Attitudes

Attitude: a settled way of thinking or feeling about something. Our likes and dislikes, or preferences. Attitudes are made up of 3 components: affective (emotional reaction - feeling empathetic and compassionate), behavioural (actions or observable behaviour - March for Aleppo/donation etc), or cognitive (thoughts and beliefs - "these human beings are in need and distress"). One component may have more weight than others.

Tripartite model: ABCs - affective, behavioural, cognitive.

• Cognitively based attitudes: an attitude based primarily on people's beliefs about the properties of an attitude object; attitudes are based primarily on the relevant facts
• Behaviourally based attitudes: attitude based on observations of how one behaves toward an attitude object
• Affectively based attitudes: based on preferences and feelings towards an object

Self-Perception Theory (Bem, 1972): we interpret our own actions the way we interpret others' actions. We develop attitudes or emotional responses by observing our own behaviour, and coming to conclusions as to what attitudes must have driven that behaviour

• Genes: identical twins share more attitudes than fraternal twins (Martin et al, 1986)
• Bodily states: bi-directional link between attitudes and physical perceptions and bodily responses. Sensory experience of warmth increase feelings of interpersonal warmth (Williams & Bargh, 2008)
• Learned: attitudes can be conditioned. Directly, indirectly, or subliminally. Instrumental conditioning - children hold the same attitudes as family members (Oskamp & Schultz, 2005) or as people with whom they interact with on a regular basis (Eaton et al, 2008)
• Mere exposure effect: mere repeated exposure of an individual to a stimulus is a sufficient condition for the enhancement of their attitude towards it (Zajonc, 1968). Positive attitudes are formed by seeing an object multiple times without necessarily remembering doing so
• Observational learning: form of learning through which people acquire new forms of behaviour as a result of observing others

• MODE (Fazio, 2007) motivation and opporunity as determinants: objects are linked to evaluations and stored in memory
• MCM (Petty et al, 2007) meta-cognitive model: objects are linked to various evaluations with varying associative strength
• Schwarz (2007): attitudes are constructed in the situation based on currently accessible information
• APE (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2007) associative predispositional model: constructed in the situation
• Interative reprocessing model (Cunningham et al, 2007): current attitudes are constructed from stable attitudes among others
• Petty & Krosnick (1995): strong attitudes are more stable over time and across situations, weak attitudes are less accessible and more susceptible to influence of context

Are attitudes good predictors of behaviour? Possibly no:

Lapiere (1934): examining anti-Chinese attitudes and discrimination. LaPiere went on a cross-country trip with a Chinese couple. Although prejudice against Chinese people was high at this time, only one out of 251 establishments refused service when face-to-face. Afterwards, LaPiere wrote a letter to each establishment asking if they'd serve a Chinese customer, and over 90% said they wouldn't.

People may not be honest about their own attitude and answer according to socially desirable responding. Certain attitudes may be more acceptable or popular than others - social norms.

Strength of the attitude determines whether an attitude becomes accessible, which then leads one to act or not. Accessible attitudes predict behaviour better (Fazio). Strong attitudes predict behaviour better. Most effective if attitude and behaviour measured at same time and when behaviours aren't deliberate

Attitude clarity: what one's attitude is. Attitude certainty: am I correct and valid in holding this attitude?

Attitudes based on personal experience are more likely to be strong and accessible (Tomala et al, 2002), and more likely to be elaborated by supporting argument (Wegener et al, 2004).

Theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1985): people's intentions are the best predictors of their deliberate behaviour. Intentions determined by their attitudes toward specific behaviours, subjective norms (people's beliefs about how others they care about will view the behaviour in question), and perceived behavioural control (the ease with which people believe they can perform the behaviour).

Theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980): rational process - consider behavioural options and consequences. Make conscious decision to act or not. Must first evaluate behaviour's outcomes and likelihood of each outcome, then attitude toward the behaviour, then behavioural intention, and finally behaviour. Approval of behaviour by significant others and motivation to comply with others' wishes is also considered.

