The Relationship Between Attitudes and Actions Can Best Be Described as:

Affiliate 4. Attitudes, Beliefs, and Persuasion

Exploring Attitudes

1. Ascertain the concept of an attitude and explain why information technology is of such interest to social psychologists.
2. Review the variables that determine attitude strength.
3. Outline the factors that impact the strength of the attitude-beliefs relationship.

Although we might apply the term in a different way in our everyday life (eastward.g., "Hey, he'southward actually got an attitude!"), social psychologists reserve the term attitude to refer to our relatively enduring evaluation of something, where the something is called the mental 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 volition consider the nature and strength of attitudes and the weather nether 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 terms such equally prefer, similar, dislike, hate, and beloved. When we express our attitudes—for instance, when we say, "I like swimming," "I detest snakes," or "I dear my parents" —we are expressing the relationship (either positive or negative) between the cocky and an mental attitude object. Statements such as these make it clear that attitudes are an important part of the self-concept.

Every human beingness holds thousands of attitudes, including those virtually family unit and friends, political figures, abortion rights, terrorism, preferences for music, and much more. Each of our attitudes has its ain unique characteristics, and no two attitudes come to usa or influence us in quite the same way. Research has institute that some of our attitudes are inherited, at to the lowest degree in part, via genetic transmission from our parents (Olson, Vernon, Harris, & Jang, 2001). Other attitudes are learned generally through directly and indirect experiences with the attitude objects (De Houwer, Thomas, & Baeyens, 2001). Nosotros may similar to ride roller coasters in function because our genetic code has given u.s. a thrill-loving personality and in part because we've had some actually slap-up times on roller coasters in the past. Notwithstanding 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 unlike styles of music or art—are more individualized.

Table 4.1, "Heritability of Some Attitudes," shows some of the attitudes that accept been found to be the about highly heritable (i.eastward., most strongly determined by genetic variation amid people). These attitudes form earlier and are stronger and more than resistant to change than others (Bourgeois, 2002), although it is not notwithstanding known why some attitudes are more genetically determined than are others.

Table 4.1 Heritability of Some Attitudes

Attitude	Heritability
Abortion on demand	0.54
Roller coaster rides	0.52
Death penalty for murder	0.5
Organized religion	0.45
Doing athletic activities	0.44
Voluntary euthanasia	0.44
Commercialism	0.39
Playing chess	0.38
Reading books	0.37
Exercising	0.36
Teaching	0.32
Big parties	0.32
Smoking	0.31
Being the centre of attending	0.28
Getting along well with other people	0.28
Wearing wearing apparel that draw attention	0.24
Sweets	0.22
Public speaking	0.ii
Castration every bit punishment for sex activity crimes	0.17
Loud music	0.11
Looking my best at all times	0.1
Doing crossword puzzles	0.02
Separate roles for men and women	0
Making racial bigotry illegal	0
Playing organized sports	0
Like shooting fish in a barrel access to birth command	0
Being the leader of groups	0
Beingness assertive	0
Ranked from nigh heritable to to the lowest degree heritable. Data are from Olson, Vernon, Harris, and Jang (2001). Olson, J. K., Vernon, P. A., Harris, J. A., Harris, J.A., & Jang, Chiliad. L. (2001). The heritability of attitudes: A study of twins. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, lxxx(6), 845–860.

Our attitudes are made up of cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. Consider an environmentalist's attitude toward recycling, which is probably very positive:

• In terms of bear upon: They feel happy when they recycle.
• In terms of behavior: They  regularly recycle their bottles and cans.
• In terms of cognition: They believe recycling is the responsible thing to do.

Although about attitudes are determined by affect, behavior, and knowledge, there is however variability in this regard across people and beyond attitudes. Some attitudes are more likely to be based on feelings, some are more likely to be based on behaviors, and some are more probable to be based on behavior. For example, your mental attitude toward chocolate ice cream is probably adamant in large part by affect—although you can describe its taste, mostly you may just like information technology. Your attitude toward your toothbrush, on the other hand, is probably more cerebral (you understand the importance of its role). Even so other of your attitudes may be based more on behavior. For example, your mental attitude toward note-taking during lectures probably depends, at least in part, on whether or not you regularly take notes.

Different people may concur attitudes toward the same attitude object for different reasons. For case, some people vote for politicians because they like their policies, whereas others vote for (or confronting) politicians considering they but like (or dislike) their public persona. Although yous might call back that cognition would be more than important in this regard, political scientists take 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 more often than not the strongest and most important (Abelson, Kinder, Peters, & Fiske, 1981; Stangor, Sullivan, & Ford, 1991).

