargh, J. A., Garcia, M., & Chaiken, S. (2002). The automatic evaluation of novel stimuli. Psychological Science, 13 (6), 513–519.

Farc, M.-M., & Sagarin, B. J. (2009). Using attitude strength to predict registration and voting behavior in the 2004 U.S. presidential elections. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31 (2), 160–173. doi: 10.1080/01973530902880498.

Fazio, R. H. (1990). The MODE model as an integrative framework. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 23 , 75–109.

Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 247–282). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fazio, R. H., Powell, M. C., & Herr, P. M. (1983). Toward a process model of the attitude-behavior relation: Accessing one’s attitude upon mere observation of the attitude object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 (4), 723–735.

Fazio, R. H., Powell, M. C., & Williams, C. J. (1989). The role of attitude accessibility in the attitude-to-behavior process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (3), 280–288.

Ferguson, M. J., Bargh, J. A., & Nayak, D. A. (2005). After-affects: How automatic evaluations influence the interpretation of subsequent, unrelated stimuli. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41 (2), 182–191. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2004.05.008.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Glasman, L. R., & Albarracín, D. (2006). Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: A meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin, 132 (5), 778–822.

Handy, T. C., Smilek, D., Geiger, L., Liu, C., & Schooler, J. W. (2010). ERP evidence for rapid hedonic evaluation of logos. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22 (1), 124–138. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2008.21180.

Hargreaves, D. A., & Tiggemann, M. (2003). Female “thin ideal” media images and boys’ attitudes toward girls. Sex Roles, 49 (9–10), 539–544.

Kraus, S. J. (1995). Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21 (1), 58–75.

Krosnick, J. A., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 1–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

LaPiere, R. T. (1936). Type rationalization of group antipathy. Social Forces, 15 , 232–237.

Levina, M., Waldo, C. R., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2000). We’re here, we’re queer, we’re on TV: The effects of visual media on heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30 (4), 738–758.

MacDonald, T. K., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (1996). Why common sense goes out the window: Effects of alcohol on intentions to use condoms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22 (8), 763–775.

Maio, G. R., & Olson, J. M. (Eds.). (2000). Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mendes, W. B. (2008). Assessing autonomic nervous system reactivity. In E. Harmon-Jones & J. Beer (Eds.), Methods in the neurobiology of social and personality psychology (pp. 118–147). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Olson, J. M., Vernon, P. A., Harris, J. A., & Jang, K. L. (2001). The heritability of attitudes: A study of twins. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (6), 845–860.

Poteat, V. P. (2007). Peer group socialization of homophobic attitudes and behavior during adolescence. Child Development, 78 (6), 1830–1842.

Stangor, C., Sullivan, L. A., & Ford, T. E. (1991). Affective and cognitive determinants of prejudice. Social Cognition, 9 (4), 359–380.

Tesser, A., Martin, L., & Mendolia, M. (Eds.). (1995). The impact of thought on attitude extremity and attitude-behavior consistency . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361–386). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

van den Bos, W., McClure, S. M., Harris, L. T., Fiske, S. T., & Cohen, J. D. (2007). Dissociating affective evaluation and social cognitive processes in the ventral medial prefrontal cortex. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7 (4), 337–346.

Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25 (4), 41–78.

Wilson, T. D., & Schooler, J. W. (1991). Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 (2), 181–192.

Wood, W. (2000). Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual Review of Psychology , 539–570.

Principles of Social Psychology Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 4. Attitudes, Behavior, and Persuasion

4.3 Changing Attitudes by Changing Behavior

Learning Objectives

• Outline the principles of self-perception and explain how they can account for the influences of behavior on attitude.
• Outline the principles of cognitive dissonance and explain how they can account for the influences of behavior on attitude.

Although it might not have surprised you to hear that we can often predict people’s behaviors if we know their thoughts and their feelings about the attitude object, you might be surprised to find that our actions also have an influence on our thoughts and feelings. It makes sense that if I like strawberry jam, I’ll buy it, because my thoughts and feelings about a product influence my behavior. But will my attitudes toward orange marmalade become more positive if I decide—for whatever reason—to buy it instead of jam?

It turns out that if we engage in a behavior, and particularly one that we had not expected that we would have, our thoughts and feelings toward that behavior are likely to change. This might not seem intuitive, but it represents another example of how the principles of social psychology—in this case, the principle of attitude consistency—lead us to make predictions that wouldn’t otherwise be that obvious.

Imagine that one Tuesday evening in the middle of the semester you see your friend Joachim. He’s just finished his dinner and tells you that he’s planning to head home to study and work on a term paper. When you see him the next day, however, he seems a bit shaken. It turns out that instead of going home to study, Joachim spent the entire evening listening to music at a rock club in town. He says that he had a great time, stayed up late to watch the last set, and didn’t get home until the crack of dawn. And he woke up so late this morning that he missed his first two classes.

You might imagine that Joachim might be feeling some uncertainty and perhaps some regret about his unexpected behavior the night before. Although he knows that it is important to study and to get to his classes on time, he nevertheless realizes that, at least in this case, he neglected his schoolwork in favor of another activity. Joachim seems to be wondering why he, who knows how important school is, engaged in this behavior after he promised himself that he was going home to study. Let’s see if we can use the principles of attitude consistency to help us understand how Joachim might respond to his unexpected behavior and how his attitudes toward listening to music and studying might follow from it.

Self-Perception Involves Inferring Our Beliefs from Our Behaviors

People have an avid interest in understanding the causes of behavior, both theirs and others, and doing so helps us meet the important goals of other-concern and self-concern. If we can better understand how and why the other people around us act the way they do, then we will have a better chance of avoiding harm from others and a better chance of getting those other people to cooperate with and like us. And if we have a better idea of understanding the causes of our own behavior, we can better work to keep that behavior in line with our preferred plans and goals.

In some cases, people may be unsure about their attitudes toward different attitude objects. For instance, perhaps Joachim is a bit unsure about his attitude toward schoolwork versus listening to music (and this uncertainty certainly seems to be increasing in light of his recent behavior). Might Joachim look at his own behavior to help him determine his thoughts and feelings, just as he might look at the behavior of others to understand why they act the way that they do? Self-perception occurs when we use our own behavior as a guide to help us determine our own thoughts and feelings (Bem, 1972; Olson & Stone, 2005).

Research Focus

Looking at Our Own Behavior to Determine Our Attitudes

Eliot Aronson and J. Merrill Carlsmith (1963) conducted an experiment to determine whether young children might look at their own behavior to help determine their attitudes toward toys. In their research, they first had the children rate the attractiveness of several toys. They then chose a toy that a child had just indicated he or she really wanted to play with and—this was rather mean—told that child he or she could not play with that toy. Furthermore, and according to random assignment to conditions, half of the children were threatened with mild punishment if they disobeyed and the other half were threatened with severe punishment. In the mild threat condition the experimenter said, “I don’t want you to play with the toy. If you play with it, I would be annoyed,” whereas in the harsh threat condition the experimenter said, “I don’t want you to play with the toy. If you play with it, I would be very angry. I would have to take all of my toys and go home and never come back again.” The experimenter then left the room for a few minutes to give the children the time and opportunity to play with the other toys and to resist the temptation of playing with the forbidden toy, while watching the children through a one-way mirror.

It turned out that both the harsh and the mild threat were sufficient to prevent the children from playing with the forbidden toy—none of the children actually did so. Nevertheless, when the experimenter returned to the room and asked each child to again rate how much he or she liked the forbidden toy, the children who had received the harsh threat rated the toy significantly more positively than the children who had received the mild threat. Furthermore, the children who had only received the mild threat actually rated the forbidden toy less positively than they had at the beginning of the experiment. And this change was long lasting. Even when tested several weeks later, children still showed these changes (Freedman, 1965).

The results of this study indicate that the children’s self-perceptions of their behaviors influenced their attitudes toward the toys. Assume for a moment that the children were a bit unsure about how much they liked the toy that they did not play with and that they needed some information to determine their beliefs. The children in the harsh threat condition had a strong external reason for not having played with the toy—they were going to get into really big trouble if they did. Because these children likely saw the social situation as the cause of their behavior, they found it easy to believe that they still liked the toy a lot. For the children in the mild threat condition, however, the external reasons for their behavior were not so apparent—they had only been asked not to play with the toy. These children were more likely to conclude that their behavior was caused by internal, personal factors—that they did not play with the toy simply because they did not like it that much.

We can use the principles of self-perception to help understand how Joachim is interpreting his behavior of staying out all night at the club rather than studying. When Joachim looks at this behavior, he may start to wonder why he engaged in it. One answer is that the social situation caused the behavior; that is, he might decide that the band he heard last night was so fantastic that he simply had to go hear them and could not possibly have left the club early. Blaming the situation for the behavior allows him to avoid blaming himself for it and to avoid facing the fact that he found listening to music more important than his schoolwork. But the fact that Joachim is a bit worried about his unusual behavior suggests that he, at least in part, might be starting to wonder about his own motivations.

Perhaps you have experienced the effects of self-perception. Have you ever found yourself becoming more convinced about an argument you were making as you heard yourself making it? Or did you ever realize how thirsty you must have been as you quickly drank a big glass of water? Research has shown that self-perception occurs regularly and in many different domains. For instance, Gary Wells and Richard Petty (1980) found that people who were asked to shake their heads up and down rather than sideways while reading arguments favoring or opposing tuition increases at their school ended up agreeing with the arguments more, and Daryl Bem (1965) found that when people were told by the experimenter to say that certain cartoons were funny, they ended up actually finding those cartoons funnier. It appears in these cases that people looked at their own behavior: if they moved their head up and down or said that the cartoons were funny, they figured that they must agree with the arguments and like the cartoon.

Creating Insufficient Justification and Overjustification

You may recall that one common finding in social psychology is that people frequently do not realize the extent to which behavior is influenced by the social situation. Although this is particularly true for the behavior of others, in some cases it may apply to understanding our own behavior as well. This means that, at least in some cases, we may believe that we have chosen to engage in a behavior for personal reasons, even though external, situational factors have actually led us to it. Consider again the children who did not play with the forbidden toy in the Aronson and Carlsmith study, even though they were given only a mild reason for not doing so. Although these children were actually led to avoid the toy by the power of the situation (they certainly would have played with it if the experimenter hadn’t told them not to), they frequently concluded that the decision was a personal choice and ended up believing that the toy was not that fun after all. When the social situation actually causes our behavior, but we do not realize that the social situation was the cause , we call the phenomenon insufficient justification. Insufficient justification occurs when the threat or reward is actually sufficient to get the person to engage in or to avoid a behavior, but the threat or reward is insufficient to allow the person to conclude that the situation caused the behavior.

Although insufficient justification may lead people to like something less because they (incorrectly) infer that the reason they did not engage in a behavior was due to internal reasons, it is also possible that the opposite may occur. People may in some cases come to like a task less when they perceive that they did engage in it for external reasons. Overjustification  occurs when we view our behavior as caused by the situation, leading us to discount the extent to which our behavior was actually caused by our own interest in it (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Lepper & Greene, 1978).

Mark Lepper and his colleagues (Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973) studied the overjustification phenomenon by leading some children to think that they engaged in an activity for a reward rather than because they simply enjoyed it. First, they placed some fun felt-tipped markers into the classroom of the children they were studying. The children loved the markers and played with them right away. Then, the markers were taken out of the classroom and the children were given a chance to play with the markers individually at an experimental session with the researcher. At the research session, the children were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups. One group of children (the expected reward condition ) was told that if they played with the markers they would receive a good-drawing award. A second group (the unexpected reward condition ) also played with the markers and got the award—but they were not told ahead of time that they would be receiving the award (it came as a surprise after the session). The third group (the no reward condition ) played with the markers too but got no award.

