|
- The theory of reasoned action maintains that attitudes
guide behavior through a deliberation process that
takes into account conscious attitudes toward an
object and subjective norms. The theory of planned
behavior maintains that the influence of conscious
attitudes and subjective norms on behavior depends
on people's beliefs that they can perform a given
behavior and the behavior will have the desired
effects.
- It can be surprisingly difficult at times to predict
behavior from attitudes because (a) attitudes are
sometimes ambiguous or inconsistent, (b) attitudes
sometimes conflict with other powerful determinants
of behavior, (c) attitudes are sometimes based
on secondhand information about the object, (d) attitudes
(for example, toward the environment) and
the attitude targets we actually confront (for example,
whether to donate to Greenpeace) may be at different
levels of generality and may be "about" very
different things, and (e) some of our behavior is
automatic and can bypass our conscious attitudes
altogether.
- Behavior can have very substantial effects on attitudes.
Most of the research showing such effects
grew out of cognitive consistency theories, which stress
how important consistency of attitudes and behavior
is to most people.
- Balance theory was the earliest consistency theory. It
specifies that people desire balance among their
beliefs and sentiments, and thus prefer to hold attitudes
that "follow from" other attitudes ("my
enemy's enemy is my friend"), and prefer to behave
in ways that align with their attitudes.
- Cognitive dissonance theory is based on the idea that
people experience dissonance, or discomfort, when
attitudes and behavior are inconsistent. People
therefore most often try to reduce the dissonance
they are feeling by bringing their attitudes in line
with their behavior.
- People engage in dissonance reduction when making
decisions. After making a choice between two
objects or courses of action they find "hidden attractions"
in the chosen alternative and previously
undetected flaws in the un-chosen alternative. This
reduces the dissonance aroused by having to give up
some desired object or action.
- People also engage in effort justification when they
exert effort toward some goal and the goal turns out
to be disappointing. They justify their expenditure
of energy by deciding that the goal is truly
worthwhile.
- People attempt to reduce dissonance in induced compliance
situations—that is, in situations in which
other people prompt them to do or say something
that is contrary to their beliefs. For example, when
induced by another person to argue for a position at
variance with their true attitudes with the promise
of some sort of compensation for doing so, people
who are under compensated feel that they must justify
their behavior and typically do so by changing
their attitudes to better align with their behavior.
- Dissonance resulting from inconsistency between
attitudes and behavior should be felt only when (a)
there is free choice (or the illusion of it) to engage in
the behavior, (b) there is insufficient justification for
the behavior, (c) the behavior has negative consequences
either for the self or for another, and (d) the
consequences of the behavior were foreseeable.
- The effects of inconsistency can be reduced if the
individual has just had some self-affirming experience
that obviates the need to protect the ego from
the unpleasant consequences of foreseeable action.
- Dissonance is apparently universal, but there are
cultural differences in the conditions that prompt
people to experience it. For example, the Japanese
tend to experience post-decision dissonance only
when asked to think about how another person
would choose.
- Self-perception theory originated as an alternative
explanation for the results obtained in dissonance
experiments. It is based on the premise that people
do not move their attitudes into line with their
behavior because they are motivated to justify them;
they do so merely because they observe their behavior
and the circumstances in which it occurs and
infer, just as an observer might, what their attitudes
must be, given that they behaved as they did.
- Whereas self-perception may well play a role in generating
the effects in many dissonance experiments,
some evidence clearly indicates that there is often a
motivational component as well. "Mere" self perception
appears to account for attitude change in
situations in which attitudes are weak or unclear to
begin with, whereas more motivated, dissonance reduction
processes are invoked when attitudes are
more strongly held to begin with.
|
|
|