Human being beings hold attitudes because they are useful. Especially, 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 or arroyo has had substantial value in our evolutionary feel. For instance:

• Snake = bad ⟶ run abroad
• Blueberries = good ⟶ eat

Because attitudes are evaluations, they tin can be assessed using any of the normal measuring techniques used past social psychologists (Banaji & Heiphetz, 2010). Attitudes are frequently assessed using cocky-report measures, but they can also be assessed more than 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 encephalon 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 tin be activated extremely quickly—often within one-fifth of a second after nosotros see an attitude object (Handy, Smilek, Geiger, Liu, & Schooler, 2010).

Some Attitudes Are Stronger Than Others

Some attitudes are more than important than others considering they are more useful to u.s.a. 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 potent attitudes, in the sense that we find them important, agree them with confidence, exercise non change them very much, and use them frequently to guide our actions. These strong attitudes may guide our deportment 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 limited attitudes toward nonsense words such as juvalamu (which people liked) and chakaka (which they did not like). The researchers also institute that these attitudes were very weak.

Strong attitudes are more than cognitively accessible—they come to mind speedily, regularly, and hands. Nosotros can hands measure attitude strength by assessing how apace our attitudes are activated when we are exposed to the attitude object. If we can land our attitude apace, without much idea, then it is a strong 1. If we are unsure about our attitude and demand to think nigh information technology for a while before stating our opinion, the attitude is weak.

Attitudes become stronger when nosotros accept direct positive or negative experiences with the mental attitude object, and particularly if those experiences accept been in strong positive or negative contexts. Russell Fazio and his colleagues (Fazio, Powell, & Herr, 1983) had people either work on some puzzles or sentry other people piece of work on the aforementioned puzzles. Although the people who watched ended upwards either liking or disliking the puzzles equally much as the people who actually worked on them, Fazio plant that attitudes, as assessed by reaction time measures, were stronger (in the sense of beingness expressed quickly) for the people who had directly experienced the puzzles.

Because attitude forcefulness is determined past cognitive accessibility, information technology is possible to make attitudes stronger by increasing the accessibility of the attitude. This can be washed straight by having people call back well-nigh, express, or discuss their attitudes with others. After people think near their attitudes, talk near them, or but say them out loud, the attitudes they accept expressed go stronger (Downing, Judd, & Brauer, 1992; Tesser, Martin, & Mendolia, 1995). Considering attitudes are linked to the cocky-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 end 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 besides stronger when the ABCs of affect, beliefs, and cognition all marshal. As an example, many people'due south attitude toward their own nation is universally positive. They take strong positive feelings about their state, many positive thoughts about it, and tend to engage in behaviors that support it. Other attitudes are less stiff because the affective, cognitive, and behavioral components are each somewhat unlike (Thompson, Zanna, & Griffin, 1995). Your cognitions toward physical do may exist positive—you believe that regular physical activity is skillful for your health. On the other manus, your affect may be negative—you lot may resist exercising considering you prefer to appoint in tasks that provide more immediate rewards. Consequently, you may not exercise as often as y'all believe you ought to. These inconsistencies amongst the components of your attitude brand it less strong than it would exist if all the components lined up together.

When Do Our Attitudes Guide Our Behavior?

Social psychologists (also as advertisers, marketers, and politicians) are especially interested in the behavioral aspect of attitudes. Because information technology is normal that the ABCs of our attitudes are at to the lowest degree somewhat consistent, our behavior tends to follow from our touch and noesis. If I determine that you have more positive cognitions about and more positive bear on toward waffles than French toast, and so I will naturally predict (and probably exist correct when I do so) that yous'll exist more likely to society waffles than French toast when you lot eat breakfast at a eatery. Furthermore, if I tin can do something to make your thoughts or feelings toward French toast more positive, then your likelihood of ordering it for breakfast volition as well increase.

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

Nonetheless, our attitudes are not the only factor that influence our decision to act. The theory of planned behavior, developed by Martin Fishbein and Izek Ajzen (Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), outlines three key variables that bear on the attitude-behavior relationship: (a) the mental attitude toward the behaviour (the stronger the better), (b) subjective norms (the support of those we value), and (c) perceived behavioral control (the extent to which nosotros believe we can actually perform the beliefs). These 3 factors jointly predict our intention to perform the beliefs, which in turn predicts our actual beliefs (Figure 4.2, "Theory of Planned Behavior").