Then, the researchers placed the markers back in the classroom and observed how much the children in each of the three groups played with them. The results are shown in Figure 4.9, “Undermining Initial Interest in an Activity.” The fascinating result was that the children who had been led to expect a reward for playing with the markers during the experimental session played with the markers less at the second session than they had at the first session. Expecting to receive the award at the session had undermined their initial interest in the markers.

Although this might not seem logical at first, it is exactly what is expected on the basis of the principle of overjustification. When the children had to choose whether to play with the markers when the markers reappeared in the classroom, they based their decision on their own prior behavior. The children in the no reward condition group and the children in the unexpected reward condition group realized that they played with the markers because they liked them. Children in the expected award condition group, however, remembered that they were promised a reward for the activity before they played with the markers the last time. These children were more likely to infer that they play with the markers mostly for the external reward, and because they did not expect to get any reward for playing with the markers in the classroom, they discounted the possibility that they enjoyed playing the markers because they liked them. As a result, they played less frequently with the markers compared with the children in the other groups.

This research suggests that, although giving rewards may in many cases lead us to perform an activity more frequently or with more effort, reward may not always increase our liking for the activity. In some cases, reward may actually make us like an activity less than we did before we were rewarded for it. And this outcome is particularly likely when the reward is perceived as an obvious attempt on the part of others to get us to do something. When children are given money by their parents to get good grades in school, they may improve their school performance to gain the reward. But at the same time their liking for school may decrease. On the other hand, rewards that are seen as more internal to the activity, such as rewards that praise us, remind us of our achievements in the domain, and make us feel good about ourselves as a result of our accomplishments, are more likely to be effective in increasing not only the performance of, but also the liking of, the activity (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Hulleman, Durik, Schweigert, & Harackiewicz, 2008).

In short, when we use harsh punishments we may prevent a behavior from occurring. However, because the person sees that it is the punishment that is controlling the behavior, the person’s attitudes may not change. Parents who wish to encourage their children to share their toys or to practice the piano therefore would be wise to provide “just enough” external incentive. Perhaps a consistent reminder of the appropriateness of the activity would be enough to engage the activity, making a stronger reprimand or other punishment unnecessary. Similarly, when we use extremely positive rewards, we may increase the behavior but at the same time undermine the person’s interest in the activity.

The problem, of course, is finding the right balance between reinforcement and overreinforcement. If we want our child to avoid playing in the street, and if we provide harsh punishment for disobeying, we may prevent the behavior but not change the attitude. The child may not play in the street while we are watching but may do so when we leave. Providing less punishment is more likely to lead the child to actually change his or her beliefs about the appropriateness of the behavior, but the punishment must be enough to prevent the undesired behavior in the first place. The moral is clear: if we want someone to develop a strong attitude, we should use the smallest reward or punishment that is effective in producing the desired behavior.

The Experience of Cognitive Dissonance Can Create Attitude Change

Let’s return once more to our friend Joachim and imagine that we now discover that over the next two weeks he has spent virtually every night at clubs listening to music rather than studying. And these behaviors are starting to have some severe consequences: he just found out that he’s failed his biology midterm. How will he ever explain that to his parents? What were at first relatively small discrepancies between self-concept and behavior are starting to snowball, and they are starting to have more affective consequences. Joachim is realizing that he’s in big trouble—the inconsistencies between his prior attitudes about the importance of schoolwork and his behavior are creating some significant threats to his positive self-esteem. As we saw in our discussion of self-awareness theory, this  discomfort that occurs when we behave in ways that we see as inconsistent, such as when we fail to live up to our own expectations , is called cognitive dissonance (Cooper, 2007; Festinger, 1957; Harmon-Jones & Mills, 1999). The discomfort of cognitive dissonance is experienced as pain, showing up in a part of the brain that is particularly sensitive to pain—the anterior cingulate cortex (van Veen, Krug, Schooler, & Carter, 2009).

Leon Festinger and J. Merrill Carlsmith (1959) conducted an important study designed to demonstrate the extent to which behaviors that are discrepant from our initial beliefs can create cognitive dissonance and can influence attitudes. College students participated in an experiment in which they were asked to work on a task that was incredibly boring (such as turning pegs on a peg board) and lasted for a full hour. After they had finished the task, the experimenter explained that the assistant who normally helped convince people to participate in the study was unavailable and that he could use some help persuading the next person that the task was going to be interesting and enjoyable. The experimenter explained that it would be much more convincing if a fellow student rather than the experimenter delivered this message and asked the participant if he would be willing do to it. Thus with his request the experimenter induced the participants to lie about the task to another student, and all the participants agreed to do so.

The experimental manipulation involved the amount of money the students were paid to tell the lie. Half of the students were offered a large payment ($20) for telling the lie, whereas the other half were offered only a small payment ($1) for telling the lie. After the participants had told the lie, an interviewer asked each of them how much they had enjoyed the task they had performed earlier in the experiment. As you can see in Figure 4.10, “Employment of Task,” Festinger and Carlsmith found that the students who had been paid $20 for saying the tasks had been enjoyable rated the task as very boring, which indeed it was. In contrast, the students who were paid only $1 for telling the lie changed their attitude toward the task and rated it as significantly more interesting.

Festinger explained the results of this study in terms of consistency and inconsistency among cognitions. He hypothesized that some thoughts might be dissonant , in the sense that they made us feel uncomfortable, while other thoughts were more consonant , in the sense that they made us feel good. He argued that people may feel an uncomfortable state (which he called cognitive dissonance ) when they have many dissonant thoughts—for instance, between the idea that (a) they are smart and decent people and (b) they nevertheless told a lie to another student for only a small payment.

Festinger argued that the people in his experiment who had been induced to lie for only $1 experienced more cognitive dissonance than the people who were paid $20 because the latter group had a strong external justification for having done it whereas the former did not. The people in the $1 condition, Festinger argued, needed to convince themselves that that the task was actually interesting to reduce the dissonance they were experiencing.

Although originally considered in terms of the inconsistency among different cognitions, Festinger’s theory has also been applied to the negative feelings that we experience when there is inconsistency between our attitudes and our behavior, and particularly when the behavior threatens our perceptions of ourselves as good people (Aronson, 1969). Thus Joachim is likely feeling cognitive dissonance because he has acted against his better judgment and these behaviors are having some real consequences for him. The dissonant thoughts involve (a) his perception of himself as a hardworking student, compared with (b) his recent behaviors that do not support that idea. Our expectation is that Joachim will not enjoy these negative feelings and will attempt to get rid of them.

We Reduce Dissonance by Decreasing Dissonant or by Increasing Consonant Cognitions

Because Joachim’s perception of himself as a hardworking student is now in jeopardy, he is feeling cognitive dissonance and will naturally try to reduce these negative emotions. He can do so in a number of ways. One possibility is that Joachim could simply change his behavior by starting to study more and go out less. If he is successful in doing this, his dissonance will clearly be reduced and he can again feel good about himself. But it seems that he has not been very successful in this regard—over the past weeks he has continually put off studying for listening to music. A second option is to attempt to reduce his dissonant cognitions—those that threaten his self-esteem. Perhaps he might try to convince himself that he has failed only one test and that he didn’t expect to do very well in biology anyway. If he can make the negative behaviors seem less important, dissonance will be reduced.

But Joachim has a third option: even if he cannot change his behavior and even if he knows that what he’s doing has negative consequences, he can create new consonant cognitions to counteract the dissonant cognitions. For instance, Joachim might try to convince himself that he is going to become an important record producer some day and that it is therefore essential that he attend many concerts. When Joachim takes this route he changes his beliefs to be more in line with his behavior, and the outcome is that he has now restored attitude consistency. His behaviors no longer seem as discrepant from his attitudes as they were before, and when consistency is restored, dissonance is reduced. What the principles of cognitive dissonance suggest, then, is that we may frequently spend more energy convincing ourselves that we are good people than we do thinking of ourselves accurately. Of course we do this because viewing ourselves negatively is painful.

Cognitive Dissonance in Everyday Life

Cognitive dissonance is an important social psychological principle that can explain how attitudes follow behavior in many domains of our everyday life. For instance, people who try but fail to quit smoking cigarettes naturally suffer lowered self-esteem (Gibbons, Eggleston, & Benthin, 1997). But rather than accepting this negative feeling, they frequently attempt to engage in behaviors that reduce dissonance. They may try to convince themselves that smoking is not that bad: “My grandmother smoked but lived to be 93 years old!” “I’m going to quit next year!” Or they may try to add new consonant cognitions: “Smoking is fun; it relaxes me.” You can see that these processes, although making us feel better about ourselves at least in the short run, may nevertheless have some long-term negative outcomes.

Elliot Aronson and Judson Mills (1959) studied whether the cognitive dissonance created by an initiation process could explain how much commitment students felt to a group they were part of. In their experiment, female college students volunteered to join a group that would be meeting regularly to discuss various aspects of the psychology of sex. According to random assignment, some of the women were told that they would be required to perform an embarrassing procedure before they could join the group (they were asked to read some obscene words and some sexually oriented passages from a novel in public), whereas other women did not have to go through this initiation. Then all the women got a chance to listen to the group’s conversation, which turned out to be very boring.

Aronson and Mills found that the women who had gone through the embarrassing experience subsequently reported more liking for the group than those who had not, and Gerard and Matthewson (1966) found that having to take some electrical shocks as part of an initiation process had the same effect. Aronson and Mills argued that the more effort an individual expends to become a member of the group (e.g., a severe initiation), the more he or she will become committed to the group in order to justify the effort put in during the initiation. The idea is that the effort creates dissonant cognitions (e.g., “I did all this work to join the group”), which are then justified by creating more consonant ones (e.g., “Okay, this group is really pretty fun”). The women who spent little effort to get into the group were able to see the group as the dull and boring conversation that it was. The women who went through the more severe initiation, however, succeeded in convincing themselves that the same discussion was a worthwhile experience. When we put in effort for something—an initiation, a big purchase price, or even some of our precious time—we will likely end up liking the activity more than we would have if the effort had been less. Even the effort of having to fill out a purchase agreement for a product, rather than having the salesperson do it for you, creates commitment to the purchase and a greater likelihood of staying in the deal (Cialdini, 2001).

Another time you may have experienced the negative affective state of cognitive dissonance is after you have made an important and irrevocable decision. Imagine that you are about to buy a new car and you have narrowed your search to a small new car and a larger (but much cheaper) used car. The problem is that you can see advantages and disadvantages to each. For instance, the smaller car would get better gas mileage, but the larger car—because it is used—is cheaper. Imagine, however, that you finally decide to buy the larger car because you feel that you really don’t have enough money for the new car.

That night, you’re lying in bed and wondering about your decision. Although you’ve enjoyed driving the big car that you have just purchased, you’re worried about rising gas costs, the negative impact of the big car on the environment, and the possibility that the car might need a lot of repairs. Have you made the right decision? This “buyer’s remorse” can be interpreted in terms of postdecisional dissonance — the feeling of regret that may occur after we make an important decision (Brehm, 1956). However, the principles of dissonance predict that once you make the decision— and regardless of which car you choose —you will convince yourself that you made the right choice. Since you have chosen the larger car, you will likely begin to think more about the positive aspects of the choice that you have made (what you are going to be able to do with the money you saved, rather than how much more it is going to cost to fill up the gas tank), and at the same time you will likely downplay the values of the smaller car.

