Attitudes

Lecture 7

Attitude

• „Attitude” from Latin. Aptus (fit)

• Attitude:– Learned (conditioning, exposure, vicarious

learning etc.)– Stable (stable disposition)– Evaluation of a target object (emotional

component)– That influences behavior

Attitudes and other concepts

• Habits - behavioral• Values – general goals• Beliefs – probabilistic judgments• Opinions – elements of knowledge system

Functions of attitudes

• Cognitive – source of knowledge• Utilitarian – maximize gains and minimize

losses• Egotistic and defensive – protect values and

identities• Value expression

Structure of attitudes

• Three components of attitudes (ABC: Affective, Behavioral, Cognitive)– EMOTIONAL: evaluation of the target object – COGNITIVE: knowledge about the target object– BEHAVIORAL : behavior towards the target

object 

• The most important (definitional) attitudinal componet: emotional

Attitudes form a structure

• Fritz Heider (1958): Concept of „cognitive unit”

• Objects = objects of attitudes• Relations between objects

– Emotional relations• liking • disliking

– Unit relations: • positive (eg. owning, approaching) • negative (eg. avoidance, ignoring, selling etc.)

Cognitive unit

Self

Object A Object B

R1 R2

R3

Cognitive unit

Self

Object A Object B

+ +

+

Balanced unit

Cognitive unit

Self

Object A Object B

+ +

-

Unbalanced unit

Cognitive balance

• Cognitive units may be balanced– My two friends like each other

• Or unbalanced– I am jealous of a friend of my boy-friend

• Affective consistency – condition for cognitive balance

Cognitive balance theory Abelson & Rosenberg (1960)

+

+

- -

-

+

- -

+ -

+ +

Balanced units Unbalanced units

Restoring balance

+

+

- -

-

+

- -

+ -

+ +

Balanced units Unbalanced units

Balanced structure

+

+

+

-+ -

-

-

+

-+

Unbalanced structure

+

+

+

-- +

-

+

-

+-

Theories of attitude change

• Two directions of the relationship between attitude and behavior

• Attitude Behavior– I like him therefore I will help him– He irritates me therefore I will attack him

• Behavior Attitude– I helped him, therefore I like him– I hurt him, therefore I don’t like him

Conditions of attitude change

• Attitude behavior– In order to change behavior one has to change

attitude

• Behavior attitude– In order to change attitude one has to change

behavior (attitude = justification of behavior)

Attitude behavior

• Theories of persuasion (Yale school)• Theory of reasoned action (M. Fishbein & I.

Ajzen)• Elaboration likelihood model (R. Petty & J.

Caccioppo)• Assimilation-contrast theory (M. Sherif)

Behavior attitude

• Theory of cognitive dissonance• Self-attribution theory

Leon Festinger (1957)

Theory of cognitive dissonance

Dissonance = any inconsistency between two beliefs, such that from one of them follows its contradiction

Inconsistency in Festinger’s theory

Behavior(-)

Self-evaluation(+)

I have lied but I am honest

I made a stupid decision but I am rational

I inserted lots of effort

but

I am reasonable

Insufficient reward paradigm

Boring task

Promised reward

Lie

Reward $1 Reward $ 20

Attitude measurement I

Attitudemeasurement II

Conclusions

• Low reward strong dissonance attitude change (behavior justification)

• High reward no dissonance no attitude change

Unjustified effort paradigm

Initiation to a group

No initiation

Boring task

Attitude measurement

Conclusions

• Difficult access to a group more dissonance the group more attractive

• We value more what is difficult to achieve

Post-decisional dissonance paradigm

A B C D E

Choice D Post-decisionaldissonance

Increase attractiveness of DDecrease attractiveness of

other alternatives

Strength of post-decisional dissonance

• Number of alternatives the more the stronger dissonance

• Similarity of alternatives the lower, the stronger dissonance

Who is more persuasive – liked or disliked superior?

