Attitude-behavior consistency
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (November 2021) |
Attitude-behaviour consistency is a central concept in social psychology that examines the relationship between individual’s attitudes and their behaviour. Although, people often act in ways inconsistent with their attitudes, and the relationship has been highly debated among researchers. Many argue that attitudes are not the only factors influencing behaviour;[1] some people behave more in line with their attitudes than do others, and people’s behaviour aligns with their attitudes is some circumstances more than in others.[2]
The consistency between attitudes and behaviours can be explained by moderating factors, which strengthen or weaken the relationship. Two of the main categories of moderators are attitude strength and situational factors.
Attitudes-Behaviour Models
[edit]An attitude is a psychological construct ranging from positive to negative that reflects an individual's evaluation of an object, person or issue.[3] These evaluations are shaped by affects, behaviours, and cognition. Affects are emotional responses, behaviours are intentions or tendencies to act and cognition includes beliefs about the object that is being evaluated (attitude object). These components interact to create a coherent, though not always consistent, attitude toward an object. Even in this regard there is still variability as the impact of each component can vary from person to person.[3] While some attitudes are more influenced by emotions others may be more impacted by behaviours and beliefs. A meta analysis conducted by Stephan Kraus in 1995 found that attitudes influence behaviours when attitudes are stable, more accessible, and there is direct experience with the attitude object.[4] Attitudes are more likely to predict behaviours when the attitude is strong and accessible, the influence of social influences is minimal and the attitude aligns with the specific behavior. However when there are external pressures or conflicting priorities attitudes may fail to predict behaviours.
Theory of Planned Behaviour
[edit]
The Theory of Planned Behaviour, developed by Martin Fishbein and Izek Ajzen, suggests that people act rationally and their behaviours are influenced by intentions.[1] There are three key variables that jointly predict our intentions:
- The attitude toward the behaviour
- Subjective norms
- Perceived behavioural control ( a person’s belief in their ability to perform a behavior)
The likelihood of the intention to perform the behaviour and the behaviour itself increases as the three factors become more favourable.[3]
Consistency Theories
[edit]Balance Theory
[edit]Balance Theory was first developed by Heider with Gestalt influences.[5] Gestalt psychology posits that there is a tendency towards perceptual simplicity, such as symmetry and continuation. Heider extends this principle to social relations, where there are balanced and imbalanced states.[6] When applied to attitudes, it is defined in triadic relation between three elements: a Person (P), an Other person (O), and an Attitude Object (X). Attitude is the relation between two elements, defined as either positive or negative, resulting in 8 distinct triads. If the number of positive relations is odd, the triad is balanced; vice versa.[7]
Congruity Theory
[edit]Proposed by Osgood and Tannebaum, the principle of congruity claims that attitude change always results in increased congruity for the individual. Compared to balance theory, congruity theory allows for gradations of relation between elements and introduces a formula to quantitatively predict attitude change.[8] There are five variables in the formula: point of resolution for object (RO), point of resolution for source (RS), prior attitude toward object (AO), prior attitude toward source (AS), and direction of assertion (d; no gradation). The frame of reference is the individual; the source is the other communicator; and the assertion indicates the source's attitude.
Dissonance Theory
[edit]The Cognitive Dissonance Theory proposed by Leon Festinger, suggests that cognitive discomfort (dissonance) occurs when an individual’s behavior and beliefs do not align, as such they are motivated to resolve this inconsistency.[9] When an attitude is not consistent with an individual’s behavior it can lead to an attitude or behaviour change to reduce dissonance. For example a person who smokes but believes smoking is harmful may experience dissonance and as result try to change their attitude to “smoking isn’t that harmful” or they can change their behaviour by quitting smoking
Factors Influencing Consistency
[edit]Recent research has shown that attitudes accurately predict behaviour only under certain conditions:[3]
Contextual factors
[edit]When both the attitude and behaviour occur under similar social contexts/situations, contextual factors are likely involved. A person's attitude and behaviour both vary from situation to situation. A college freshman may disapprove of binge drinking, only to subsequently become socialized to practice and celebrate doing so in the course of tailgating.
