How does superficial processing of behavior impact attitudes ?
o Confirming movement (eg. nodding) -> more likely to agree to arguments presented at the time (brinol u petty)
o Activating memory of pro or contra behaviorthrough framing(salience manipulation)in regards to an attitude, no changes perceiveved if there ist already a stable attitude formed (importance of topic) (Chaiken&Baldwin)
o Heuristic cues to explain action
-> Superficial processing if: trivial action, uninvolved self concept
systematic processing -> attitude change (cognitive dissonance theory)
o Inconsistent cognition -> state of tension-> motivation to reduce the tension
-> disolve dissonance by changing attitude
o Prerequisite:
· Action is inconsistent
· Action was internally motivated (or choosen freely)
· Feel uncomfortable -> feeling attributed to inconsistency
· No external reason that’s sufficient to justify behavior
o Justifiying behavior
o Justifiying Effort;
o Justifiying decisions
Post decisional regret; tension between chosen option and possible alternatives
making up reasons for a choice between two equal options, in hindsight to increase value of decision
-> reduce dissonance without changing attitude
o Minimize inconsistency of the behavior (just this one time)
o Add positive cognition
o Minimize personal responsibility
o Alternative self assurance (I did other good things)
o Attribute arousal externally (?)
Differenche between self Perception theory and Cognitive Dissonance Theory
§ Self perception more accurate for mild dissonance
§ Cognitive dissonance theory for high discrepancy
Prerequesite Conditions to predict behavior with attitudes
o Measurement :
Compatibility of action, target(of the action, eg.specific brand), context(situation) & time (attitude and observed behavior need to be equaly abstract or concrete and triggerd automatically or deliberately) -> higher predictive value
o Habits : automatically triggered (by cues not attitude ) behaviors
(stronger) Habits = stronger predictive value (than behavior intention)
o Behavioral Domain; difficulty , social desirability of behavior
difficult= less predictive value of attitudes
o Attitude strength and accessibility
Study about snack choice (Fazio)
Shorter response Time (accessible -> ppl know what they want)=stronger predictive value
o Prevalence of Self Awareness (focus on attitudes) & Self monitoring (adjusting to demands)
o Implicit vs Explicit attitudes -> predict automatic vs deliberate behavior
Attitude bias perception
attitudes predict interpretation of an observed behavior (tendency towards attitude)
o Coin study -> size guessed bigger if coin percieved more valuable (Goodman u Bruner)
o Tennis match study (Powel u Fazio)
Systematic processing model (Initial Idea)
Initial Idea (has no name i think)
Beliefs/Evaluations -> Attitudes -> Behavioral intention -> Behavior
- Behavioral intention as mediating factor
o Model was extended;
1. Theory of reasoned action(Fishbein&Ajzen); added Normative beliefs and motivation to comply to them
2. Theory of planned Behavior (Ajzen); added perceived behavioral control (External reasons, difficulty, ect.) which influences the intention as well as the behavior directly (some actions also can’t objectively be done even though ppl think they can )
-> Attitude only part of general equasion
Implementation intentions
Specific If-Then plans (if i feel thirsty, I will drink water)
increase likelyhood of behavior
Mode Model (Motivation, Opportunity as Determinalnts of attitude- behavior effects) (Fazio)
o Motivation, Ability, Opportunity
->ALL given = systematic/Deliberate Processing -> attitude (and argument strength) predict behavior
-> Not ALL given = superficial/ spontaneous Processing -> strength of attitude decides if behavior is attitude consistent
Bi- Dimensional link between behavior and attitude
o Weak attitudes – no predictive value for behavior – behavoir did cause change in attitude
o Strong attitude – predictied behavior – attitude stayed the same after behavior
(exemplar study Greenpeace attitude and donation-behavior)
Incentives vs Pesuasion
incentives tend to not affect attitude -> if monitored can affect controllable behavior but not overall actions( e.g. everyday racism)
-> best paired with persuasion
can have paradox neg. effect on preexisting positive attitudes (-> Overjustification effect)
Reactance theory (Brehm)
motivation to re- establish freedom after being sanctioned
-> sanctioned behavior becomes more attractive
Theory of reasoned action(Fishbein&Ajzen);
Systemetic processing of attitude influence -> Behavior change
added Normative beliefs and motivation to comply to them
Theory of planned Behavior (Ajzen);
baut auf reasoned action auf = Norms incl.
added perceived behavioral control (External reasons, difficulty, ect.) which influences the intention as well as the behavior directly (some actions also can’t objectively be done even though ppl think they can )
Zuletzt geändertvor einem Jahr