Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
156 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is cognitive dissonance?
|
Feeling of discomfort caused by performing an action that runs counter to one's customary (typically positive) conception of oneself
|
|
|
When is dissonancy most upsetting and most powerful?
|
-When people behave in ways that threaten their self-image
|
|
|
What are the three methods of dissonance reduction?
|
1. Change our behavior to bring it in line w/ the dissonant cognition
2. Attempt to justify our behavoir through changing one of the dissonant cognitions 3. Attempt to justify our behavior by adding new cognitions |
|
|
What kind of thinking does the need to maintain our self-esteem sometimes lead to?
|
-Rationalization
|
|
|
What types of arguments may arouse dissonace?
Two types |
1. Silly arguement that support own position b/c have doubts about wisdom/intelligence of position
2. Sensible argument on the other side b/c raises doubts about how close to the truth you position is |
|
|
Postdecision Dissonance
|
Dissonace aroused after making a decision, typically reduced by enhancing the attactiveness of the chosen alternative and devaluating the rejected alternative
|
|
|
When types of situations particularly cause postdecision dissonance?
|
1. More important situations
2. More permanent and less revocable the decision |
|
|
How can permance of a decision influence dissonance?
|
-More important, greater dissonance
-More permanent, greater dissoance |
|
|
Lowballing
|
A strategy whereby a salesperson induces a customer to agree to purchase a prodict at a very low cost, subsequently claims it was an error, and then raises the price again
|
|
|
What are customers repsonse often to lowballing?
|
Frequently the customers will agree to make the purchase at the inflated price
|
|
|
What are three reasons lowballing works?
|
1. While decision is reversibl, a commitment of some sorts does exist
2. The feeling of commitment triggered the anticipation of an exciting event 3. Although final price is higher than customer thought it would be, they rationalize that it is probably only slightly higher than at another dealership |
|
|
How is does the decision to behave immorally relate to cognitive dissonance?
|
-Important b/c moral dilemias can be powerful implications for one's self-esteem
-Dissonance reduction following a moral decision can cause people to behave either more or less ethically in the future |
|
|
How does one reduce dissonance after an immoral decision?
|
Try to justify the action by finding a way to minimize the negative aspects of the action you chose
|
|
|
How does dissonance affect personal values?
|
When justify immoral decision, its not merely a rationalization of your own behavior but an actual change in your system of values
|
|
|
Justification of Effort
|
The tendency for individuals to increase their liking for something they have worked hard to atain
|
|
|
How is justification of effort a product of cognitive dissonance?
|
If a person agrees to go through a demanding or unpleasant experience in order to attain some goal or object, that goal or object becomes more attractive (even if it really is not at all)
|
|
|
External Justification
|
A reason or explanation for dissonant personal behavior that resides outside the individualt (i.e. in order to recieve a large reward or avioud punishement)
|
|
|
When is one time external justification is used?
|
-When tell harmless lie in order to be kind to someone
-Cognition that it's important not to cause pain to people you like provides ample external justification for the lie |
|
|
Internal Justification
|
The reduction of dissonance by changing something about oneself (i.e. one's attitude or behavior)
*can't find external so look of internal justification |
|
|
Counterattitudinal Advocacy
|
Stating an opinion or attitude that runs counter to one's private belief or attitude
|
|
|
What does counterattitudinal advocacy cause to happen if there is little external justification?
|
-Saying is believing
-What we believe begins to look more and more like the lie we told |
|
|
Is harming another person a necessary condition for dissonance, or is dissonance produced simply by behaving w/o integrity even if no harm results?
|
Behaving w/o integrity, in and of itself, produces dissonance
|
|
|
How can hypocrisy increase dissonance and alter subsequent behavior?
|
-Made aware of own hypocricsy
-To remove hyprocricsy and maintain self-esteem, start practicing what you are preaching *Safe sex example |
|
|
Insufficient Punishment
|
The dissonance aroused when individuals lack sufficient external justification for having resisted a desired activity or object, usually resulting in individuals' devaluing the forbidden activity or object
|
|
|
Does harsh punishment teach kids to be hones?
|
-No, just to avoid getting caught
-More severe the punishment, greater the chance kid will cease and desist while your watching them -Child experiences dissonance BUT have external justification so don't change/produce desired values |
|
|
What about less severe punishments?