Jack Brehm (1956) posed as a representative of a consumer testing service and asked women to rate the attractiveness and desirability of several kinds of appliances, such as toasters and electric coffee makers. Each woman was told that as a reward for having participated in the survey, she could have one of the appliances as a gift. She was given a choice between two of the products she had rated as being about equally attractive. After she made her decision, her appliance was wrapped up and given to her. Then, 20 minutes later, each woman was asked to re-rate all the products. As you can see in Figure 4.11, “Postdecisional Dissonance,” Brehm found that the women rated the appliance that they had chosen and been given as a gift higher than they had the first time. And the women also lowered their rating of the appliance they might have chosen but decided to reject. These results are of course consistent with the principles of cognitive dissonance—postdecisional dissonance is reduced by focusing on the positive aspects of the chosen product and the negative aspects of the rejected product.

What research on cognitive dissonance suggests, then, is that people who are experiencing dissonance will generally try to reduce it. If we fail to lose the weight we wanted to lose, we decide that we look good anyway. If we cheat on an exam, we decide that cheating is okay or common. If we hurt other people’s feelings, we may even decide that they are bad people who deserve our negative behavior. To escape from feeling poorly about themselves, people will engage in quite extraordinary rationalizing. No wonder that most of us believe the statement, “If I had it all to do over again, I would not change anything important.”

Of course, the tendency to justify our past behavior has positive outcomes for our affect. If we are able to convince ourselves that we can do no wrong, we will be happier—at least for today. But the desire to create positive self-esteem can lead to a succession of self-justifications that ultimately result in a chain of irrational actions. The irony is that to avoid thinking of ourselves as bad or immoral, we may set ourselves up for more immoral acts. Once Joachim has convinced himself that his schoolwork is not important, it may be hard to pick it up again. Once a smoker has decided it is okay to smoke, she may just keep smoking. If we spend too much time thinking positively about ourselves we will not learn from our mistakes; nor will we grow or change. In order to learn from our behavior, it would be helpful to learn to tolerate dissonance long enough to examine the situation critically and dispassionately. We then stand a chance of breaking out of the cycle of action followed by justification, followed by more action.

There is still another potential negative outcome of dissonance: when we have to make choices we may feel that we have made poor ones. Barry Schwartz (2004) has argued that having too many choices can create dissonance and thus the opportunity for regret. When we go to the store and have to pick only one out of 30 different types of chocolates, we have more opportunities for postdecisional dissonance. Although it seems like being allowed to choose would be a good thing, people report being happier when they are given a free gift than when they are given a choice between two similar gifts and have to reject one of them (Hsee & Hastie, 2006).

Positive Self-Esteem Reduces Dissonance

We have seen that the experience of cognitive dissonance can influence our thoughts and feelings about an attitude object by making us feel uncomfortable about our own behaviors. The discrepant behavior causes our sense of self-worth to be lowered, which then causes us to change our attitudes to feel better about ourselves.

• Discrepant behavior ⟶ lowered self-worth ⟶ changes in thoughts and feelings

Imagine that immediately after you did something dishonest, but before you had a chance to try to reduce the dissonance you were experiencing, you were able to remind yourself of the fact that you had recently done something else very positive—perhaps you had recently spent some time volunteering at a homeless shelter or gotten a really high score on an important exam. Would the possibility of boosting your self-esteem in this other, but unrelated, domain make it unnecessary for you to engage in dissonance reduction? Could you say, “Well, it’s true that I cheated, but I’m really a fine, intelligent, and generous person.” Research has demonstrated that this is the case. If we can affirm our self-worth, even on dimensions that are not related to the source of the original dissonance, the negative feelings we experience are reduced and so is the tendency to justify our attitudes (Steele, 1988).

Just as finding ways to affirm our self-esteem should reduce cognitive dissonance, threats to our self-esteem should increase it. Because cognitive dissonance poses a threat to one’s self-esteem, people who are more motivated by self-concern should show bigger changes in their thoughts and feelings after they engage in a discrepant behavior than should those who are less motivated by self-concern.

Following the research of Brehm (1956), Heine and Lehman (1997) conducted an experiment to determine if threats to self-esteem would increase the magnitude of the dissonance-reduction effect, and if dissonance reduction would also occur for Japanese students as they had previously been found in students from Western samples. They expected that there would be less need for dissonance reduction in the Japanese than in Western students because the Japanese (and other Easterners) were less motivated overall to maintain a positive self-image.

In their study, 71 Canadian and 71 Japanese participants were first asked to take a personality test. According to random assignment to conditions, one-third of the sample in each country were led to believe that they had scored much higher on the test than did the other participants and thus that they had “positive” personalities (the positive feedback condition). Another third of the sample (the negative feedback condition) were led to believe that they had scored more poorly on the test than average, and the final third (the control condition ) were not given any feedback on their personality test scores.

Then all participants rated the desirability of 10 compact discs (which were known to be popular in both Canada and Japan) and were asked to choose between their fifth- and sixth-rated CDs as compensation for their participation. Finally, after choosing one of the CDs, the participants were asked to again rate their liking for the CDs. The change in the ratings from before choice to after choice, which would have occurred if the participants increased their liking of the CD they had chosen or decreased their liking of the CD they had rejected, was the dependent measure in the study.

As you can see in Figure 4.12, “Spread of Alternatives by Culture and Feedback Condition,” the researchers found a significant interaction between culture and personality feedback. The pattern of means showed that the feedback mattered for the Canadian participants—the difference in the ratings of the chosen versus the rejected CD (the “spread of alternatives”) increased from the positive to the control to the negative feedback conditions. However, there was no significant simple effect of feedback for the Japanese students, nor did they show a significant spread of alternatives in any feedback condition.

However, other researchers have found that individuals from collectivistic cultures do show dissonance effects when they are focused on their relationships with others. For instance, Kitayama, Snibbe, Markus, and Suzuki (2004) found that East Asian participants experienced dissonance particularly when they were asked to think about a close friend who had made a dissonance-creating decision. Such a result would be expected because behaviors that involve more other-oriented, collectivistic outcomes should be more important for these people. Indeed, research has found that advertisements that are framed in terms of personal benefits (e.g., “Use this breath mint!”) are more persuasive in individualistic cultures, whereas ads that emphasize family or ingroup benefits (e.g., “Share this breath mint with your friends!”) are more persuasive in collectivistic cultures (Han & Shavitt, 1994).

Although dissonance is most likely when our behavior violates our positive self-concept, attitude change can occur whenever our thoughts and behaviors are inconsistent, even if the self-concept is not involved. For instance, Harmon-Jones and his colleagues (Harmon-Jones, Brehm, Greenberg, Simon, & Nelson, 1996) had people drink an unpleasant-tasting beverage (Kool-Aid made with vinegar instead of sugar) and then write down on a small slip of paper, which they then immediately crumpled up and threw away, a statement saying that they really liked the drink. Harmon-Jones and his colleagues found that even though the lie could not possibly harm anyone, the act of lying nevertheless made the participants express more positive attitudes toward the drink. It appears that even lying to oneself about something relatively unimportant can produce dissonance and change attitudes (Prislin & Pool, 1996; Stone, 1999).

Salespeople make use of psychological principles, including self-perception and cognitive dissonance, to encourage people to buy their products, often in ways that seem less than completely open and ethical. Informed consumers are aware of such techniques, including the foot-in-the-door technique, the low-ball technique, and the bait-and-switch technique. Let’s consider in the next section how these strategies might work.

Social Psychology in the Public Interest

How Salespeople Use Principles of Persuasion

The research that we have discussed in this chapter reveals some of the many ways that we can persuade people to buy our products, to vote for our candidates, and to engage in other behaviors that we would like them to engage in. We have seen that we will be more successful if we use the right communicators and if we present the right messages under the right conditions. But it must also be kept in mind that a full understanding of the techniques used by persuaders may also be useful to help us avoid being persuaded by others.

Salespeople sometimes make use of the Behavior ⟶ Attitude relationship to attempt to persuade others. Regardless of whether the change is due to the cognitive principles of self-perception or the more affective principles of dissonance reduction, the attitude change that follows behavior can be strong and long lasting. This fact creates some very interesting opportunities for changing attitudes.

One approach based on this idea is to get people to move slowly in the desired direction, such that they commit to a smaller act first. The idea is that it will be relatively easy to get people to engage in a small behavior after which their perceptions of this initial behavior will change their attitudes, making it more likely for them to engage in a more costly behavior later. The foot-in-the-door technique refers to a persuasion attempt in which we first get the target to accept a rather minor request, and then we ask for a larger request . Freedman and Fraser (1966) asked homeowners if they would be willing to place a small sticker in the window of their house that said “Be a safe driver.” Many of the homeowners agreed to this small request. Then several weeks later, the researchers came back and asked these same homeowners to put a big, ugly “DRIVE CAREFULLY” sign on their lawns. Almost 80% of the homeowners who had agreed to put the sticker in their window later agreed to put the sign up, in comparison to only about 20% who agreed when they were asked about the sign without having been asked about the sticker first. In a more recent study, Nicolas Guéguen (2002) found that students in a computer discussion group were more likely to volunteer to complete a 40-question survey on their food habits (which required 15 to 20 minutes of their time) if they had already, a few minutes earlier, agreed to help the same requestor with a simple computer-related question (about how to convert a file type) than if they had not first been given the smaller opportunity to help.

You can see that the foot-in-the-door technique is a classic case of self-perception and commitment—once people label themselves as the kind of person who conforms to the requests of others in the relevant domain (e.g., “I volunteer to help safe driving campaigns,” “I help people in my discussion group”), it is easier to get them to conform later. Similarly, imagine a restaurant owner who has problems with people who make table reservations but then don’t call to cancel when they can’t come at the appointed time. The restaurant owner could try to reduce the problem by first getting a small commitment. Instead of having the people who take the reservations say, “Please call if you change your plans,” they could instead ask, “Will you call us if you change your plans?” and then wait for the person to say yes. The act of saying yes to a simple request creates commitment to the behavior, and not following through on the promise would be likely to create cognitive dissonance. Since people don’t want to feel that they have violated their commitment, this should reduce the no-show rate.

Another approach based on the attitudes-follow-behavior idea, and which can be used by unscrupulous salespeople, is known as the low-ball technique. In this case, the salesperson promises the customer something desirable, such as a low price on a car, with the intention of getting the person to imagine himself or herself engaging in the desired behavior (in this case, purchasing the car). After the customer has committed to purchasing the car at a low price, the salesperson then indicates that he or she cannot actually sell the car at that price. In this case, people are more likely to buy the car at the higher price than they would have been if the car had first been offered at the higher price. Backing out on a commitment seems wrong and may threaten self-esteem, even if the commitment was obtained in an unethical way.

In testing the low-ball effect, Guéguen, Pascual, and Dagot (2002) asked people to watch a dog for them while they visited someone in the hospital. Some participants were told that they would need to watch the dog for 30 minutes. Other participants were first asked simply to commit to watching the dog, and then only later informed that they would have to watch it for 30 minutes. The latter group had been low-balled, and they complied more often with the request.

A close alternative to low-balling is known as the bait-and-switch technique, which occurs when someone advertises a product at a very low price. When you visit the store to buy the product, however, you learn that the product you wanted at the low price has been sold out . An example is a car dealership that advertises a low-priced car in a newspaper ad but doesn’t have that car available when you visit the dealership to purchase it. Again, people are more likely to buy an alternative higher-priced product after they have committed themselves to the purchase than they would have been without the original information. Once you imagine yourself owning the car, your attitude toward the car becomes more positive, making the idea of giving it up more costly and also making it more likely that you will buy it.