To illustrate, imagine for a moment that your friend Sharina is trying to decide whether to recycle her used laptop batteries or only throw them away. We know that her attitude toward recycling is positive—she thinks she should do it—simply we also know that recycling takes work. Information technology's much easier to just throw the batteries away. Just if Sharina feels strongly almost the importance of recycling, if her family and friends are also in favor of recycling, and if she has easy admission to a battery recycling facility, so she will develop a strong intention to perform the behavior and likely follow through on it.

Since it was first proposed, the theory of planned behavior has grown to become an extremely influential model for predicting human social behavior. All the same, although information technology has been used to study virtually every kind of planned beliefs, a contempo meta-analysis of 206 articles found that this model was peculiarly constructive at predicting physical activity and dietary behaviors (McEachan, Conner, Taylor, & Lawton, 2011).

Figure 4.2 Theory of Planned Behavior, adapted past Hilda Aggregani under CC BY.

More more often than not, research has too discovered that attitudes predict behaviors well merely under certain conditions and for some people. These include:

• When the attitude and the behavior both occur in like 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 cocky-monitors (rather than for high self-monitors)

The extent of the match between the social situations in which the attitudes are expressed and the behaviors are engaged in is important; there is a greater attitude-beliefs correlation when the social situations lucifer. Imagine for a minute the example of Magritte, a xvi-year-former high school student. Magritte tells her parents that she hates the idea of smoking cigarettes. Magritte'southward negative attitude toward smoking seems to be a strong one because she's thought a lot about information technology—she believes that cigarettes are dirty, expensive, and unhealthy. Only how sure are y'all that Magritte's attitude volition predict her beliefs? Would you be willing to bet that she'd never try smoking when she's out with her friends?

You can see that the trouble here is that Magritte's attitude is beingness expressed in one social situation (when she is with her parents), whereas the behavior (trying a cigarette) is going to occur in a very unlike social situation (when she is out with her friends). The relevant social norms are of course much dissimilar in the ii 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

Mental attitude-Beliefs Consistency

Another variable that has an important influence on attitude-behavior consistency is the current cerebral accessibility of the underlying affective and cerebral components of the attitude. For case, if we assess the attitude in a situation in which people are thinking primarily about the mental attitude object in cognitive terms, and all the same the behavior is performed in a situation in which the affective components of the attitude are more accessible, and so the attitude-behavior relationship volition be weak. Wilson and Schooler (1991) showed a similar type of effect by commencement choosing attitudes that they expected would be primarily determined by touch on—attitudes toward five different types of strawberry jam. 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 near the cognitive aspects of their attitudes to these jams—that is, to focus on the reasons they held their attitudes—whereas the other one-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 and then assessed the extent to which the attitudes expressed by the students correlated with taste ratings of the five jams every bit indicated by experts at Consumer Reports. They institute that the attitudes expressed by the students correlated significantly college with the expert ratings for the participants who had non 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 brand their judgments. On the other paw, the students who were asked to listing their thoughts about the jams had some extra information to utilize in making their judgments, but information technology 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. Co-ordinate to random assignment to weather condition, half of the men were shown the video while sober and the other half viewed the video afterward 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 whatsoever condoms, simply Rebecca says that she is on the pill.

At this betoken the film prune ends, and the male participants are asked about their probable behaviors if they had been Mike. Although all men indicated that having unprotected sex activity in this situation was foolish and irresponsible, the men who had been drinking alcohol were more than likely to signal that they would engage in sexual intercourse with Rebecca even without a condom. 1 interpretation of this study is that sexual behavior is determined by both cognitive factors (e.g., "I know that it is of import to practice safe sexual activity and then I should use a safety") and affective factors (e.g., "Sexual activity is enjoyable, I don't want to expect"). When the students were intoxicated at the fourth dimension the behavior was to exist performed, it seems likely the affective component of the mental attitude was a more than important determinant of behavior than was the cerebral component.

1 other blazon of lucifer that has an important influence on the attitude-behavior relationship concerns how we measure out the attitude and behavior. Attitudes predict behavior ameliorate when the mental attitude is measured at a level that is like 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 case, if we measure cognitions at a very general level (e.g., "Practise you think information technology is important to use condoms?"; "Are yous a religious person?") nosotros volition non exist 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 (e.1000., "Do you lot think you lot will use a condom the next time yous accept sex activity?"; "How frequently do you lot expect to attend church in the next calendar month?"). In general, more than specific questions are better predictors of specific behaviors, and thus if nosotros wish to accurately predict behaviors, nosotros should retrieve to attempt to measure specific attitudes. One instance of this principle is shown in Effigy 4.3, "Predicting Behavior from Specific and Nonspecific Mental 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 mental attitude at a more specific level.