|
-Less external justification so greater need for internal justification
-Leeway to construct own internal justifications enables them to develop a permanent set of values |
|
|
What will larege rewards and extreme punishments do to long term maintenance of behaviors in question?
|
Encourage compliance b/c they are strong external justifications but prevent real attitude change
|
|
|
How can positive or negative treatment of others impact our liking of them through cognitive dissoance?
|
-Like person more after doing them a favor
-Act of ommision (refusal to help another) leds to a decline in the attractiveness of the acquaintance -Say negative things about person, convice self those hurtful things were deserved |
|
|
How does culture impact dissonance process?
|
-It is less in collectivist societies
-Self-justification does occur in less individualistic societies but is triggered in more communal ways -Bring self more in line w/ community (can be brought into dissonance by what others say and do) |
|
|
Self-Discrepency Theory
|
The idea that people become distressed when their sense of their actual self differs from their ideal self
|
|
|
What is ideal self?
What is ought self? What is actual self? What happens when we compre the two? |
-Ideal self is who we aspire to be
-Ought self is the type of person we believe we ought to be -Actual person is us -Compare our actual self w/ ideal and ought self provides us w/ an important means of self-evaluation |
|
|
What happens when people are made aware of a discrepency bwt their actual self and ideal selves?
Experiene feelings invovling... |
-Dejections
-Sadness -Dissatisfcation -Depression-related emotions |
|
|
Besdies emotional discomfort what can self-descrepancies do?
|
Provoke strivings to minimize the gap bwt the actual and ideal or ought selves
|
|
|
How can you restore a positive self-concept when it has been threatended by self-descrepancies?
|
-Self-justifying thoughts and behaviors
-Reject personal responsibility for failure |
|
|
Self-Evaluation Maintenac Model
|
The idea that one's self-concept can be threatened by another individual's behavior and that the level of threat is determined by both the closeness of the other individual and the personal relevance of the behavior
|
|
|
How can you engage in postdecision dissonance
|
Proselytize, recommending your decision/behavior to others
|
|
|
What is justification of effort
|
People are unlikely to change their self-concept to believe they were unskilled or foolish; instead they change their attitude towards the goal and see it positively.
|
|
|
What is the Psychology of Insufficient Justification
|
-Justification that is sufficient to produce the behavior
-Insufficient for people to believe that they were “forced” through external justifications to do it. |
|
|
Why would we derogate or dehumanize vitcims?
|
If we harm someone, this induces dissonance between our actions and our self-concepts as decent people
-Resolve this dissonance by derogation or dehumanizing |
|
|
When is derogation more likely?
|
-When we have harmed innocent victims. -Derogating victims by dehumanizing may lead to a continuation or escalation of violence against them.
|
|
|
The Evidence for Motivational Arousal
|
-Discomfort due to physiological arousal motivates dissonance reduction
-After engaging in counterattitudinal advocacy, people who can attribute their arousal to another source and not the dissonant behavior do not change their attitudes. |
|
|
Self-completeion Theory
|
Whenever people experience a threat to an important aspect of their self-concept, they are motivated to seek some additional social recognition for that part of their identity.
-The theory extends dissonance theory by focusing on the importance of social recognition of the self. |
|
|
Dissonance arising when a friend outperforms oneself in a cherished domain can be resolved by...
|
1. Distancing oneself from the friend 2. Changing how relevant the domain is to one’s self-definition
3. Improving one’s performance to outshine the friend’s performance. |
|
|
Self-Affirmation Theory
|
People will reduce the impact of a dissonance arousing threat to their self-concept by focusing on and affirming their competence on some dimension unrelated to the threat.
|
|
|
How do people with negative self-concepts differ from those with positive self-concepts
|
People with negative self-concepts do not engage in the kinds of self-justification typical of people with positive self-concepts.
|
|
|
Self-Verification Theory
|
A theory suggesting that people have a need to seek confirmation of their self-concept, whether the self-concept is positive or negative
|
|
|
The need for self-verification appears to dominate over the need for self-justification for people with negative self-concepts only when....
|
1. People are highly certain of those self-concepts
2. When the consequences of being improperly evaluated are not too great 3. When people believe there is nothing that can be done to improve their abilities. |
|
|
Culture and Dissonance: Japan
|
In Japan, not only does a person reduce dissonance after saying that a boring task is interesting, but in addition, if a person merely observes someone he knows and likes saying that a boring task is interesting, that will cause the observer to experience dissonance.
|
|
|
What is the rationalization trap?