Finally, although the foot-in-the-door, low-balling, and bait-and-switch tactics take advantage of the principles of commitment and consistency, it is important to be aware that there are several other paths to persuasion (see Table 4.2, “Potential Paths to Persuasion”). One such path is to rely on the norm of reciprocity—that is, the general expectation that people should return a favor. The  door-in-the-face technique begins by making an unreasonably large request; for example, asking a fellow student if he or she would be willing to take notes on your behalf for the entire semester. Assuming the student declines, you might then suggest a compromise by requesting that the student only shares his or her notes from the most recent class. In this case, your fellow student is likely to consent to the second request largely because the student feels that he or she should mirror the concession you have offered.

The  pre-giving technique also relies on the norm of reciprocity. In this case, a charitable organization might mail you a small, unsolicited gift, followed by a request for a monetary donation. Having received the gift, many people feel a sense of obligation to support the organization in return, which is, of course, what they are counting on!

Key Takeaways

• As predicted by the principle of attitude consistency, if we engage in an unexpected or unusual behavior, our thoughts and feelings toward that behavior are likely to change.
• Self-perception occurs when we use our own behavior as a guide to help us determine our thoughts and feelings.
• Self-perception can lead to either insufficient justification—the perception that there was not enough external threat to avoid engaging in a behavior—or overjustification—the perception that our behavior was caused primarily by external factors.
• Principles of self-perception suggest that to create true attitude change we should avoid using too much punishment or too much reward.
• Cognitive dissonance refers to the discomfort that occurs when we behave in ways that we see as inappropriate, such as when we fail to live up to our own expectations.
• Dissonance is reduced by changing behavior, by reducing dissonant cognitions, or by creating new consonant cognitions to counteract the dissonant cognitions.
• Dissonance is observed in many everyday experiences, including initiation and the experience of postdecisional dissonance.
• Engaging in dissonance reduction has many positive outcomes for our affect but may lead to harmful self-justifications and irrational actions.
• Because dissonance involves self-concern, it is stronger when we do not feel very positively about ourselves and may be stronger in Western than in Eastern cultures.
• Marketers use the principles of dissonance in their attempts at persuasion. Examples are the foot-in-the-door technique, low-balling, and the bait-and-switch technique.

Exercises and Critical Thinking

• Describe a time when your attitudes changed on the basis of your observation of your behaviors.
• Describe a time when you behaved in a way that was inconsistent with your self-concept and which led you to experience cognitive dissonance. How did you reduce the dissonance?
• Did you ever buy a product or engage in an activity as the result of the foot-in-the-door technique, door-in-the-face, low-balling, or the bait-and-switch technique? If so, describe your experience.

Aronson, E. (1969). The theory of cognitive dissonance: A current perspective. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.).  Advances in experimental social psychology  (Vol. 4, pp. 1–34). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1963). Effect of the severity of threat on the devaluation of forbidden behavior.  Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66 (6), 584–588.

Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group.  Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59 , 171–181.

Bem, D. J. (1965). An experimental analysis of self-persuasion.  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1 (3), 199–218;

Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory.  Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6 , 1-62.

Brehm, J. W. (1956). Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives.  Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52 (3), 384–389.

Cialdini, R. (2001).  Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.) . Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Cooper, J. M. (2007).  Cognitive dissonance: 50 years of a classical theory . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage;

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Self-determination research: Reflections and future directions. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.),  Handbook of self-determination research  (pp. 431–441). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation.  Psychological Bulletin, 125 (6), 627–668.

Festinger, L. (1957).  A theory of cognitive dissonance . Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson;

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance.  Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58 , 203–210.

Freedman, J. L. (1965). Long-term behavioral effects of cognitive dissonance.  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1 (2), 145–155.

Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 (2), 195–202.

Gerard, H. B., & Matthewson, G. C. (1966). The effects of severity of initiation on liking for a group: A replication.  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2 , 278–287.

Gibbons, F. X., Eggleston, T. J., & Benthin, A. C. (1997). Cognitive reactions to smoking relapse: The reciprocal relation between dissonance and self-esteem.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 (1), 184–195.

Guéguen, N. (2002). Foot-in-the-door technique and computer-mediated communication.  Computers in Human Behavior, 18 (1), 11–15. doi: 10.1016/s0747-5632(01)00033-4

Guéguen, N., Pascual, A., & Dagot, L. (2002). Low-ball and compliance to a request: An application in a field setting.  Psychological Reports, 91 (1), 81–84. doi: 10.2466/pr0.91.5.81-84

Han, S., & Shavitt, S. (1994). Persuasion and culture: Advertising appeals in individualistic and collectivistic societies.  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30 (4), 326–350.

Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (1999).  Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Harmon-Jones, E., Brehm, J. W., Greenberg, J., Simon, L., & Nelson, D. E. (1996). Evidence that the production of aversive consequences is not necessary to create cognitive dissonance.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (1), 5–16.

Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1997). Culture, dissonance, and self-affirmation.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23 , 389-400. doi:10.1177/0146167297234005.

Hsee, C. K., & Hastie, R. (2006). Decision and experience: Why don’t we choose what makes us happy?  Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10 (1), 31–37.

Hulleman, C. S., Durik, A. M., Schweigert, S. B., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2008). Task values, achievement goals, and interest: An integrative analysis.  Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (2), 398–416. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.398

Kitayama, S., Snibbe, A. C., Markus, H. R., & Suzuki, T. (2004). Is there any “free” choice?: Self and dissonance in two cultures.  Psychological Science, 15 (8), 527–535.

Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D. (1978).  The hidden costs of reward: New perspectives on the psychology of human motivation.  Oxford, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the “overjustification” hypothesis.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28 , 129–137.

Olson, J. M., & Stone, J. (2005). The influence of behavior on attitudes. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.),  The handbook of attitudes  (pp. 223–271). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Prislin, R., & Pool, G. J. (1996). Behavior, consequences, and the self: Is all well that ends well?  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22 (9), 933–948;

Schwartz, B. (2004).  The paradox of choice: Why more is less . New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self.  Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21 , 261–302.

Stone, J. (Ed.). (1999).  What exactly have I done? The role of self-attribute accessibility in dissonance . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

van Veen, V., Krug, M. K., Schooler, J. W., & Carter, C. S. (2009). Neural activity predicts attitude change in cognitive dissonance.  Nature Neuroscience, 12 (11), 1469–1474.

Wells, G. L., & Petty, R. E. (1980). The effects of overt head movements on persuasion: Compatibility and incompatibility of responses.  Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1 (3), 219–230.

Media Attributions

• “Figure 4.9 Undermining Initial Interest in an Activity” is based on data from Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett (1973). Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the “overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129–137.
• “Figure 4.10 Festinger and Carlsmith” is based on data from Festinger and Carlsmith (1959). Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203–210.
• “Figure 4.11 Postdecisional Dissonance” is based on data from Brehm (1956). Brehm, J. W. (1956). Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52(3), 384–389.
• “Figure 4.12 Spread of Alternatives by Culture and Feedback Condition” is based on data from Heine and Lehman (1997). Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1997). Culture, dissonance, and self-affirmation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 389-400. doi:10.1177/0146167297234005.

When we use our own behavior as a guide to help us determine our own thoughts and feelings.

When the social situation actually causes our behavior, but we do not realize that the social situation was the cause.

When we view our behavior as caused by the situation, leading us to discount the extent to which our behavior was actually caused by our own interest in it.

The discomfort that occurs when we respond in ways that we see as inconsistent.

The feeling of regret that may occur after we make an important decision (Brehm, 1956). However, the principles of dissonance predict that once you make the decision—and regardless of which car you choose.

A persuasion attempt in which we first get the target to accept a rather minor request, and then we ask for a larger request.

Which occurs when someone advertises a product at a very low price. When you visit the store to buy the product, however, you learn that the product you wanted at the low price has been sold out.

The general expectation that people should return a favor.

Relies on the norm of reciprocity. In this case, a charitable organization might mail you a small, unsolicited gift, followed by a request for a monetary donation. Having received the gift, many people feel a sense of obligation to support the organization in return, which is, of course, what they are counting on!

Principles of Social Psychology - 1st International H5P Edition Copyright © 2022 by Dr. Rajiv Jhangiani and Dr. Hammond Tarry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Social Psychology

Learning objectives.

• Define attitude and recognize how people’s attitudes are internally changed through cognitive dissonance

Social psychologists have documented how the power of the situation can influence our behaviors. Now we turn to how the power of the situation can influence our attitudes and beliefs. Attitude is our evaluation of a person, an idea, or an object. We have attitudes for many things ranging from products that we might pick up in the supermarket to people around the world to political policies. Typically, attitudes are favorable or unfavorable: positive or negative (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). And, they have three components: an affective component (feelings), a behavioral component (the effect of the attitude on behavior), and a cognitive component (belief and knowledge) (Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960).

For example, you may hold a positive attitude toward recycling. This attitude should result in positive feelings toward recycling (such as “It makes me feel good to recycle” or “I enjoy knowing that I make a small difference in reducing the amount of waste that ends up in landfills”). Certainly, this attitude should be reflected in our behavior: You actually recycle as often as you can. Finally, this attitude will be reflected in favorable thoughts (for example, “Recycling is good for the environment” or “Recycling is the responsible thing to do”).

Our attitudes and beliefs are not only influenced by external forces, but also by internal influences that we control. Like our behavior, our attitudes and thoughts are not always changed by situational pressures, but they can be consciously changed by our own free will. In this section we discuss the conditions under which we would want to change our own attitudes and beliefs.

What is Cognitive Dissonance?

Social psychologists have documented that feeling good about ourselves and maintaining positive self-esteem is a powerful motivator of human behavior (Tavris & Aronson, 2008). In the United States, members of the predominant culture typically think very highly of themselves and view themselves as good people who are above average on many desirable traits (Ehrlinger, Gilovich, & Ross, 2005). Often, our behavior, attitudes, and beliefs are affected when we experience a threat to our self-esteem or positive self-image. Psychologist Leon Festinger (1957) defined cognitive dissonance as psychological discomfort arising from holding two or more inconsistent attitudes, behaviors, or cognitions (thoughts, beliefs, or opinions). Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance states that when we experience a conflict in our behaviors, attitudes, or beliefs that runs counter to our positive self-perceptions, we experience psychological discomfort (dissonance). For example, if you believe smoking is bad for your health but you continue to smoke, you experience conflict between your belief and behavior.

Figure 1 . Cognitive dissonance is aroused by inconsistent beliefs and behaviors. Believing cigarettes are bad for your health, but smoking cigarettes anyway, can cause cognitive dissonance. To reduce cognitive dissonance, individuals can change their behavior, as in quitting smoking, or change their belief, such as discounting the evidence that smoking is harmful. (credit “cigarettes”: modification of work by CDC/Debora Cartagena; “patch”: modification of “RegBarc”/Wikimedia Commons; “smoking”: modification of work by Tim Parkinson)

Later research documented that only conflicting cognitions that threaten individuals’ positive self-image cause dissonance (Greenwald & Ronis, 1978). Additional research found that dissonance is not only psychologically uncomfortable but also can cause physiological arousal (Croyle & Cooper, 1983) and activate regions of the brain important in emotions and cognitive functioning (van Veen, Krug, Schooler, & Carter, 2009). When we experience cognitive dissonance, we are motivated to decrease it because it is psychologically, physically, and mentally uncomfortable. We can reduce cognitive dissonance by bringing our cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors in line—that is, making them harmonious. This can be done in different ways, such as:

• changing our discrepant behavior (e.g., stop smoking),
• changing our cognitions through rationalization or denial (e.g., telling ourselves that health risks can be reduced by smoking filtered cigarettes),
• adding a new cognition (e.g., “Smoking suppresses my appetite so I don’t become overweight, which is good for my health.”).