Figure 4.3 Predicting Beliefs 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).Davidson, A. R., & Jaccard, J. J. (1979). Variables that moderate the attitude-behavior relation: Results of a longitudinal survey. Periodical of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(viii), 1364–1376.

Attitudes besides predict behavior improve for some people than for others. As we saw in Chapter iii, self-monitoring refers to private differences in the tendency to attend to social cues and to arrange one's behavior to 1'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 especially concerned with being liked past 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 offering her one. On the other hand, if Magritte is non particularly concerned about post-obit the social norms of her friends, and 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 club to be liked; depression self-monitors are those who are less likely to do so. You can see that, because they allow the social state of affairs to influence their behaviors, the relationship betwixt attitudes and behavior will be weaker for high self-monitors than it is for low self-monitors (Kraus, 1995).

• 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 exist based on beliefs, some are more likely to be based on feelings, and some are more probable 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 nosotros apply them ofttimes to guide our actions.
• Although at that place is a general consistency between attitudes and beliefs, the relationship is stronger in some situations than in others, for some measurements than for others, and for some people than for others.

1. Describe an example of a behavior that you engaged in that might exist explained by the theory of planned beliefs. Include each of the components of the theory in your assay.
2. Consider a fourth dimension when you acted on your own attitudes and a time when yous did non act on your own attitudes. What factors do y'all retrieve adamant the difference?

References

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

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

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

Banaji, Yard. R., & Heiphetz, L. (2010). Attitudes. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & K. Lindzey (Eds.),Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. ane, 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, East., & Svanum, S. (1979). Cocky-sensation and transgression in children: Two field studies.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(x), 1835–1846.

Bourgeois, Chiliad. J. (2002). Heritability of attitudes constrains dynamic social touch on.Personality and Social Psychology Message, 28(8), 1063–1072.

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

Cunningham, Due west. A., Raye, C. 50., & Johnson, M. Grand. (2004). Implicit and explicit evaluation: fMRI correlates of valence, emotional intensity, and control in the processing of attitudes.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, xvi(10), 1717–1729;

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

De Houwer, J., Thomas, Southward., & 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. One thousand., & Brauer, M. (1992). Effects of repeated expressions on attitude extremity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(i), 17–29; Tesser, A., Martin, L., & Mendolia, One thousand. (Eds.). (1995).The impact of thought on mental attitude extremity and mental attitude-behavior consistency. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

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

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. InAttitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 247–282). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum;

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

Ferguson, 1000. J., Bargh, J. A., & Nayak, D. A. (2005). Later-affects: How automatic evaluations influence the estimation of subsequent, unrelated stimuli.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(ii), 182–191. doi: ten.1016/j.jesp.2004.05.008

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

Glasman, 50. R., & Albarracín, D. (2006). Forming attitudes that predict time to come behavior: A meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation.Psychological Message, 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: ten.1162/jocn.2008.21180

Hargreaves, D. A., & Tiggemann, M. (2003). Female person "thin ideal" media images and boys' attitudes toward girls.Sex Roles, 49(nine–10), 539–544.

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

Krosnick, J. A., & Footling, R. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. InAttitude 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, 50. F. (2000). We're here, we're queer, nosotros're on TV: The effects of visual media on heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men and lesbians.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(iv), 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(viii), 763–775.

Maio, G. R., & Olson, J. M. (Eds.). (2000).Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. doi:x.1080/17437199.2010.521684

McEachan, R. R. C., Conner, K., Taylor, N. J., & Lawton, R. J. (2011) Prospective prediction of health-related behaviours with the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis, Health Psychology Review, 5(2), 97-144.

Mendes, W. B. (2008). Assessing autonomic nervous arrangement 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. K., Vernon, P. A., Harris, J. A., & Jang, K. L. (2001). The heritability of attitudes: A written report of twins.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 845–860.

Poteat, V. P. (2007). Peer grouping 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, nine(iv), 359–380.

Tesser, A., Martin, L., & Mendolia, M. (1995). The touch of idea on attitude extremity and mental attitude-beliefs consistency.  In R. East. Little & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.),Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Ohio State Academy serial on attitudes and persuasion (4th ed., pp. 73-92). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

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

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

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

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

foxmexplace.blogspot.com

Source: https://opentextbc.ca/socialpsychology/chapter/exploring-attitudes/

Share this post