Social desirability bias may also skew self-reported attitudes that affect prima-facie attitude-behaviour consistency. Studies making claims about behaviours based on reports when behaviours may be seen as desirable may be particularly sensitive to the attitudinal fallacy. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on which attitudes are socially desirable and attitudes may be situational hence vary from setting to setting.
Individual Factors
[edit]Low-self monitoring enhances attitude-consistent behaviour because individuals are less influenced by external social cues or expectations. Individuals who are low self-monitors, act in accordance with their own beliefs and attitudes without adapting to social pressures so their behaviors are more aligned with their attitudes.
High self monitoring may decrease attitude-consistent behaviour because more precedence is given to external pressures over internal beliefs. High self-monitors are more responsive to social contexts, and will often adjust their behaviour to conform to social expectations.
Attitude Accessibility
[edit]The Attitude Accessibility Theory, developed by Russell H. Fazio[10] suggests that attitudes are more likely to guide behaviours when they are easily accessible in memory. This theory focuses on the strength of association between an attitude object and an individual’s evaluation of it. It is measured by an individual's reaction time to evaluate an attitude object where faster responses suggest higher accessibility.[10] Determinants of accessibility include the frequency of activation and recency of activation.
The factor of attitude accessibility is important when the accessibility of underlying affective and cognitive components of attitudes are aligned. For instance, when an attitude is assessed in a context where people primarily focus on its cognitive aspects, but the behaviour occurs in a situation where the affective components of the attitude are more prominent, attitude-behaviour consistency will be weak.
Strong attitudes are more stable, accessible, and resistant to change, which is why they are more likely to predict consistent behaviour. Weak attitudes are more likely to be influenced by context, situational factors, and social pressures, thus leading to less consistent behavior. When attitudes are strong, they have a greater influence on behaviour; individuals are more motivated to behave in ways that align with their beliefs and feelings towards the attitude object, leading to a higher level of attitude-behavior consistency.
Applications in research
[edit]Attitude-behavior consistency is an important concept for social science research because claims are often made about behavior based on evidence which is really about attitudes. The attitudinal fallacy is committed when verbal data are used to support claims not about what people believe or say, but what they do. Data collection methods based on self-report like surveys, and interviews are vulnerable to the attitudinal fallacy if they attempt to measure behavior and if reported attitudes are inconsistent with the behavior.
Research methods that directly observe behaviors avoid the attitudinal fallacy as a matter of course. However many kinds of behavior are not easily observed, especially not in ways amenable to statistical reporting. Ethnography can make rich observations and descriptions of behavior and allow for comparison between behavior and attitude. Unfortunately, in general ethnographic data cannot be used to draw statistically generalizable conclusions about behavior in a population. Moreover, ethnographers can still commit the attitudinal fallacy if they rely on quotations as evidence for behaviors.[11] Experiments in laboratories make it possible to observe behavior, although people's behavior in laboratory conditions may not reflect their behavior in real-world situations. Internet research makes it possible to study a wide array of behaviors that leave traces online. Data from the Internet of things and sensors that record behavior like from location tracking may make it possible to measure more kinds of behavior that avoids the attitudinal fallacy. Still, some kinds of behavior are difficult to study other than through interviews or surveys, and the knowledge produced in such cases may be still useful. The possibility of inconsistency between behavior and reported attitudes is always a concern.
Methods that are limited by their inability to measure behavior can still contribute to important understandings. These include how meaning is created, the significance of events to individuals, emotion, semiotics, representation and opinions.[12]
Examples
[edit]- In the 1930s Richard LaPiere asked 251 hotel proprietors if they would serve Chinese guests and only 1 said yes. However, when he followed around a young Chinese couple that visited the hotels they were only denied service once.[13]
- Americans on average report going to church twice as much as they actually do. But Europeans accurately self-report church attendance.[14]
- Although most employers in an audit study reported that they were willing to give job interviews to young male black ex-offenders, they were unlikely to provide interviews when presented with opportunities to interview men appearing to be so.[15]
- People in health studies where they are asked to report how much food they eat tend to report eating less than they actually do.[16]
- Observing bystander effect in a naturalistic setting results in behavior that is consistent as per the classic bystander effect. However, if the same effect were to be done with surveys, one will get a very different results.[17]
References
[edit]- ^ a b Howe, Lauren C.; Krosnick, Jon A. (2017-01-03). "Attitude Strength". Annual Review of Psychology. 68 (1): 327–351. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033600. ISSN 0066-4308.