A classic example of cognitive dissonance is John, a 20-year-old who enlists in the military. During boot camp he is awakened at 5:00 a.m., is chronically sleep deprived, yelled at, covered in sand flea bites, physically bruised and battered, and mentally exhausted (Figure 2). It gets worse. Recruits that make it to week 11 of boot camp have to do 54 hours of continuous training.

Figure 2 . A person who has chosen a difficult path must deal with cognitive dissonance in addition to many other discomforts. (credit: Tyler J. Bolken)

Not surprisingly, John is miserable. No one likes to be miserable. In this type of situation, people can change their beliefs, their attitudes, or their behaviors. The last option, a change of behaviors, is not available to John. He has signed on to the military for four years, and he cannot legally leave.

If John keeps thinking about how miserable he is, it is going to be a very long four years. He will be in a constant state of cognitive dissonance. As an alternative to this misery, John can change his beliefs or attitudes. He can tell himself, “I am becoming stronger, healthier, and sharper. I am learning discipline and how to defend myself and my country. What I am doing is really important.” If this is his belief, he will realize that he is becoming stronger through his challenges. He then will feel better and not experience cognitive dissonance, which is an uncomfortable state.

Effect of Initiation

The military example demonstrates the observation that a difficult initiation into a group influences us to like the group more. Another social psychology concept, justification of effort , suggests that we value goals and achievements that we put a lot of effort into. According to this theory, if something is difficult for us to achieve, we believe it is more worthwhile. For example, if you move to an apartment and spend hours assembling a dresser you bought from Ikea, you will value that more than a fancier dresser your parents bought you. We do not want to have wasted time and effort to join a group that we eventually leave. A classic experiment by Aronson and Mills (1959) demonstrated this justification of effort effect. College students volunteered to join a campus group that would meet regularly to discuss the psychology of sex. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: no initiation, an easy initiation, and a difficult initiation into the group. After participating in the first discussion, which was deliberately made very boring, participants rated how much they liked the group. Participants who underwent a difficult initiation process to join the group rated the group more favorably than did participants with an easy initiation or no initiation (Figure 3).

Figure 3 . Justification of effort has a distinct effect on a person liking a group. Students in the difficult initiation condition liked the group more than students in other conditions due to the justification of effort.

Similar effects can be seen in a more recent study of how student effort affects course evaluations. Heckert, Latier, Ringwald-Burton, and Drazen (2006) surveyed 463 undergraduates enrolled in courses at a midwestern university about the amount of effort that their courses required of them. In addition, the students were also asked to evaluate various aspects of the course. Given what you’ve just read, it will come as no surprise that those courses that were associated with the highest level of effort were evaluated as being more valuable than those that did not. Furthermore, students indicated that they learned more in courses that required more effort, regardless of the grades that they received in those courses (Heckert et al., 2006).

Besides the classic military example and group initiation, can you think of other examples of cognitive dissonance? Here is one: Marco and Maria live in Fairfield County, Connecticut, which is one of the wealthiest areas in the United States and has a very high cost of living. Marco telecommutes from home and Maria does not work outside of the home. They rent a very small house for more than $3000 a month. Maria shops at consignment stores for clothes and economizes where she can. They complain that they never have any money and that they cannot buy anything new. When asked why they do not move to a less expensive location, since Marco telecommutes, they respond that Fairfield County is beautiful, they love the beaches, and they feel comfortable there. How does the theory of cognitive dissonance apply to Marco and Maria’s choices?

Think It Over

Cognitive dissonance often arises after making an important decision, called post-decision dissonance (or in popular terms, buyer’s remorse). Describe a recent decision you made that caused dissonance and describe how you resolved it.

• Attitudes and Persuasion. Authored by : OpenStax College. Located at : https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/12-3-attitudes-and-persuasion . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

13.4: Social Psychology and Influences on Behavior

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 59984

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Learning Objectives

• Describe situational versus dispositional influences on behavior
• Give examples of the fundamental attribution error and other common biases, including the actor-observer bias and the self-serving bias
• Explain the just-world phenomenon

Social psychology examines how people affect one another, and it looks at the power of the situation. Social psychologists assert that an individual’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are very much influenced by social situations. Essentially, people will change their behavior to align with the social situation at hand. If we are in a new situation or are unsure how to behave, we will take our cues from other individuals.

The field of social psychology studies topics at both the intra- and interpersonal levels. Intrapersonal topics (those that pertain to the individual) include emotions and attitudes, the self, and social cognition (the ways in which we think about ourselves and others). Interpersonal topics (those that pertain to dyads and groups) include helping behavior (Figure 1), aggression, prejudice and discrimination, attraction and close relationships, and group processes and intergroup relationships.

Social psychologists focus on how people construe or interpret situations and how these interpretations influence their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Ross & Nisbett, 1991). Thus, social psychology studies individuals in a social context and how situational variables interact to influence behavior. In this module, we discuss the intrapersonal processes of self-presentation, cognitive dissonance and attitude change, and the interpersonal processes of conformity and obedience, aggression and altruism, and, finally, love and attraction.

Situational and Dispositional Influences on Behavior

Behavior is a product of both the situation (e.g., cultural influences, social roles, and the presence of bystanders) and of the person (e.g., personality characteristics). Subfields of psychology tend to focus on one influence or behavior over others. Situationism is the view that our behavior and actions are determined by our immediate environment and surroundings. In contrast, dispositionism holds that our behavior is determined by internal factors (Heider, 1958). An internal factor is an attribute of a person and includes personality traits and temperament. Social psychologists have tended to take the situationist perspective, whereas personality psychologists have promoted the dispositionist perspective. Modern approaches to social psychology, however, take both the situation and the individual into account when studying human behavior (Fiske, Gilbert, & Lindzey, 2010). In fact, the field of social-personality psychology has emerged to study the complex interaction of internal and situational factors that affect human behavior (Mischel, 1977; Richard, Bond, & Stokes-Zoota, 2003).

Query \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Query \(\PageIndex{2}\)

Query \(\PageIndex{3}\)

Fundamental Attribution Error

In the United States, the predominant culture tends to favor a dispositional approach in explaining human behavior. Why do you think this is? We tend to think that people are in control of their own behaviors, and, therefore, any behavior change must be due to something internal, such as their personality, habits, or temperament. According to some social psychologists, people tend to overemphasize internal factors as explanations—or attributions—for the behavior of other people. They tend to assume that the behavior of another person is a trait of that person, and to underestimate the power of the situation on the behavior of others. They tend to fail to recognize when the behavior of another is due to situational variables, and thus to the person’s state . This erroneous assumption is called the fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977; Riggio & Garcia, 2009). To better understand, imagine this scenario: Greg returns home from work, and upon opening the front door his wife happily greets him and inquires about his day. Instead of greeting his wife, Greg yells at her, “Leave me alone!” Why did Greg yell at his wife? How would someone committing the fundamental attribution error explain Greg’s behavior? The most common response is that Greg is a mean, angry, or unfriendly person (his traits). This is an internal or dispositional explanation. However, imagine that Greg was just laid off from his job due to company downsizing. Would your explanation for Greg’s behavior change? Your revised explanation might be that Greg was frustrated and disappointed for losing his job; therefore, he was in a bad mood (his state). This is now an external or situational explanation for Greg’s behavior.

The fundamental attribution error is so powerful that people often overlook obvious situational influences on behavior. A classic example was demonstrated in a series of experiments known as the quizmaster study (Ross, Amabile, & Steinmetz, 1977). Student participants were randomly assigned to play the role of a questioner (the quizmaster) or a contestant in a quiz game. Questioners developed difficult questions to which they knew the answers, and they presented these questions to the contestants. The contestants answered the questions correctly only 4 out of 10 times (Figure 2). After the task, the questioners and contestants were asked to rate their own general knowledge compared to the average student. Questioners did not rate their general knowledge higher than the contestants, but the contestants rated the questioners’ intelligence higher than their own. In a second study, observers of the interaction also rated the questioner as having more general knowledge than the contestant. The obvious influence on performance is the situation. The questioners wrote the questions, so of course they had an advantage. Both the contestants and observers made an internal attribution for the performance. They concluded that the questioners must be more intelligent than the contestants.

As demonstrated in the example above, the fundamental attribution error is considered a powerful influence in how we explain the behaviors of others. However, it should be noted that some researchers have suggested that the fundamental attribution error may not be as powerful as it is often portrayed. In fact, a recent review of more than 173 published studies suggests that several factors (e.g., high levels of idiosyncrasy of the character and how well hypothetical events are explained) play a role in determining just how influential the fundamental attribution error is (Malle, 2006).

Is the Fundamental Attribution Error a Universal Phenomenon?

You may be able to think of examples of the fundamental attribution error in your life. Do people in all cultures commit the fundamental attribution error? Research suggests that they do not. People from an individualistic culture , that is, a culture that focuses on individual achievement and autonomy, have the greatest tendency to commit the fundamental attribution error. Individualistic cultures, which tend to be found in western countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, promote a focus on the individual. Therefore, a person’s disposition is thought to be the primary explanation for her behavior. In contrast, people from a collectivistic culture, that is, a culture that focuses on communal relationships with others, such as family, friends, and community (Figure 3), are less likely to commit the fundamental attribution error (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 2001).

Why do you think this is the case? Collectivistic cultures, which tend to be found in east Asian countries and in Latin American and African countries, focus on the group more than on the individual (Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001). This focus on others provides a broader perspective that takes into account both situational and cultural influences on behavior; thus, a more nuanced explanation of the causes of others’ behavior becomes more likely. Table 1 summarizes compares individualistic and collectivist cultures.

Query \(\PageIndex{4}\)

Actor-Observer Bias

Returning to our earlier example, Greg knew that he lost his job, but an observer would not know. So a naïve observer would tend to attribute Greg’s hostile behavior to Greg’s disposition rather than to the true, situational cause. Why do you think we underestimate the influence of the situation on the behaviors of others? One reason is that we often don’t have all the information we need to make a situational explanation for another person’s behavior. The only information we might have is what is observable. Due to this lack of information we have a tendency to assume the behavior is due to a dispositional, or internal, factor. When it comes to explaining our own behaviors, however, we have much more information available to us. If you came home from school or work angry and yelled at your dog or a loved one, what would your explanation be? You might say you were very tired or feeling unwell and needed quiet time—a situational explanation. The actor-observer bias is the phenomenon of attributing other people’s behavior to internal factors (fundamental attribution error) while attributing our own behavior to situational forces (Jones & Nisbett, 1971; Nisbett, Caputo, Legant, & Marecek, 1973; Choi & Nisbett, 1998). As actors of behavior, we have more information available to explain our own behavior. However as observers, we have less information available; therefore, we tend to default to a dispositionist perspective.

One study on the actor-observer bias investigated reasons male participants gave for why they liked their girlfriend (Nisbett et al., 1973). When asked why participants liked their own girlfriend, participants focused on internal, dispositional qualities of their girlfriends (for example, her pleasant personality). The participants’ explanations rarely included causes internal to themselves, such as dispositional traits (for example, “I need companionship.”). In contrast, when speculating why a male friend likes his girlfriend, participants were equally likely to give dispositional and external explanations. This supports the idea that actors tend to provide few internal explanations but many situational explanations for their own behavior. In contrast, observers tend to provide more dispositional explanations for a friend’s behavior (Figure 4).

Self-Serving Bias

Following an outcome, self-serving bias are those attributions that enable us to see ourselves in favorable light (for example, making internal attributions for success and external attributions for failures). When you do well at a task, for example acing an exam, it is in your best interest to make a dispositional attribution for your behavior (“I’m smart,”) instead of a situational one (“The exam was easy,”). The tendency of an individual to take credit by making dispositional or internal attributions for positive outcomes but situational or external attributions for negative outcomes is known as the self-serving bias  (or self-serving attribution) (Miller & Ross, 1975). This bias serves to protect self-esteem. You can imagine that if people always made situational attributions for their behavior, they would never be able to take credit and feel good about their accomplishments.

