Is an attitude theory which states that we infer our attitudes based on looking at our own behavior?

How do attitudes and behavior influence each other? - Chapter 8

The change of attitudes through behavior

Behavior and attitudes are related. This is due to the interaction they have on each other. Behavior can therefore influence attitudes, but attitudes can also influence behavior. This does not mean that they are always consistent: sometimes we behave differently than we might expect based on our attitudes (for example: we snack while actually wanting to follow our diet). There are two explanations why we do not always act in accordance with our attitudes: 1) a number of conditions have to be met before attitudes guide our behavior (are discussed at the end of the chapter), and 2) attitudes are just one of the factors that influence behavior (besides, for example, social norms).

From action to attitude through superficial processing

The behavior is an important source of information on which people base their attitudes. This way new behavior can contribute to new attitudes. When people process information superficially, attitudes can be based on associations with actions, or on inferences of actions.

Associations with actions. If there is superficial processing, attitudes can be based on associations with certain behaviors. An example of this is that people who make a nodding movement with their heads agree more with things, while people who make a shaking movement with their head tend to disagree with the things they hear (Wells & Petty, 1980).

Follow-up of actions. Many people see a 1 to 1 relationship between behavior and attitudes (when you smile you are happy, if you eat something it means that you like it, etc.). The self-perception theory of Bem (1972) is a theory in which actions are able to influence attitudes, because people derive their attitudes from their own behavior. In this way, a distinction is made between the causes and consequences of their behavior and their attitudes. This theory is applied in all kinds of situations. A well-known example of this is the technique of social influence in which big brands hold competitions in terms of coming up with the best slogan. Because participants spend a lot of time in coming up with a perfect (and especially positive) slogan, they adjust their attitude towards the brand. According to Bem (1972) self perception is only probable when people express their behavior voluntarily (not forced). The simple process of self-perception is nowadays a popular and effective technique for social influence.

The "foot-in-the-door" technique is a technique where the goal is to get someone's permission by first asking a small favor and then asking for a greater favor. It turns out that after giving in to a small favor, one admits more quickly to the larger request. The operation of this technique is based on self-perception theory. It is assumed that people's attitudes are in line with the behavior performed. If one first agreed with a small request, one tries to achieve consistency by also giving in to the larger request. There are, however, a number of conditions that must be met for the (optimum) operation of the "foot in the door" technique. First of all, it is important that the initial behavior should be voluntary - only when our first choice really seems our own choice, it is likely that we have an action-consistent attitude. External rewards and other environmental factors will stand in the way of the self-perception process (after all, you can write off behavior on other factors than on your own attitudes). Secondly, it is crucial that the first, smaller request should be meaningful. It must be in line with the larger request, otherwise this will not trigger the self-perception process. It is also important that the first request is just small enough. The "foot in the door" technique is a technique that generally produces good results. Especially in, for example, the recruitment of members for a good cause. People who are very busy with consistency will be more sensitive to this technique than people who are less focused on consistency.

The superficial processing of information ensures that associations between behaviors and attitudes are made. This happens especially when there is not much at stake and the consequences are not very serious. The processing takes place on the basis of conditioning, simple exposure and feelings or mood. Cues that are then used are, for example, expertise and attractiveness. When behavior does have serious implications, systematic processing is more often used. As soon as attitudes already exist or are very important, the associations are harder to make. The direction of established attitudes can not be influenced by actions, but their intensity is.

Cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is an unpleasant state caused by the awareness of inconsistency between behaviors, beliefs and attitudes (Festinger, 1957). Cognitive dissonance is the result when voluntarily chosen actions violate important self-reliant attitudes. It can then motivate people to change their attitudes to make them consistent with their behavior. This requires in-depth processing, which means it will have a long-lasting influence. As soon as one becomes aware that one's own behavior is not in accordance with one's own attitudes and dissonance emerges, one is quickly inclined to change the attitudes. Often it is decided to change the thoughts / attitudes instead of the behavior, because this is easier and faster. According to the literature, the following four steps are crucial in the realization of dissonance and the following attitude change:

• The action must be seen as inconsistent with the self-image. Example: "I join in a slogan for a drink that I do not even like."

• The person must take personal responsibility for the behavior. Dissonance does not occur when the behavior is attributed to external factors. Example: "I myself chose to participate in the competition."

• The person must experience unpleasant physiological feelings. Example: "I feel tense and uncomfortable."

• These uncomfortable feelings must be attributed to the inconsistency between attitude and behavior. Example: "I feel this way, because I advise people to buy something that I absolutely do not like."