|
The rationalization trap is the potential for dissonance reduction to produce a succession of self-justifications that can ultimately result in a chain of unintelligent or immoral actions.
|
|
|
How can you avoid the rationalization trap
|
-Experience a boost to one’s self-esteem
-Self-affirmation may provide a way out of the rationalization trap. |
|
|
What can the attempt to reduce dissonance prevent us from?
|
-Learning from our mistakes
-Can lead us to sweep our mistakes under the rug or even turn them into virtues, perpetuating the error and leading to tragedy. |
|
|
According to the Self-Evaluation Theory how do we avoid dissonace?
|
1. Distance ourselves from the person who outperforms us
2. Change how relevant the task is 3. Performance relative to other person |
|
|
Reflection process
|
Observe other doing well/poorly and share their feelings
-closer to other person more enhanced |
|
|
Comparison process
|
Another does well and you feel bad (vice versa as well)
-closer to other person more enhanced |
|
|
How does the relevance of the issue affect the process you use?
|
-Relevant: Comparision
-Irrelevant: Reflection |
|
|
Self-Eval Maint. Model: Performance Variable
|
-Improve our own
-Undermine others |
|
|
SEM Model: Closeness variable
|
-Reduce closness
|
|
|
SEM Model: Relevance Issue
|
Decide domain isn't that important
|
|
|
When do we undermine others' performance?
|
-Low relevance give easier clues to friend
-High relevance give harder clues to friend |
|
|
When do we cognitively distory others' performance?
|
-Low relevance: higher estimate for friend (reflection)
-High relevance: lower estimate for friend (comparison) |
|
|
When do we reduce closeness to others?
|
-Low relevance task: better other person performs, the more we like person
-High relevance task: better other person performs, the more we don't like person |
|
|
When do we reduce the relevance of the task?
|
-Varied others' closeness and performance
-Said performance affects some domain they never heard of (ambigious) -Task was seen as low relevance when the other person was close to us and did better |
|
|
What about romantic relationships and SEM Model: Rate domain importance and who's better in domains
|
-Domain is important to self: comparison
-Domain isn't important: reflection -Percieved role differentiation -Really better in domians you think are important and partner doesn't care about (sensitive to partner's relevance judgements) |
|
|
When does self-affirmation occur
|
-When our self-esttem is threatened
-If give people opportunity for self-affirmation before onset of dissonance, they will often grab it |
|
|
Why would someone be motivated to maintain negative self views?
|
1. Unsettling and confusing to have our views of ourselves disconfirmed
2. Interacting w/ people who view us differently from way we view ourselves is embarrassing |
|
|
What happens when two motives conflicts
|
-Need to maintain a stable self-concept frequently overpowers our desire to view ourselves in a positive light
-Esp. true if think can change negative part w/ a little effory |
|
|
Attitude
|
An enduring evaluation, positive or negative, of people, objects, or ideas
|
|
|
Where do attitudes come from?
|
-Genetic background
-Social experiences -Although all attitudes have three components, any given attitude can be based more on one component than another |
|
|
Cognitively based attitudes
|
-Based primarily on a person’s beliefs about the properties of the attitude object
-Their function is informational or utilitarian |
|
|
Affectively Based attitudes
|
-Based more on people’s feelings and values than on their beliefs
-Their function may be value-expressive |
|
|
Behaviorally based attitudes
|
Based on self-perceptions of one’s own behavior when the initial attitude is weak or ambiguous
|
|
|
What are the three components of attitudes?
|
1. Affective component: emotional reaction toward attitude/object
2. Cognitive compenent: thoughts and beliefs about attitude/object 3. Behavorial compenant: actions or observable behaviors toward the attitude object |
|
|
Explicit attitudes
|
Attitudes that we consciously endorse and can easily report
|
|
|
Where can affectively based attitudes result from?
|
-People's values
-Sensory reaction or aesthetic reaction -Classical conditioning or operant conditioning |
|
|
What don't affectively based attitudes result from?
|
-Not from a rational examination of the issues
-Not governed by logic -Changing them challenges people's values often |
|
|
Classical conditioning
|
A stimulus that elicits an emotional response is accompanied by a neutral stimulus that does not until eventually the neutral stimulus elicits the emotional response by itself
|
|
|
Operant conditioning
|
Behaviors that we freely choose to perform become more or less frequent, depending on whether they are followed by a reward or punishment
|
|
|
When do people infer their attitude from their behaviors?