We can understand self-serving bias by digging more deeply into attribution , a belief about the cause of a result. One model of attribution proposes three main dimensions: locus of control (internal versus external), stability (stable versus unstable), and controllability (controllable versus uncontrollable). In this context, stability refers the extent to which the circumstances that result in a given outcome are changeable. The circumstances are considered stable if they are unlikely to change. Controllability refers to the extent to which the circumstances that are associated with a given outcome can be controlled. Obviously, those things that we have the power to control would be labeled controllable (Weiner, 1979).

Consider the example of how we explain our favorite sports team’s wins. Research shows that we make internal, stable, and controllable attributions for our team’s victory (Figure 5) (Grove, Hanrahan, & McInman, 1991). For example, we might tell ourselves that our team is talented (internal), consistently works hard (stable), and uses effective strategies (controllable). In contrast, we are more likely to make external, unstable, and uncontrollable attributions when our favorite team loses. For example, we might tell ourselves that the other team has more experienced players or that the referees were unfair (external), the other team played at home (unstable), and the cold weather affected our team’s performance (uncontrollable).

Query \(\PageIndex{5}\)

Query \(\PageIndex{6}\)

Query \(\PageIndex{7}\)

Query \(\PageIndex{8}\)

Query \(\PageIndex{9}\)

Query \(\PageIndex{10}\)

Query \(\PageIndex{11}\)

Query \(\PageIndex{12}\)

Just-World Hypothesis

One consequence of westerners’ tendency to provide dispositional explanations for behavior is victim blame (Jost & Major, 2001). When people experience bad fortune, others tend to assume that they somehow are responsible for their own fate. A common ideology, or worldview, in the United States is the just-world hypothesis. The just-world hypothesis is the belief that people get the outcomes they deserve (Lerner & Miller, 1978). In order to maintain the belief that the world is a fair place, people tend to think that good people experience positive outcomes, and bad people experience negative outcomes (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Jost & Major, 2001). The ability to think of the world as a fair place, where people get what they deserve, allows us to feel that the world is predictable and that we have some control over our life outcomes (Jost et al., 2004; Jost & Major, 2001). For example, if you want to experience positive outcomes, you just need to work hard to get ahead in life.

Can you think of a negative consequence of the just-world hypothesis? One negative consequence is people’s tendency to blame poor individuals for their plight. What common explanations are given for why people live in poverty? Have you heard statements such as, “The poor are lazy and just don’t want to work” or “Poor people just want to live off the government”? What types of explanations are these, dispositional or situational? These dispositional explanations are clear examples of the fundamental attribution error. Blaming poor people for their poverty ignores situational factors that impact them, such as high unemployment rates, recession, poor educational opportunities, and the familial cycle of poverty (Figure 6). Other research shows that people who hold just-world beliefs have negative attitudes toward people who are unemployed and people living with AIDS (Sutton & Douglas, 2005). In the United States and other countries, victims of sexual assault may find themselves blamed for their abuse. Victim advocacy groups, such as Domestic Violence Ended (DOVE), attend court in support of victims to ensure that blame is directed at the perpetrators of sexual violence, not the victims.

Watch this TED video to apply some of the concepts you learned about attribution and bias.

You can view the transcript for “Should you trust your first impression? – Peter Mende-Siedlecki” here (opens in new window) .

Think It Over

• Provide a personal example of an experience in which your behavior was influenced by the power of the situation.
• Think of an example in the media of a sports figure—player or coach—who gives a self-serving attribution for winning or losing. Examples might include accusing the referee of incorrect calls, in the case of losing, or citing their own hard work and talent, in the case of winning.

actor-observer bias:  phenomenon of explaining other people’s behaviors are due to internal factors and our own behaviors are due to situational forces

attribution: our explanation for the source of our own or others’ behaviors and outcomes

collectivist culture:  culture that focuses on communal relationships with others such as family, friends, and community

dispositionism:  describes a perspective common to personality psychologists, which asserts that our behavior is determined by internal factors, such as personality traits and temperament

fundamental attribution error:  tendency to overemphasize internal factors as attributions for behavior and underestimate the power of the situation

individualistic culture:  culture that focuses on individual achievement and autonomy

internal factor:  internal attribute of a person, such as personality traits or temperament

just-world hypothesis:  ideology common in the United States that people get the outcomes they deserve

self-serving bias:  tendency for individuals to take credit by making dispositional or internal attributions for positive outcomes and situational or external attributions for negative outcomes

situationism:  describes a perspective that behavior and actions are determined by the immediate environment and surroundings; a view promoted by social psychologists

social psychology:  field of psychology that examines how people impact or affect each other, with particular focus on the power of the situation

Contributors and Attributions

CC licensed content, Original

• Modification and adaptation, addition of link to learning. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• What is Social Psychology?. Authored by : OpenStax College. Located at : http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:hWoXet6K@5/What-Is-Social-Psychology . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11629/latest/ .
• Should you trust your first impression?. Authored by : Peter Mende-Siedlecki. Provided by : TED-Ed. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK0NzsGRceg . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License

Frontiers for Young Minds

• Download PDF

How Does Social Context Influence Our Brain and Behavior?

When we interact with others, the context in which our actions take place plays a major role in our behavior. This means that our understanding of objects, words, emotions, and social cues may differ depending on where we encounter them. Here, we explain how context affects daily mental processes, ranging from how people see things to how they behave with others. Then, we present the social context network model. This model explains how people process contextual cues when they interact, through the activity of the frontal, temporal, and insular brain regions. Next, we show that when those brain areas are affected by some diseases, patients find it hard to process contextual cues. Finally, we describe new ways to explore social behavior through brain recordings in daily situations.

Introduction

Everything you do is influenced by the situation in which you do it. The situation that surrounds an action is called its context. In fact, analyzing context is crucial for social interaction and even, in some cases, for survival. Imagine you see a man in fear: your reaction depends on his facial expression (e.g., raised eyebrows, wide-open eyes) and also on the context of the situation. The context can be external (is there something frightening around?) or internal (am I calm or am I also scared?). Such contextual cues are crucial to your understanding of any situation.

Context shapes all processes in your brain, from visual perception to social interactions [ 1 ]. Your mind is never isolated from the world around you. The specific meaning of an object, word, emotion, or social event depends on context ( Figure 1 ). Context may be evident or subtle, real or imagined, conscious or unconscious. Simple optical illusions demonstrate the importance of context ( Figures 1A,B ). In the Ebbinghaus illusion ( Figure 1A ), rings of circles surround two central circles. The central circles are the same size, but one appears to be smaller than the other. This is so because the surrounding circles provide a context. This context affects your perception of the size of the central circles. Quite interesting, right? Likewise, in the Cafe Wall Illusion ( Figure 1B ), context affects your perception of the lines’ orientation. The lines are parallel, but you see them as convergent or divergent. You can try focusing on the middle line of the figure and check it with a ruler. Contextual cues also help you recognize objects in a scene [ 2 ]. For instance, it can be easier to recognize letters when they are in the context of a word. Thus, you can see the same array of lines as either an H or an A ( Figure 1C ). Certainly, you did not read that phrase as “TAE CHT”, correct? Lastly, contextual cues are also important for social interaction. For instance, visual scenes, voices, bodies, other faces, and words shape how you perceive emotions in a face [ 3 ]. If you see Figure 1D in isolation, the woman may look furious. But look again, this time at Figure 1E . Here you see an ecstatic Serena Williams after she secured the top tennis ranking. This shows that recognizing emotions depends on additional information that is not present in the face itself.

• Figure 1 - Contextual affects how you see things.
• A,B. The visual context affects how you see shapes. C. Context also plays an important role in object recognition. Context-related objects are easier to recognize. “THE CAT” is a good example of contextual effects in letter recognition (reproduced with permission from Chun [ 2 ]). D,E. Context also affects how you recognize an emotion [by Hanson K. Joseph (Own work), CC BY-SA 4.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0 ), via Wikimedia Commons].

Contextual cues also help you make sense of other situations. What is appropriate in one place may not be appropriate in another. Making jokes is OK when studying with your friends, but not OK during the actual exam. Also, context affects how you feel when you see something happening to another person. Picture someone being beaten on the street. If the person being beaten is your best friend, would you react in the same way as if he were a stranger? The reason why you probably answered “no” is that your empathy may be influenced by context. Context will determine whether you jump in to help or run away in fear. In sum, social situations are shaped by contextual factors that affect how you feel and act.

Contextual cues are important for interpreting social situations. Yet, they have been largely ignored in the world of science. To fill this gap, our group proposed the social context network model [ 1 ]. This model describes a brain network that integrates contextual information during social processes. This brain network combines the activity of several different areas of the brain, namely frontal, temporal, and insular brain areas ( Figure 2 ). It is true that many other brain areas are involved in processing contextual information. For instance, the context of an object that you can see affects processes in the vision areas of your brain [ 4 ]. However, the network proposed by our model includes the main areas involved in social context processing. Even contextual visual recognition involves activity of temporal and frontal regions included in our model [ 5 ].

• Figure 2 - The parts of the brain that work together, in the social context network model.
• This model proposes that social contextual cues are processed by a network of specific brain regions. This network is made up of frontal (light blue), temporal (orange), and insular (green) brain regions and the connections between these regions.

How Does Your Brain Process Contextual Cues in Social Scenarios?

To interpret context in social settings, your brain relies on a network of brain regions, including the frontal, temporal, and insular regions. Figure 2 shows the frontal regions in light blue. These regions help you update contextual information when you focus on something (say, the traffic light as you are walking down the street). That information helps you anticipate what might happen next, based on your previous experiences. If there is a change in what you are seeing (as you keep walking down the street, a mean-looking Doberman appears), the frontal regions will activate and update predictions (“this may be dangerous!”). These predictions will be influenced by the context (“oh, the dog is on a leash”) and your previous experience (“yeah, but once I was attacked by a dog and it was very bad!”). If a person’s frontal regions are damaged, he/she will find it difficult to recognize the influence of context. Thus, the Doberman may not be perceived as a threat, even if this person has been attacked by other dogs before! The main role of the frontal regions is to predict the meaning of actions by analyzing the contextual events that surround the actions.

Figure 2 shows the insular regions, also called the insula, in green. The insula combines signals from within and outside your body. The insula receives signals about what is going on in your guts, heart, and lungs. It also supports your ability to experience emotions. Even the butterflies you sometimes feel in your stomach depend on brain activity! This information is combined with contextual cues from outside your body. So, when you see that the Doberman breaks loose from its owner, you can perceive that your heart begins to beat faster (an internal body signal). Then, your brain combines the external contextual cues (“the Doberman is loose!”) with your body signals, leading you to feel fear. Patients with damage to their insular regions are not so good at tracking their inner body signals and combining them with their emotions. The insula is critical for giving emotional value to an event.

Lastly, Figure 2 shows the temporal regions marked with orange. The temporal regions associate the object or person you are focusing on with the context. Memory plays a major role here. For instance, when the Doberman breaks loose, you look at his owner and realize that it is the kind man you met last week at the pet shop. Also, the temporal regions link contextual information with information from the frontal and insular regions. This system supports your knowledge that Dobermans can attack people, prompting you to seek protection.