Also important: implentation plan. E.g young people are more likely to take ecstasy if they had positive attitudes, intended to take it, thought others approved, and had access to the drug (Orbell et al, 2011).

Cognitive Dissonance theory: state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change. This produces a feeling of discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs or behaviours so as to reduce the discomfort and restore balance. Strategies for reducing dissonance: acquire information that supports attitude or behaviour. Change attitudes or behaviour to be consistent with each other. Engage in trivialisation of the inconsistency, concluding that the attitudes or behaviours are unimportant.

When there are strong reasons to engage in attitude discrepant behaviour, there is less attitude change. Dissonance is weak. There is attitude change when we can't attribute attitude-inconsistent behaviour to external causes and there are weak reasons to engage in attitude discrepant behaviour. This means dissonance is strong. "Less leads to more effect" Festinger & Carlsmith (1959).

Yale attitude change approach - Hovland, Janis & Kelly (1953):"who said what to whom". Who: source of communication; communicators who are credible and/or attractive and likeable mean better persuasion. Messages that don't appear designed to influence us are more convincing (Benoit, 1998). Fear only motivates change if it is mild and provided with instruction on how to avoid

Fear-arousing communications: persuasive messages that attempt to change people's attitudes by arousing their fears. Strong amounts of fear fail if they overwhelm people and result in people instead becoming defensive, denying important of the threat, and failure to think rationally. Moderate amounts of fear work best, and with information on how to reduce the fear.

Leventhal, Watts, & Pagano (1967): people were shown a scary film about the effects of smoking, instructions about how to stop smoking, or both. Those who were shown both had the biggest reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked. Showing just the film without instructions still resulted in around 55 cigarettes smoked per day after 3 months, whereas with instructions, average was 25.

Persuasion - using messages to change attitudes. Elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986): systematic processing (central route) argument strength matters. Heuristic-systematic model (Eagly & Chaiken, 1989): Heuristic processing (peripheral route) argument strength doesn't matter. Schemas, heuristics and other available mental shortcuts weigh more than the content of the message.

Central route: when people are motivated and have the ability to pay attention to the arguments in the communication. Elaborate on a persuasive communication. Listen carefully to, and think about the arguments. Occurs when people have both the ability and motivation to listen carefully

Peripheral route: when people don't pay attention to the arguments but are instead swayed by surface characteristics. People don't elaborate on the arguments. People can be swayed by peripheral cues, such as by who delivers a persuasive message rather than by the strength of the message itself. An example is when consumers buy certain products because a celebrity tweets about them. Caffeine increases the likelihood of systematic processing in low distraction conditions, when central route is possible (Martin et al, 2007).

Motivating factor: personal relevance. Petty, Cacioppo & Goldman (1981): students told their university considering adopting comprehensive exams as a requirement. 3 factors manipulated - personal relevance (told this would affect them or students in 10 years), central route (argument strength) or peripheral route (credibility of speaker, either Princeton professor or high school student). When personal relevance was high, argument strength was significant, but speaker did not matter. Weak arguments resulted in very low agreement. When personal relevance was low, argument strength was less significant. Speaker was most important.

Advertisers and retailers want to create good feelings about their product, so they pair the product with appealing music or showing pleasant images. Many advertising campaigns attempt to use emotions to persuade people.

Reactance theory: people feel their freedom to perform a certain behaviour is threatened, an unpleasant state of reactance is aroused, which they can reduce by performing the threatened behaviour. People who receive strong admonitions against smoking, taking drugs, or getting their nose pierced become more likely to perform these behaviours in order to restore their sense of personal freedom and choice (Bushman & Stack, 1996; Dowd et al, 1988). Negative reactions to threats to personal freedom increases resistance to persuasion and can produce opposite change (Brehm, 1996).

Forewarning (Cialdini & Petty, 1979): advance knowledge of being the target of an attempt at persuasion increases resistance. People want to see themselves as not gullible or easy to influence (Quinn & Wood, 2004).