Two conditions... |
1. Their initial attitude has to be weak or ambigious
2. There are no other plausible explanations for their behavior |
|
|
Implicit Attitudes
|
Attitudes that are involuntary, uncontrollable, and at times unconscious
|
|
|
What are the two levels an attitude can exist at?
|
1. Implicit
2. Explicit |
|
|
When attitudes change, they often do so in response to...
|
Social Influence
|
|
|
Changing Attitudes by Changing Behavior: Cognitive Dissonance Theory Revisited
|
-Attitudes may change due to the cognitive dissonance that results from behavior that appears to have insufficient internal justification
-Changing the attitude to correspond with the behavior provides an internal justification |
|
|
Persuasive Communication
|
Communication advocating a particular side of an issue
|
|
|
Yale Attitude Change Approach
|
Examines the conditions under which people are most likely to change their attitudes in response to a persuasive appeal and focuses on who said what to whom
|
|
|
What three things did the yale attitude approach look at?
|
-The source of communication
-The communication itself -The nature of the audience |
|
|
Yale Approach
Who: The source of communication |
-Credible speakers persuade ppl more than speakers lacking credibility
-Attractive speakers persuade ppl more than unattractive speakers |
|
|
Yale Approach
What: The nature of the communication |
-More persuaded by messages that don't seem designed to influence
-Generally, two-sided arguements work best if refute other side -Give speech first when back to back (primacy effect), go second if delay (recency effect) |
|
|
Yale Approach
To Whom: The nature of the audience |
-Distracted audience is more persuaded
-People with low intelligence are easierly persuaded -People with moderate self-esteem are more pesuaded than those with high or low self-esteem -Susceptible to attitude change during ages of 18 to 25 |
|
|
Elaboration Likelihood Model
|
Two ways in which persuasive communications can cause attitude change: centrally and peripherally
|
|
|
Central Route to Persuasion
|
People elaborate on a persuasive communication, listening carefully to and thinking about the arguements, as occurs when people have both the ability and motivation to listen carefully to a communication
|
|
|
Peripheral Route to Persuasion
|
People do not elaborate on the arguements in a persuasive communication but are instead swayed by peripheral cues (surface characteristics of message)
|
|
|
Which route to attitude change will people take?
|
-One determinant is the personal relevance of the topic
-More relevant the topic, the more people will take the central route to persuasion -Here, they will be influenced the most by the strength of the arguments |
|
|
People’s motivation to listen carefully to message content may also depend on what personality trait
|
Their level of need for cognition, the extent to which they seek out and think about information in their social worlds
|
|
|
What about ability and route to attitude change?
|
The more distracted people are, the more they will take the peripheral route.
|
|
|
Attitude change will be more long-lasting if it occurs through...
|
The Central Route
|
|
|
What do you have to do to get people to use central processing route?
How can you do this? |
In order to get people to use the central processing route, you need to get their attention
-This can be done by playing to their emotions |
|
|
Good moods and persuasive communication
|
-People in good moods want to perserve it, so they will avoid activities that might spoil their good mood
-This means that people in good moods will often avoid paying close attention to a persuasive communication, because they think that doing so will lower their mood |
|
|
Good moods and persuasive communication
|
-People in good moods want to perserve it, so they will avoid activities that might spoil their good mood
-This means that people in good moods will often avoid paying close attention to a persuasive communication, because they think that doing so will lower their mood |
|
|
Fear-arousing communications
|
-Most effective if they induce a moderate amount of fear and people believe that listening to the message will reduce this fear
-If the message is too scary or not scary enough, it will fail. |
|
|
Fear-arousing communications
|
-Most effective if they induce a moderate amount of fear and people believe that listening to the message will reduce this fear
-If the message is too scary or not scary enough, it will fail. |
|
|
In the heuristic-systematic model of persuasion...
|
Two ways in which persuasive communication can cause attitude change: systematically process merits or use heuristics ("experts are always right")
|
|
|
In the heuristic-systematic model of persuasion...
|
Two ways in which persuasive communication can cause attitude change: systematically process merits or use heuristics ("experts are always right")
|
|
|
What model do peripheral route people often take?
|
Heuristic-systematic model of persuasion
|
|
|
What model do peripheral route people often take?