To summarize, combining what you experience with the social context relies on a brain network that includes the frontal, insular, and temporal regions. Thanks to this network, we can interpret all sorts of social events. The frontal areas adjust and update what you think, feel, and do depending on present and past happenings. These areas also predict possible events in your surroundings. The insula combines signals from within and outside your body to produce a specific feeling. The temporal regions associate objects and persons with the current situation. So, all the parts of the social context network model work together to combine contextual information when you are in social settings.

When Context Cannot be Processed

Our model helps to explain findings from patients with brain damage. These patients have difficulties processing contextual cues. For instance, people with autism find it hard to make eye contact and interact with others. They may show repetitive behaviors (e.g., constantly lining up toy cars) or excessive interest in a topic. They may also behave inappropriately and have trouble adjusting to school, home, or work. People with autism may fail to recognize emotions in others’ faces. Their empathy may also be reduced. One of our studies [ 6 ] showed that these problems are linked to a decreased ability to process contextual information. Persons with autism and healthy subjects performed tasks involving different social skills. Autistic people did poorly in tasks that relied on contextual cues—for instance, detecting a person’s emotion based on his gestures or voice tone. But, autistic people did well in tasks that didn’t require analyzing context, for example tasks that could be completed by following very general rules (for example, “never touch a stranger on the street”). Thus, the social problems that we often see in autistic people might result from difficulty in processing contextual cues.

Another disease that may result from problems processing contextual information is called behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia . Patients with this disease exhibit changes in personality and in the way they interact with others, after about age 60. They may do improper things in public. Like people with autism, they may not show empathy or may not recognize emotions easily. Also, they find it hard to deal with the details of context needed to understand social events. All these changes may reflect general problems processing social context information. These problems may be caused by damage to the brain network described above.

Our model can also explain patients with damage to the frontal lobes or those who have conditions such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder [ 7 ]. Schizophrenia is a mental disorder characterized by atypical social cognition and inability to distinguish between real and imagined world (as in the case of hallucinations). Similar but milder problems appear in patients with bipolar disorder, which is another psychiatric condition mainly characterized by oscillating periods of depression and periods of elevated mood (called hypomania or mania).

In sum, the problems with social behavior seen in many diseases are probably linked to poor context processing after damage to certain brain areas, as proposed by our model ( Figure 2 ). Future research should explore how correct this model is, adding more data about the processes and regions it describes.

New Techniques to Assess Social Behavior and Contextual Processing

The results mentioned above are important for scientists and doctors. However, they have a great limitation. They do not reflect how people behave in daily life! Most of the research findings came from tasks in a laboratory, in which a person responded to pictures or videos. These tasks do not really represent how we act every day in our lives. Social life is much more complicated than sitting at a desk and pressing buttons when you see images on a computer, right? Research based on such tasks doesn’t reflect real social situations. In daily life, people interact in contexts that constantly change.

Fortunately, new methods allow scientists to assess real-life interactions. Hyperscanning is one of these methods. Hyperscanning allows measurement of the brain activity of two or more people while they perform activities together. For example, each subject can lie inside a separate scanner (a large tube containing powerful magnets). This scanner can detect changes in blood flow in the brain while the two people interact. This approach is used, for example, to study the brains of a mother and her child while they are looking at each other’s faces ( Figure 3A ).

• Figure 3 - New techniques to study processing of contextual cues.
• A. A mother and her infant look at each others’ facial expression while their brain activity is recorded (reproduced with permission from Masayuki et al. [ 8 ]). B. Hyperscanning of people interacting with each other during a game of Jenga (reproduced with permission from Liu et al. [ 9 ]). C. A new method of studying brain activity, called mobile brain/body imaging (MoBI) (reproduced with permission from Makeig et al. [ 10 ]). D. Virtual reality simulations of a virtual train at the station and a virtual train carriage (reproduced with permission from Freeman et al. [ 11 ]).

Hyperscanning can also be done using electroencephalogram equipment. Electroencephalography measures the electrical activity of the brain. Special sensors called electrodes are attached to the head. They are hooked by wires to a computer which records the brain’s electrical activity. Figure 3B shows an example of the use of electroencephalogram hyperscanning. This method has been used to measure the brain activity in two individuals while they are playing Jenga. Future research should apply this technique to study the processing of social contextual cues.

One limitation of hyperscanning is that it typically requires participants to remain still. However, real-life interactions involve many bodily actions. Fortunately, a new method called mobile brain/body imaging (MoBI, Figure 3C ) allows the measurement of brain activity and bodily actions while people interact in natural settings.

Another interesting approach is to use virtual reality . This technique involves fake situations. However, it puts people in different situations that require social interaction. This is closer to real life than the tasks used in most laboratories. As an example, consider Figure 3D . This shows a virtual reality experiment in which participants traveled through an underground tube station in London. Our understanding of the way context impacts social behavior could be expanded in future virtual reality studies.

In sum, future research should use new methods for measuring real-life interactions. This type of research could be very important for doctors to understand what happens to the processing of social context cues in various brain injuries or diseases. These realistic tasks are more sensitive than most of the laboratory tasks that are usually used for the assessment of patients with brain disorders.

Empathy : ↑ The ability to feel what another person is feeling, that is, to “place yourself in that person’s shoes.”

Autism : ↑ A general term for a group of complex disorders of brain development. These disorders are characterized by repetitive behaviors, as well as different levels of difficulty with social interaction and both verbal and non-verbal communications.

Behavioral Variant Frontotemporal Dementia : ↑ A brain disease characterized by progressive changes in personality and loss of empathy. Patients experience difficulty in regulating their behavior, and this often results in socially inappropriate actions. Patients typically start to show symptoms around age 60.

Hyperscanning : ↑ A novel technique to measure brain activity simultaneously from two people.

Virtual Reality : ↑ Computer technologies that use software to generate realistic images, sounds, and other sensations that replicate a real environment. This technique uses specialized display screens or projectors to simulate the user’s physical presence in this environment, enabling him or her to interact with the virtual space and any objects depicted there.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by grants from CONICYT/FONDECYT Regular (1170010), FONDAP 15150012, and the INECO Foundation.

[1] ↑ Ibanez, A., and Manes, F. 2012. Contextual social cognition and the behavioral variant of frontotemporal dementia. Neurology 78(17):1354–62. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182518375

[2] ↑ Chun, M. M. 2000. Contextual cueing of visual attention. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4(5):170–8. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01476-5

[3] ↑ Barrett, L. F., Mesquita, B., and Gendron, M. 2011. Context in emotion perception. Curr. Direct Psychol. Sci. 20(5):286–90. doi:10.1177/0963721411422522

[4] ↑ Beck, D. M., and Kastner, S. 2005. Stimulus context modulates competition in human extrastriate cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 8(8):1110–6. doi:10.1038/nn1501

[5] ↑ Bar, M. 2004. Visual objects in context. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 5(8):617–29. doi:10.1038/nrn1476

[6] ↑ Baez, S., and Ibanez, A. 2014. The effects of context processing on social cognition impairments in adults with Asperger’s syndrome. Front. Neurosci. 8:270. doi:10.3389/fnins.2014.00270

[7] ↑ Baez, S, Garcia, A. M., and Ibanez, A. 2016. The Social Context Network Model in psychiatric and neurological diseases. Curr. Top. Behav. Neurosci. 30:379–96. doi:10.1007/7854_2016_443

[8] ↑ Masayuki, H., Takashi, I., Mitsuru, K., Tomoya, K., Hirotoshi, H., Yuko, Y., and Minoru, A. 2014. Hyperscanning MEG for understanding mother-child cerebral interactions. Front Hum Neurosci 8:118. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00118

[9] ↑ Liu, N., Mok, C., Witt, E. E., Pradhan, A. H., Chen, J. E., and Reiss, A. L. 2016. NIRS-based hyperscanning reveals inter-brain neural synchronization during cooperative Jenga game with face-to-face communication. Front Hum Neurosci 10:82. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2016.00082

[10] ↑ Makeig, S., Gramann, K., Jung, T.-P., Sejnowski, T. J., and Poizner, H. 2009. Linking brain, mind and behavior: The promise of mobile brain/body imaging (MoBI). Int J Psychophys 73:985–1000

[11] ↑ Evans, N., Lister, R., Antley, A., Dunn, G., and Slater, M. 2014. Height, social comparison, and paranoia: An immersive virtual reality experimental study. Psych Res 218(3):348–52. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2013.12.014

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How Does Implicit Bias Influence Behavior?

Strategies to Reduce the Impact of Implicit Bias

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Akeem Marsh, MD, is a board-certified child, adolescent, and adult psychiatrist who has dedicated his career to working with medically underserved communities.

Getty Images 

• Measurement
• Discrimination

An implicit bias is an unconscious association, belief, or attitude toward any social group. Implicit biases are one reason why people often attribute certain qualities or characteristics to all members of a particular group, a phenomenon known as stereotyping .

It is important to remember that implicit biases operate almost entirely on an unconscious level . While explicit biases and prejudices are intentional and controllable, implicit biases are less so.

A person may even express explicit disapproval of a certain attitude or belief while still harboring similar biases on a more unconscious level. Such biases do not necessarily align with our own sense of self and personal identity. People can also hold positive or negative associations about their own race, gender, religion, sexuality, or other personal characteristics.

Causes of Implicit Bias

While people might like to believe that they are not susceptible to these implicit biases and stereotypes, the reality is that everyone engages in them whether they like it or not. This reality, however, does not mean that you are necessarily prejudiced or inclined to discriminate against other people. It simply means that your brain is working in a way that makes associations and generalizations.

In addition to the fact that we are influenced by our environment and stereotypes that already exist in the society into which we were born, it is generally impossible to separate ourselves from the influence of society.

You can, however, become more aware of your unconscious thinking and the ways in which society influences you.

It is the natural tendency of the brain to sift, sort, and categorize information about the world that leads to the formation of these implicit biases. We're susceptible to bias because of these tendencies:

• We tend to seek out patterns . Implicit bias occurs because of the brain's natural tendency to look for patterns and associations in the world. Social cognition , or our ability to store, process, and apply information about people in social situations, is dependent on this ability to form associations about the world.
• We like to take shortcuts . Like other cognitive biases , implicit bias is a result of the brain's tendency to try to simplify the world. Because the brain is constantly inundated with more information than it could conceivably process, mental shortcuts make it faster and easier for the brain to sort through all of this data.
• Our experiences and social conditioning play a role . Implicit biases are influenced by experiences, although these attitudes may not be the result of direct personal experience. Cultural conditioning, media portrayals, and upbringing can all contribute to the implicit associations that people form about the members of other social groups.

How Implicit Bias Is Measured

The term implicit bias was first coined by social psychologists Mahzarin Banaji and Tony Greenwald in 1995. In an influential paper introducing their theory of implicit social cognition, they proposed that social behavior was largely influenced by unconscious associations and judgments.

In 1998, Banaji and Greenwald published their now-famous Implicit Association Test (IAT) to support their hypothesis . The test utilizes a computer program to show respondents a series of images and words to determine how long it takes someone to choose between two things.

Subjects might be shown images of faces of different racial backgrounds, for example, in conjunction with either a positive word or a negative word. Subjects would then be asked to click on a positive word when they saw an image of someone from one race and to click on a negative word when they saw someone of another race.

Interpreting the Results

The researchers suggest that when someone clicks quickly, it means that they possess a stronger unconscious association.   If a person quickly clicks on a negative word every time they see a person of a particular race, the researchers suggest that this would indicate that they hold an implicit negative bias toward individuals of that race.

In addition to a test of implicit racial attitudes, the IAT has also been utilized to measure unconscious biases related to gender, weight, sexuality, disability, and other areas. The IAT has grown in popularity and use over the last decade, yet has recently come under fire.