- ^ Howe, Lauren C.; Krosnick, Jon A. (2017-01-03). "Attitude Strength". Annual Review of Psychology. 68 (1): 327–351. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033600. ISSN 0066-4308.
- ^ a b c d Jhangiani, Dr Rajiv; Tarry, Dr Hammond (2022-01-26). "4.1 Exploring Attitudes".
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ Glasman, Laura R.; Albarracín, Dolores (September 2006). "Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: A meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation". Psychological Bulletin. 132 (5): 778–822. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.778. ISSN 1939-1455. PMC 4815429. PMID 16910754.
- ^ Heider, F. (2013-05-13). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations (0 ed.). Psychology Press. doi:10.4324/9780203781159. ISBN 978-1-134-92218-5.
- ^ Weiner, B. (2001), "Heider, Fritz (1896–1988)", International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier, pp. 6650–6654, doi:10.1016/b0-08-043076-7/00257-6, ISBN 978-0-08-043076-8, retrieved 2024-11-30
- ^ Izuma, K. (2015), "Attitude Change and Cognitive Consistency", Brain Mapping, Elsevier, pp. 247–250, doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-397025-1.00188-3, ISBN 978-0-12-397316-0, retrieved 2024-11-30
- ^ Osgood, Charles E.; Tannenbaum, Percy H. (1955). "The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude change". Psychological Review. 62 (1): 42–55. doi:10.1037/h0048153. ISSN 1939-1471. PMID 14357526.
- ^ Vaidis, David C.; Bran, Alexandre (2014-08-26), "Cognitive Dissonance Theory", Psychology, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/obo/9780199828340-0156, ISBN 978-0-19-982834-0, retrieved 2024-11-30
- ^ a b Fazio, Russell H.; Powell, Martha C.; Williams, Carol J. (December 1989). "The Role of Attitude Accessibility in the Attitude-to-Behavior Process". Journal of Consumer Research. 16 (3): 280. doi:10.1086/209214. ISSN 0093-5301.
- ^ Jerolmack, Colin; Khan, Shamus (May 2014). "Talk Is Cheap: Ethnography and the Attitudinal Fallacy". Sociological Methods & Research. 43 (2): 178–209. doi:10.1177/0049124114523396. ISSN 0049-1241.
- ^ Lamont, Michèle; Swidler, Ann (June 2014). "Methodological Pluralism and the Possibilities and Limits of Interviewing". Qualitative Sociology. 37 (2): 153–171. doi:10.1007/s11133-014-9274-z. ISSN 0162-0436.
- ^ Lapiere, Richard (1934). "Attitudes vs. Actions". Social Forces. 13 (2): 230–37. doi:10.2307/2570339. JSTOR 2570339. S2CID 35196521.
- ^ Brenner, Philip S. (2011-03-20). "Exceptional Behavior or Exceptional Identity? Overreporting of Church Attendance in the U.S". Public Opinion Quarterly. 75 (1): 19–41. doi:10.1093/poq/nfq068. ISSN 0033-362X.
- ^ Jerolmack, Colin; Khan, Shamus (2014-05-01). "Talk Is Cheap Ethnography and the Attitudinal Fallacy". Sociological Methods & Research. 43 (2): 178–209. doi:10.1177/0049124114523396. ISSN 0049-1241. S2CID 144002148.
- ^ Hebert, James R.; Clemow, Lynn; Pbert, Lori; Ockene, Ira S.; Ockene, Judith K. (1995-04-01). "Social Desirability Bias in Dietary Self-Report May Compromise the Validity of Dietary Intake Measures". International Journal of Epidemiology. 24 (2): 389–398. doi:10.1093/ije/24.2.389. ISSN 0300-5771. PMID 7635601.
- ^ Grzyb, Tomasz (2016). "Why can't we just ask? The influence of research methods on results. The case of the "bystander effect"". Polish Psychological Bulletin. 47 (2): 233–235. doi:10.1515/ppb-2016-0027.