Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/26

Click to flip

26 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
General notions of TRA
BI = AB(w1) + SN(w2)
• The strongest proximal predicator of volitional behavior is behavioral intention
• Intention is a function of an individual’s psychological tendencies toward a behavior and normative influences
Summative model of attitude
AB = Σbiei
bi Belief strength
ei Evaluation of belief attribute
Suggestions for persuasion based on the summative model of attitude
• Add salient beliefs
• Influence the evaluation of an existing belief
• Influence the belief strength of an existing belief
• Change the salience of currently held beliefs
Normative component
SN = ΣNBiMCi
NBi Normative beliefs attributed to specific salient others
MCi Motivation to comply with specific salient others
Suggestions for influence based on the normative component
• Add a new referent
• Increase the salience of an existing referent
• Change the normative belief attributed to a salient referent
• Change the motivation to comply with a salient referent
Issues with the normative component
• Some research demonstrates that normative belief predicts subjective norms better than does the joint function of normative belief and motivation to comply
• Some research has shown that attitude and normative belief are better predictors of intention than attitude and subjective norms
• Specificity of the motivation to comply component varies from study to study
Theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Fishbein and Ajzen)
BI = AB(w1) + SN(w2)
• A person’s attitude and subjective norms impact behavioral intentions
• Behavioral intentions impact behavior
• Attitudes are a function of belief strength and evaluation for each salient belief attribute concerning attitude object
• Subjective norms are based on judgments of the normative expectations of specific salient others and a person’s motive to comply with these expectations
• Both attitude and subjective norms receive corresponding weights
• The relative impact of attitudes and subjective norms on behavior differ depending on the attitude object
• In general, however, attitude has a stronger impact on intentions than norms
• Attitudes and subjective norms tend to be correlated
Theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen)
BI = AB(w1) + SN(w2) + PBC(w3)
• People form intentions because they have control over the behaviors
Perceived behavioral control (PBC)
PBC = Σcipi
ci Control beliefs
Presence or absence of the resources and opportunities required for performance of the behavior
pi Perceived power
Power or perceived ability of the control factor to impede or assist behavior
• Similar to Bandura’s notion of self-efficacy
Suggestions for influence based on PBC
• Provide information or address misinformation that impedes the desired behavior
• Role playing and modeling to increase self-efficacy
Intention-Behavior link
• Measures of intention and behavior must be at the same level of specificity
• Change in intentions (time)
• Explicit planning
Issues with TRA
• TRA posits that attitudes and subjective norms have separate and distinct influences on behavioral intentions, however, attitudes and subjective norms are often correlated
Issues with TPB
• The idea that PBC is plausible for positively valanced behaviors but not so for negatively valenced behavior
• High PBC may be a necessary condition for attitudes and subjective norms to impact behavior
Dual Process Models
• ELM (Elaboration likelihood model) and HSM (Heuristic-systematic model) posit 2 routes to persuasion
• The central (ELM) or systematic (HSM) route is characterized by comprehensive issue-relevant thinking
• The peripheral (ELM) or heuristic (HSM) route is characterized by the use of simple judgment rules
• The two routes exist on a continuum of elaboration
• Two broad classes of factors influence degree of elaboration: ability and motivation
ability and motivation
• Ability
o Distraction
o Prior knowledge
• Motivation
o Involvement
o Need for cognition
o Multiple sources with multiple arguments
Nature of persuasive process
• Under conditions of high elaboration the resulting attitude depends upon whether the person has predominantly favorable or unfavorable thoughts about the advocated position
• Operation of simple judgment cues is inferred from the influence of peripheral cues on attitudes
• Types of simple judgment rules include credibility, liking, consensus, and superficial message characteristics
• Attitude changes that result mostly from central/systematic processing will show greater temporal persistence, greater prediction of behavior, greater resistance to counterpersuasion
Differences in the models
• According to ELM, one route tends to be dominant
• HSM makes specific predictions on how the two routes impact each other (guided by the sufficiency principle)
o Sufficiency principle
o Additivity effects
o Interaction effects
Sufficiency principle
• People are motivated to produce accurate judgments

• People will exert what ever effort is required to attain an adequate degree of confidence that they have obtained their processing goals

• People may desire greater levels of confidence in some situations than others

• Processing effort is a function of discrepancy between actual and desired levels of confidence
What happens when message content and heuristic info conflict?
• Incongruence enhances processing

• In situations of low importance participants with incongruent messages processed at levels similar to high importance participants

• In conditions of congruence, however, low importance participants were influenced by the consensus cue

• Ultimately incongruence increases discrepancy between actual and desired confidence
Belief
• Evaluative response of the cognitive type
• Thought or idea about the attitude object
Summative model of attitude (Fishbein)

Attitude = Σ (Belief X Evaluation)
• Belief
o Strength of belief held
o The subjective probability that the attitude object has or is characterized by the attribute
• Value
o The evaluation of each belief
Suggestions for persuasion based on the summative model
• Add salient beliefs
• Influence the evaluation of an existing belief
o Increase the favorability of an existing positive belief
o Decrease the unfavorability of an existing negative belief
• Influence the belief strength of an existing belief
• Change the salience of currently held beliefs
Information integration theory (Anderson)
• Broader theory
• Can address any type of judgment
• Two basic operations involved in forming or changing attitudes
o Valuation of incoming information
• The determination of the meaning of the information and of its importance or relevance for evaluating an attitude object.
• Scale value
• Evaluative meaning
• Weight
• Importance
o Integration
• Combining of items of information
• Can be described in terms of simple algebraic models
• Algebraic models have an “as if” status
Popular algebraic models for attitude

Additive model

A = woso + w1s1 + w2s2+ ….+wnsn
• In this equation w0 and s0 are the weight and scale value of the person’s initial attitude.
• Each item of information is added to the others
• The total set becomes more extreme as more items of the same sign are added together
Averaging model

woso + w1s1 + w2s2+ ….+wnsn
A = ________________________
wo + w1 + w2 + … + wn
• Assume that people respond as if they have taken an average of items of information
• Averaging in a new item of the same value as the average of the prior items would not change the response at all
• The summative model is a particular integration rule
Direct retrieval of attitudes versus aggregation of beliefs
• People may consider the attributes of an attitude object in initially evaluating it but once formed the evaluation may be stored in memory
• When direct retrieval occurs the evaluation of the attitude object is retrieved without retrieval of the attributions
• Whether people employ direct retrieval or take part in belief aggregation depends how “typical” the attitude objected is judged to be