Among the main criticisms are findings that the test results may lack reliability . Respondents may score high on racial bias on one test, and low the next time they are tested.

Also of concern is that scores on the test may not necessarily correlate with individual behavior. People may score high for a type of bias on the IAT, but those results may not accurately predict how they would relate to members of a specific social group.

Link Between Implicit Bias and Discrimination

It is important to understand that implicit bias is not the same thing as racism, although the two concepts are related. Overt racism involves conscious prejudice against members of a particular racial group and can be influenced by both explicit and implicit biases.

Other forms of discrimination that can be influenced by unconscious biases include ageism , sexism, homophobia, and ableism.

One of the benefits of being aware of the potential impact of implicit social biases is that you can take a more active role in overcoming social stereotypes, discrimination, and prejudice.

Effects of Implicit Bias

Implicit biases can influence how people behave toward the members of different social groups. Researchers have found that such bias can have effects in a number of settings, including in school, work, and legal proceedings.

Implicit Bias in School

Implicit bias can lead to a phenomenon known as stereotype threat in which people internalize negative stereotypes about themselves based upon group associations. Research has shown, for example, that young girls often internalize implicit attitudes related to gender and math performance.  

By the age of 9, girls have been shown to exhibit the unconscious beliefs that females have a preference for language over math.   The stronger these implicit beliefs are, the less likely girls and women are to pursue math performance in school. Such unconscious beliefs are also believed to play a role in inhibiting women from pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

Studies have also demonstrated that implicit attitudes can also influence how teachers respond to student behavior, suggesting that implicit bias can have a powerful impact on educational access and academic achievement.

One study, for example, found that Black children—and Black boys in particular—were more likely to be expelled from school for behavioral issues. When teachers were told to watch for challenging behaviors, they were more likely to focus on Black children than on White children.

Implicit Bias In the Workplace

While the Implicit Attitude Test itself may have pitfalls, these problems do not negate the existence of implicit bias. Or the existence and effects of bias, prejudice, and discrimination in the real world. Such prejudices can have very real and potentially devastating consequences.

One study, for example, found that when Black and White job seekers sent out similar resumes to employers, Black applicants were half as likely to be called in for interviews as White job seekers with equal qualifications.

Such discrimination is likely the result of both explicit and implicit biases toward racial groups.

Even when employers strive to eliminate potential bias in hiring, subtle implicit biases may still have an impact on how people are selected for jobs or promoted to advanced positions. Avoiding such biases entirely can be difficult, but being aware of their existence and striving to minimize them can help.

Implicit Bias in Healthcare Settings

Certainly, age, race, or health condition should not play a role in how patients get treated, however, implicit bias can influence quality healthcare and have long-term impacts including suboptimal care, adverse outcomes, and even death.

For example, one study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that physicians with high scores in implicit bias tended to dominate conversations with Black patients and, as a result, the Black patients had less confidence and trust in the provider and rated the quality of their care lower.  

Researchers continue to investigate implicit bias in relation to other ethnic groups as well as specific health conditions, including type 2 diabetes, obesity, mental health, and substance use disorders.

Implicit Bias in Legal Settings

Implicit biases can also have troubling implications in legal proceedings, influencing everything from initial police contact all the way through sentencing. Research has found that there is an overwhelming racial disparity in how Black defendants are treated in criminal sentencing.  

Not only are Black defendants less likely to be offered plea bargains than White defendants charged with similar crimes, but they are also more likely to receive longer and harsher sentences than White defendants.

Strategies to Reduce the Impact of Implict Bias

Implicit biases impact behavior, but there are things that you can do to reduce your own bias. Some ways that you can reduce the influence of implicit bias:

• Focus on seeing people as individuals . Rather than focusing on stereotypes to define people, spend time considering them on a more personal, individual level.
• Work on consciously changing your stereotypes . If you do recognize that your response to a person might be rooted in biases or stereotypes, make an effort to consciously adjust your response.
• Take time to pause and reflect . In order to reduce reflexive reactions, take time to reflect on potential biases and replace them with positive examples of the stereotyped group. 
• Adjust your perspective . Try seeing things from another person's point of view. How would you respond if you were in the same position? What factors might contribute to how a person acts in a particular setting or situation?
• Increase your exposure . Spend more time with people of different racial backgrounds. Learn about their culture by attending community events or exhibits.
• Practice mindfulness . Try meditation, yoga, or focused breathing to increase mindfulness and become more aware of your thoughts and actions.

While implicit bias is difficult to eliminate altogether, there are strategies that you can utilize to reduce its impact. Taking steps such as actively working to overcome your biases , taking other people's perspectives, seeking greater diversity in your life, and building your awareness about your own thoughts are a few ways to reduce the impact of implicit bias.

A Word From Verywell

Implicit biases can be troubling, but they are also a pervasive part of life. Perhaps more troubling, your unconscious attitudes may not necessarily align with your declared beliefs. While people are more likely to hold implicit biases that favor their own in-group, it is not uncommon for people to hold biases against their own social group as well.

The good news is that these implicit biases are not set in stone. Even if you do hold unconscious biases against other groups of people, it is possible to adopt new attitudes, even on the unconscious level.   This process is not necessarily quick or easy, but being aware of the existence of these biases is a good place to start making a change.

Jost JT. The existence of implicit bias is beyond reasonable doubt: A refutation of ideological and methodological objections and executive summary of ten studies that no manager should ignore . Research in Organizational Behavior . 2009;29:39-69. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2009.10.001

Greenwald AG, Mcghee DE, Schwartz JL. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test . J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;74(6):1464-1480. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464

Sabin J, Nosek BA, Greenwald A, Rivara FP. Physicians' implicit and explicit attitudes about race by MD race, ethnicity, and gender . J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2009;20(3):896-913. doi:10.1353/hpu.0.0185

Capers Q, Clinchot D, McDougle L, Greenwald AG. Implicit racial bias in medical school admissions . Acad Med . 2017;92(3):365-369. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000001388

Kiefer AK, Sekaquaptewa D. Implicit stereotypes and women's math performance: How implicit gender-math stereotypes influence women's susceptibility to stereotype threat .  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2007;43(5):825-832. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.08.004

Steffens MC, Jelenec P, Noack P. On the leaky math pipeline: Comparing implicit math-gender stereotypes and math withdrawal in female and male children and adolescents .  Journal of Educational Psychology. 2010;102(4):947-963. doi:10.1037/a0019920

Edward Zigler Center in Child Development & Social Policy, Yale School of Medicine. Implicit Bias in Preschool: A Research Study Brief .

Pager D, Western B, Bonikowski B. Discrimination in a low-wage labor market: A field experiment . Am Sociol Rev. 2009;74(5):777-799. doi:10.1177/000312240907400505

Malinen S, Johnston L. Workplace ageism: Discovering hidden bias . Exp Aging Res. 2013;39(4):445-465. doi:10.1080/0361073X.2013.808111

Cooper LA, Roter DL, Carson KA, et al. The associations of clinicians' implicit attitudes about race with medical visit communication and patient ratings of interpersonal care . Am J Public Health . 2012;102(5):979-87. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300558

Leiber MJ, Fox KC. Race and the impact of detention on juvenile justice decision making .  Crime & Delinquency. 2005;51(4):470-497. doi:10.1177/0011128705275976

Van Ryn M, Hardeman R, Phelan SM, et al. Medical school experiences associated with change in implicit racial bias among 3547 students: A medical student CHANGES study report . J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(12):1748-1756. doi:10.1007/s11606-015-3447-7

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

In short essay explain how attitudes influence behavior

How attitudes influence behavior

Individual attitudes and behavior are closely connected to each other. An attitude is a set way of thinking or feeling about everything. It is thus a psychological construct through its emotional and mental entity to characterize a person (Liu et al., 2020). Everyone has attitudes shaped by their past life experiences. They influence how we behave around others and vice-versa. Within the work setting, a positive attitude makes one very productive. Besides, such an employee is likely to deal with any obstacle efficiently as well as look at failures as profound means to improve or introspect oneself. This is important rather than losing hope and thus giving up. A positive attitude indeed impacts our behavior, understanding of situations, and what actions we will take in the future…. Read More

You didn't find what you were looking for? Upload your specific requirements now and relax as your preferred tutor delivers a top quality customized paper

We strive to ensure that our clients have a pleasant experience. Our paper-writing service is simple to use and offers 24/7 customer support.

Quick Links

• How it works
• Latest Reviews

Email: [email protected]

+1(937)-706-8211

Please one of Our representative below  to Place an Order or email us at [email protected]

• Readers’ Blog

How do attitudes influence our behaviour?

One’s attitude and behaviour are closely related to each other. Attitude actually influences one’s behaviour. However, one is not aware of it when this is happening. Everyone has attitudes which are vastly shaped by past experiences in their life. Everyone experiences different situations and are influenced by different kinds of people compared to others. As a result, everyone’s attitude is shaped differently and everyone seems to act differently in a particular situation. Our attitude also influences those around us and vice-a-versa. Having a positive attitude makes you productive, deal with any problem effectively and look at failures as a means to introspect and improve oneself rather than losing all hope and giving up. Whereas having a negative attitude will have a completely opposite effect compared to above.

However, it has been observed that there is more than one kind of attitudes each influencing our behaviour in a particular way. According to American psychologist Daniel Katz, there are namely four types of attitudes.

Instrumental – This type of attitude arises when an incentive is involved. If a job we are assigned is associated with an incentive or reward, we automatically develop a positive attitude towards it. All our actions involved in the job reflect our motivation for obtaining that incentive or reward. We start taking things more seriously and come up with innovative ways so as to achieve our goal of obtaining the reward effectively. In this case, our behaviour is completely different than that which would have resulted if our job would not have been associated with a reward.

Knowledge – Us humans lookout for clarity and order in life. We often tend to seek the reason as to why we are doing something or what is the outcome of what we are doing. The amount of effort we put in also depends largely on the expected outcome. Absence of clarity tends to us not putting our complete effort into the task at hand compared to when we have a clear understanding of why we are doing it. In both cases, our actions or more specifically our behaviour will be different.

Ego-defensive – This particular attitude acts as a defence against the harsh realities of certain truths in life that one may be unwilling to accept. It protects us from psychological harm. When a senior executive is opposed by an employee junior to him, he/she may be unwilling to accept it even though he/she may be wrong. Accepting their fault may lead to them being psychologically troubled. So, the ego-defensive attitude influences their behaviour in such a way that their actions prevent them from psychological harm.

Value-expressive – Our values define our identity and establish who we are. An individual may have certain values integral to themselves that help shape their attitude. If an organization inculcates values in its employees which are aligned with the values of the organization, it will develop a certain passion among the individuals and will lead them to achieve better results.

Attitude, when shaped in the right way, can influence behaviour to achieve a favourable outcome. The concept that behaviour follows attitude is used extensively by advertising and marketing companies. When done right, advertisements can change the attitudes of people towards some things especially their product. As a result, the viewer tends to or at least considers buying that product. This behaviour of the person would not have arisen if it was not for the change in attitude caused by the advertisement. A similar concept is used by psychologists while formulating means to tackle social issues like racism, discrimination, etc. “Social Marketing ” is a concept that uses the above idea along with the concepts of marketing to encourage good behaviours in people and at the same time discourage some bad behaviours such as frequent smoking, drinking, etc. This involves literally selling attitudes to people thereby influencing their behaviour.

All Comments ( ) +

@ UdayanSpeaks

MBA student at the School of Management and Entrepreneurship, IIT Jodhpur

• The Need for Racial Equity

8 Simple Steps to Protect the Environment

Sabyasachi Mondal

Story of an Eagle

Oldest language of the world.

whatsup University

Recently Joined Bloggers