|
Heuristic-systematic model of persuasion
|
|
|
Emotions and moods themselves can be used as a heuristic
|
-We ask ourselves “How do I feel about it?” and if we feel good, we infer we have a positive attitude
-This can get us into trouble if the good feelings are due to something other than the attitude object |
|
|
Resisting Attitude Change
|
One way to bolster people against persuasion attempts is to have them consider the arguments for and against their attitude before somebody attacks it
|
|
|
Emotions and moods themselves can be used as a heuristic
|
-We ask ourselves “How do I feel about it?” and if we feel good, we infer we have a positive attitude
-This can get us into trouble if the good feelings are due to something other than the attitude object |
|
|
Attitude Inoculation
|
exposing people to a small dose of the argument against their position; this induced them to counter-argue and provide a “vaccination” that helps people ward off later, stronger influence attempts
|
|
|
Resisting Attitude Change
|
One way to bolster people against persuasion attempts is to have them consider the arguments for and against their attitude before somebody attacks it
|
|
|
When Persuasion Attempts Boomerang
|
It is important not to use too heavy a hand when trying to immunize people against assaults on their attitudes. If you administer too strong a prohibition, the prohibition may boomerang and lead to an increase in the prohibited activity
|
|
|
Attitude Inoculation
|
exposing people to a small dose of the argument against their position; this induced them to counter-argue and provide a “vaccination” that helps people ward off later, stronger influence attempts
|
|
|
Reactance Theory
|
Strong prohibitions threaten a person’s feeling of freedom, and engaging in the forbidden behavior is an attempt to restore that feeling of freedom
|
|
|
When Persuasion Attempts Boomerang
|
It is important not to use too heavy a hand when trying to immunize people against assaults on their attitudes. If you administer too strong a prohibition, the prohibition may boomerang and lead to an increase in the prohibited activity
|
|
|
Attitdue Accessibility
|
The strength of the association between an attitude object and a person’s evaluation of the object, measured by the speed with which people can report how they feel about the object
|
|
|
Reactance Theory
|
Strong prohibitions threaten a person’s feeling of freedom, and engaging in the forbidden behavior is an attempt to restore that feeling of freedom
|
|
|
Attitdue Accessibility
|
The strength of the association between an attitude object and a person’s evaluation of the object, measured by the speed with which people can report how they feel about the object
|
|
|
Theory of Planned Behavior
|
-Theory of how attitudes predict planned, deliberative behavior
-The best predictors of these behaviors are the person’s specific attitudes, his or her subjective norms, and his or her perceived control over the behavior |
|
|
Good moods and persuasive communication
|
-People in good moods want to perserve it, so they will avoid activities that might spoil their good mood
-This means that people in good moods will often avoid paying close attention to a persuasive communication, because they think that doing so will lower their mood |
|
|
Theory of Planned Behavior
|
-Theory of how attitudes predict planned, deliberative behavior
-The best predictors of these behaviors are the person’s specific attitudes, his or her subjective norms, and his or her perceived control over the behavior |
|
|
Fear-arousing communications
|
-Most effective if they induce a moderate amount of fear and people believe that listening to the message will reduce this fear
-If the message is too scary or not scary enough, it will fail. |
|
|
Predicting attitude behavior
|
The attitude that is important is not a general attitude but their attitude toward the specific behavior in question
|
|
|
In the heuristic-systematic model of persuasion...
|
Two ways in which persuasive communication can cause attitude change: systematically process merits or use heuristics ("experts are always right")
|
|
|
Predicting attitude behavior
|
The attitude that is important is not a general attitude but their attitude toward the specific behavior in question
|
|
|
Subjective Norm
|
Subjective norms are people’s beliefs about how those they care about will view the behavior in question
|
|
|
What model do peripheral route people often take?
|
Heuristic-systematic model of persuasion
|
|
|
Subjective Norm
|
Subjective norms are people’s beliefs about how those they care about will view the behavior in question
|
|
|
Good moods and persuasive communication
|
-People in good moods want to perserve it, so they will avoid activities that might spoil their good mood
-This means that people in good moods will often avoid paying close attention to a persuasive communication, because they think that doing so will lower their mood |
|
|
Emotions and moods themselves can be used as a heuristic
|
-We ask ourselves “How do I feel about it?” and if we feel good, we infer we have a positive attitude
-This can get us into trouble if the good feelings are due to something other than the attitude object |
|
|
Percieved Norms
|
Perceived behavioral control is the ease with which people believe they can perform the behavior
|
|
|
Resisting Attitude Change
|
One way to bolster people against persuasion attempts is to have them consider the arguments for and against their attitude before somebody attacks it
|
|
|
Fear-arousing communications
|
-Most effective if they induce a moderate amount of fear and people believe that listening to the message will reduce this fear
-If the message is too scary or not scary enough, it will fail. |
|
|
Percieved Norms
|
Perceived behavioral control is the ease with which people believe they can perform the behavior
|
|
|
Attitude Inoculation
|
exposing people to a small dose of the argument against their position; this induced them to counter-argue and provide a “vaccination” that helps people ward off later, stronger influence attempts
|
|
|
How advertising works?