Liked superior Disliked superior

Attitude towardseating grasshoppers

Eatinggrasshoppers

Measurement of attitude towardsfood from grasshoppers

Cognitive dissonance theory

• The first dynamic model in social psychology• Continuation

– Paradigm of post-decisional dissonance:• Descriptive models of decision making: pre-decisional

vs. post-decisional dissonance, regret theory of decision making

– Paradigm of insufficient reward• Theory of intrinsic motivation and engagement

– Paradigm of unjustified effort• Theories of entrapment

Effects of insufficient reward

Theory of intrinsic motication E. Deci i R. Ryana• Two motivational systems: extrinsic

(instrumental) and intrinsic• Factors that suppress intrinsic motivation:

– money– deadlines– grades and tokens– competition

Post-decisional vs. pre-decisional dissonance

• L. Festinger –POST-decisional dissonance

• Contemporary descriptive models of decision making (e.g. H. Montgomery) – seeking information in a way to prevent post-decisional regret

PREFERENCES

A B C D E F G

B D E F

B D E F

E

Screening

Choice of promising alternative

Final choice

Decision as search for a dominant structure

Decision making as dominance testing

• Screening stage: elimination of the negatuve• Non-negative stage• Choice of a promising alternatuve• Dominance testing

– Focus on the promising alternative– Increase in attractiveness of the promising alternative

• Creating dominance– Manipulating weights and preferences– Perspective changes

• Final choice (of the promising alternative)

Entrapment – mechanisms and consequences

Rational or rationalizing?

• What does it mean to be „rational”?– Logical and consistent: if you said A you

should say B)– Justified: you should act in a justified way, you

should have good reasons for doing something– Efficient: you should choose the best means to

an end– Critical: you should objectively analyze an

issue from many points of view

Rational decisions

• Have clear goals: know what you want• Don’t decide hastily: consider many possibilities

and many aspects of each alternative• Don’t be involved in wishful thinking – what you

would like to happen doesn’t always happen• Be efficient: choose optimal means to your ends• Be efficient: avoid losses, maximize gains• Learn from your mistakes

Do people always act rationally?

• Sunk costs effect

• Entrapment or to much invested to quit

• Commitment

• Escalation behavior

• Perseverance on unrealistic goals

• Status quo bias

Decision traps

Sunk costs effect

• B. Staw (1976) • Big enterprise produces technical goods• Two main sections

– Consumer products– Industrial products

• Subject: vice-director for finances

„Sunk costs” effect

• $ 10 millions to be assigned to one of two sections• Two conditions:

– Subject decides which section should be given money– Subject has no influence on assignement

• Feedback information on consequences of money assignment:– Positive – the section flourishes– Negative – the section loses

Experimental conditions

department

subjectprofit loss

responsible

notresponsible

New prospects

• Additional $ 20 millions• Distributing the money between the two

sections• Subject decides how much each section gets

Results

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

gain loss

ass

igned a

mount

responsiblenot responsible

Results

• More money assigned to the loser• More money assigned if the subject felt

responsible

Teger (1980) One-dollar auction game

• Rules of the game:– Buying one dollar– Any number of players can bid (minimum two)– Bids should be relatively small and escalate slowly

(e.g., 5c)– This player who bids the highest amount gets the

dollar– The player who bids the next highest amount must

also pay

Two turning points

• Profit for the experimenter: 50c – 55c• Loss for the players: $ 1,05

Results

• Bids up to $10 in order to buy one dollar

Decision traps or entrapment

• Entrapment = a decision making process whereby individuals escalate their commitment to a previously chosen, though failing, course of action in order to justify or „make good on” prior investments

Too much invested too quit

• Waiting for a bus• Continuing a failing marriage/relationship• Staying on unsatisfactory job• Escalation of war which has no chance for

quick resolution• Hazard and gambling: continuing to invest

beyond rational limits• Face-losing politicians

Situational determinants of entrapment

• The decision maker’s investments in the pursuit of the goal can be interpreted as irretrievable expenses („sunk costs”)

• The decision maker must be able to choose between entering/remaining in the entrapping situation or not

• It is never entirely certain that the decision maker’s goal will be realized

• In order to achieve their objective, the decision makers must make investments repeatedly (continual rather than „one-shot” decisions)

When do we fall into a trap?

• Freedom of choice• The sunk costs cannot be retrieved• The goal is uncertain• Continuous investment

How does the entrapment work?