Attitude inoculation: making people immune to attempts to change their attitudes by initially exposing them to small doses of the arguments against their position (see McGuire, 1964).

Effects of the media: video games and music lyrics

• playing pro social video games increases empathy and accessibility of helping thoughts. Participants who'd played a prosocial video games were more likely to help after a mishap, more willing (and devoted more time) to assist in further experiments, and intervened more often in a harassment situation (Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2010)
• Participants played a prosocial video game (such as Lemmings) or neutral (Tetris). Then as part of what they thought was another study, given the opportunity to help in some way. In one study, the experimenter accidentally knocked over a jar of pencils, and researchers then observed how many participants helped to pick them up. In another study, participants were asked to volunteer to take part in future studies for no compensation. In a third, researchers staged an event where the experimenter's ex-boyfriend charged into the room and tried to force her to leave with him (Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2010)

Does punishing aggression reduce it? If an aggressive act is used for punishment, punishers model aggressive behaviour. This may induce the person to imitate their action. Threats of mild punishment must be powerful enough to get the child to stop the undesired activity. Shouting, hitting or grabbing children usually backfires, making the child angry and resentful without stopping the misbehaviour. Also, it teaches children what to do when they're tired and exasperated - hit someone. Harsh punishment with children may cause them to develop depression, low self-esteem, and violent behaviour (Gershoff, 2002). It does not model appropriate behaviours.

Conventional wisdom suggests doing something aggressive to reduce feelings of aggression i.e "get it out of your system". However, fans watching aggressive sports do not become less aggressive; in fact they may become more aggressive than if they hadn't watched at all. Generally aggressive behaviour doesn't reduce the need for further aggression. Watching aggression also increases aggression. Spectators observing an especially violent hockey game became increasingly belligerent, with extremely high levels of hostility (Russell, 1983).

Direct aggression against the source of anger also fails to reduce further aggression. In an experiment by Geen, Stonner, & Shope (1975) college students were paired with another student who was actually a confederate.

• First the student was angered by the confederate, then the student was given phony electric shocks when his partner disagreed with his opinion
• Next, during a bogus study of "the effects of punishment on learning", the student acted as a teacher, while the confederate served as learner
• On the first learning task, some students were required to deliver electric shocks to the confederate when he made a mistake; others merely recorded his errors
• On the next task, all students were given the opportunity to deliver shocks. If a cathartic effect were operating, it would be expected that the students who had previously given shocks to the confederate to administer fewer and less intense shocks the second time
• This didn't happen, and in fact those students who had previously delivered shocks to the confederate expressed even greater aggression when given the subsequent opportunity to attack him

Participants who inflicted psychological or physical harm on an innocent person convinced themselves the victim deserved what they got. This makes it easier to do further harm to the victim in the future. Expressing hostility or inflicting violence once makes it easier to do a second time. Aggressing the first time can reduce inhibitions against committing other such actions. In a sense, the aggression is legitimised, making it easier to carry out such assaults.

Furthermore, research indicates that committing an overt act of aggression against a person changes your feelings about that person, increasing your negative feelings towards the target and making future aggression against that person more likely (Davis & Jones, 1960)

How to reduce aggression

• Express feelings healthily e.g writing out how someone made you feel in a letter
• Simple devices such as counting to 10
• Build empathy 

Feeling angry is part of being human. Those who lack skills to deal with it effectively often react aggressively.

It is harder to aggress when one feels a personal connection with a person. By building empathy among others, aggressive acts should be more difficult to commit. Richardson et al (1994) showed that students who'd been trained to empathise behaved far less aggressively toward a person than did students who hadn't received the training.

Children who are taught to put themselves in others' shoes often have higher self-esteem, are more generous, and are less aggressive than children who lack skills of empathy.

Social rejection is a significant risk factor for teenage suicide, despair, and violence. Most teenagers who have committed murders were bullied and rejected by peers. Awareness, empathy training, and bully-reduction programs in schools can reduce violence and bullying.