|
-If a product is personally relevant, the best way to change it is through strong arguments
-If a product is not personally relevant, advertising may attempt to make it seem so |
|
|
How advertising works?
|
-If a product is personally relevant, the best way to change it is through strong arguments
-If a product is not personally relevant, advertising may attempt to make it seem so |
|
|
In the heuristic-systematic model of persuasion...
|
Two ways in which persuasive communication can cause attitude change: systematically process merits or use heuristics ("experts are always right")
|
|
|
When Persuasion Attempts Boomerang
|
It is important not to use too heavy a hand when trying to immunize people against assaults on their attitudes. If you administer too strong a prohibition, the prohibition may boomerang and lead to an increase in the prohibited activity
|
|
|
What model do peripheral route people often take?
|
Heuristic-systematic model of persuasion
|
|
|
Reactance Theory
|
Strong prohibitions threaten a person’s feeling of freedom, and engaging in the forbidden behavior is an attempt to restore that feeling of freedom
|
|
|
Attitdue Accessibility
|
The strength of the association between an attitude object and a person’s evaluation of the object, measured by the speed with which people can report how they feel about the object
|
|
|
Theory of Planned Behavior
|
-Theory of how attitudes predict planned, deliberative behavior
-The best predictors of these behaviors are the person’s specific attitudes, his or her subjective norms, and his or her perceived control over the behavior |
|
|
Emotions and moods themselves can be used as a heuristic
|
-We ask ourselves “How do I feel about it?” and if we feel good, we infer we have a positive attitude
-This can get us into trouble if the good feelings are due to something other than the attitude object |
|
|
Resisting Attitude Change
|
One way to bolster people against persuasion attempts is to have them consider the arguments for and against their attitude before somebody attacks it
|
|
|
Predicting attitude behavior
|
The attitude that is important is not a general attitude but their attitude toward the specific behavior in question
|
|
|
Attitude Inoculation
|
exposing people to a small dose of the argument against their position; this induced them to counter-argue and provide a “vaccination” that helps people ward off later, stronger influence attempts
|
|
|
Subjective Norm
|
Subjective norms are people’s beliefs about how those they care about will view the behavior in question
|
|
|
When Persuasion Attempts Boomerang
|
It is important not to use too heavy a hand when trying to immunize people against assaults on their attitudes. If you administer too strong a prohibition, the prohibition may boomerang and lead to an increase in the prohibited activity
|
|
|
Percieved Norms
|
Perceived behavioral control is the ease with which people believe they can perform the behavior
|
|
|
How advertising works?
|
-If a product is personally relevant, the best way to change it is through strong arguments
-If a product is not personally relevant, advertising may attempt to make it seem so |
|
|
Reactance Theory
|
Strong prohibitions threaten a person’s feeling of freedom, and engaging in the forbidden behavior is an attempt to restore that feeling of freedom
|
|
|
Attitdue Accessibility
|
The strength of the association between an attitude object and a person’s evaluation of the object, measured by the speed with which people can report how they feel about the object
|
|
|
Theory of Planned Behavior
|
-Theory of how attitudes predict planned, deliberative behavior
-The best predictors of these behaviors are the person’s specific attitudes, his or her subjective norms, and his or her perceived control over the behavior |
|
|
Predicting attitude behavior
|
The attitude that is important is not a general attitude but their attitude toward the specific behavior in question
|
|
|
Subjective Norm
|
Subjective norms are people’s beliefs about how those they care about will view the behavior in question
|
|
|
Percieved Norms
|
Perceived behavioral control is the ease with which people believe they can perform the behavior
|
|
|
How advertising works?
|
-If a product is personally relevant, the best way to change it is through strong arguments
-If a product is not personally relevant, advertising may attempt to make it seem so |