• Growing conflict whether to make continued investments (the pressures to both withdraw from and remain in the situation grow over time)

•  An important shift in the decision maker’s definition of involvement– First: clear economic or rational reasons to enter the

situation– Later: shift to „emotional” reasons (attachment,

saving face etc.)– From rational to rationalizing

Experimental demonstrations of entrapment

• Milgram’s experiment on obedience• Zimbardo’s experimental prison

Behavior of „teachers”

100

80

60

50

40

20

10

Light Moderate Strong Very strong

Intense Very intense

Dangerous 450V

„the victim pounded on the wall again, then gets silentThe victim

pounded on the wall in protest at this point Fully 65% of the subjects

obeyed the experimenter’scommand to deliver a 450Volt shock to the learner

% subjects

Labels on the shock generator

How does the trap work – Learning from Las Vegas...

Impressive exteriors

Equally impressive interiors

Improbable scenery

Elegantly served (and cheap!) food

Luxurious rest

Never ending amusement

And last but not least... The play machines everywhere

Good bye Las Vegas...

How to get out of the trap?

• To set an upper limit of investments (money, time, number of victims?)

• „To stop for a moment” – to decide if I want to invest further

• To state that I have lost less than I have thought and in fact I have even gained

• To admit that the future is unknown and that I can lose even more

• Stop worrying about what the others will say• To look into the mirror

Interrupting escalating behavior (1)

• Setting limits (how much can I spend – time, money?)

• Stopping after having reached the limit – do I want to continue?

• Taking a new decision

Interrupting escalating behavior (2)

• To state that I have l lost less than I have thought, in fact I have even gained

• Entrapment = risk-seeking behavior

• Kahneman & Tversky (1979): Prospect theory– People are risk averse for gains and risk-

seeking for losses

Task 1: what would you prefer?

To get:

(A)1 000 PLN for sure

(B) 2 000 PLN if even numbers (2, 4, 6)

nothing if odd numbers (1, 3, 5)

Task 1: what would you prefer?

To give away:

(A)1 000 PLN for sure

(B) 2 000 PLN if even numbers (2, 4, 6)

nothing if odd numbers (1, 3, 5)

Utility curve

Computing Expected Value (EV) of a lottery

• Gains (utility of alternative A vs. B)– (A) + 1 000 PLN x 1,00 = +1 000 PLN

– (B) less then + 2 000 PLN x 0,50 = less then + 1 000 PLN

• Losses (utility of alternative A vs. B)– (A) -1 000 PLN x 1,00 = -1 000 PLN

– (B) less then - 2 000 PLN x 0,50 = less then -1 000 PLN

To leave or to continue?

• Imagine how much you have gained so far risk averse attitude leaving the entraping situation

• Imagine how much you have lost so far risk seeking attitude continuing the entrapment

Interrupting escalating behavior (3)

• To admit that the future is unknown and that I can loose even more– Role of closeness: „impact of goals is inversely

related to their distance – each further step close leads to an increase in the attractive motive force” (Fox and Hoffman, 2002, p. 278)

– Clarity of completion: „increasing clarity of the road to the goals that one has set enhances the motivational strength to persevere in attaining them...” (Fox and Hoffman, 2002, p. 279)

Interrupting escalating behavior (4)

• Stop worrying what the others will say

Interrupting escalating behavior (5)

• Switch from subjective to objective self-awareness (focus on targets beyond the individual vs. self-focus)

Robert Wicklund – theory of objective vs. subjective self-awareness

Myself(subject)

object

Subjective self-awareness

Objective self-awareness (self-focus)

Stimuli triggering objective self-awareness

mirrors

Own voice tape-recorded

Monitors (own image)

audience

Psychological consequences of self-focused attention

• Unpleasant tension• Discrepancy between the standard (e.g.,

norms, values) and behavior• Feeling of guilt• Interruption in executing programs (editing

behavior)• Increasing value-behavior congruency

More and more often I think about face lifting

Increasing value-behavior consistency

Ways used to divert attention

• Gesticulation• Playing with small objects• Cigarettes/alcohol• „starters” in speech (well, uhhmm, yyy...)

How entrapment works: Zimbardo’s prison experiment

http://www.prisonexp.org

When is escalation a good thing?

• Positive forms of involvement– Intrinsically motivating behaviors– Passions