The cognitive dissonance theory provides a simple explanation for a wide variety of everyday situations in which people behave in such a way that it is inconsistent with their most important attitudes. This dissonance then initiates a justification process to effect attitude change (and thus reduce or eliminate dissonance). Three types of justification for behaviors that are in conflict with the attitudes are discussed:

The justification of attitude-discrepant behavior. The "insufficient justification effect" implies that attitude change takes place as a result of attitude-disparaging behavior that can not be attributed to external reward or punishment. In a study by Festinger and Carlsmith (1959), this was investigated as follows: Some participants were asked not to lie to the following subjects, by honestly saying that the study was a boring experiment (control group). One group of participants who were asked to lie were given $ 20 (sufficient external justification for lying). Another group of participants received only 1 dollar for the same lie. This last group showed the "insufficient justification effect": their attitude towards the research changed, to justify their attitude-discrepant behavior. In the first group, the inconsistency could still be attributed to an external factor, namely the big reward. Change of attitude therefore has the greatest chance of taking place if there is insufficient (external) justification. For example, if a small reward takes place instead of a big reward.

The justification of effort. The "justification effect" explains that the more effort, time, money or pain (all in all "effort") is put into a goal, the more important people will find the goal. If one has done something on a voluntary basis, but is not happy with it afterwards, the attitude is changed more quickly in order to justify suffering. The unwanted is changed in this way into something desirable. This is done by raising awareness of the dissonance (they have chosen this situation themselves).

The justification of decisions. As soon as someone has to choose between multiple options, they experience decision-diligence. This is a tension that is caused by what that is chosen and the possible alternatives. It is true that the more focused on the implications of making a choice, the more dissonance is experienced that increases the need to reduce the dissonance. A "post-decisional regret effect" is an attitude change that reduces the dissonance caused by making a choice or decision voluntary. Attempts are made to reduce dissonance by re-evaluating the chosen option as more positive and re-evaluating the non-chosen alternatives as more negative.

The self-esteem can be threatened by not doing what you have promised to do. If a person becomes aware of a promise that has been made but has not been fulfilled, one will try to change his or her attitudes.

The justification of inconsistent actions (for example in one of the above ways) can lead to a strengthening of the attitudes. The change in attitudes brought about by dissonance reduction are often lengthy, tenacious and difficult to change. This is the "payoff" of the process of attitude change.

When there are only minor (less important) discrepancies between behavior and attitudes, the dissonance can also be solved in other ways. Festinger (1957) was the first to remark that when the possibility exists, people approach the dissonance in a different way. Examples of this are:

• Adding cognitions to make behavior more equal to the attitudes

• Reduce personal responsibility

• To ascribe the dissonance to something other than yourself

• Reduce the importance of behavior that does not match the attitude.

The most readily available means to reduce dissonance is usually preferred. In addition, the importance of the attitude also plays a role. If an attitude is very important, people will not change the attitude quickly to reduce the dissonance. Some attitudes are too important or painful to change. An unpleasant situation caused by this form of cognitive dissonance then leads to adjustment under specific circumstances.

The "hypocrisy effect" is a change in behavior in order to reduce the dissonance, the dissonance being the result of the voluntary choice to publicly promote a behavior that you yourself never actually perform.

Since the actions and attitudes that cause dissonance are often important for our self-esteem and self-image, this dissonance can also be reduced by reinforcing self-esteem and integrity. For example: "I am a good person ..".

As indicated earlier, there are different ways of looking at the self in different cultures. In a collective culture, dissonance will be attributed less to itself (inconsistencies in behavior are more often attributed to external factors) than in an individualistic culture. In an interdependent (collective) culture, a bad choice is not nearly as threatening to the self as in an independent (individualistic) culture. In an interdependent culture, inconsistencies therefore cause dissonance less often.

Managing behavior with attitudes

Influencing behavior through attitudes can happen in different ways:

First of all, attitude-consistent behavior can be achieved directly, without intervening thoughts. Existing attitudes can ensure that people perceive attitude objects differently. This is because they focus their attention on certain characteristics of an object that are consistent with the attitude, as a result of which one often does not see that the attitude objects change because of their attitudes.

Secondly, attitudes can also influence behavior in a more deliberate way: by intentions to behave in a certain way, to promote, these intentions can make attitude-consistent behavior more likely. If attitudes influence behavior in such a considered way, an intentional effort is made to make behavior consistent with attitudes. This process can be divided into four steps:

• Form the intentions. Intentions are the most important predictor of ultimate behavior. The 'theory of planned behavior' states that attitudes and social norms are combined important sources for intentions, which in turn influence behavior.

• Activate behavioral information. The information that is activated is determined by someone's thinking level.

• The planning: in this step the intended behavior is put in a certain export plan. When, where and how is the behavior performed? Implementation intentions - plans to carry out specific purposeful behavior in a specific situation - help, as they "when ... then ..." make plans in which the situational cue is linked to the behavior.

• The intended behavior is performed. This only happens when the opportunity arises.

This usually uses the cost-benefit analysis. Emotions also play a role in regulating intentions and behavior. Negative emotions can indicate failure and ensure that reaching the goal will still fail. Positive emotions can ensure that intentions are activated and successful completion of the sub goals s achieved.

When is behavior influenced by attitudes?

People behave according to (relevant) accessible attitudes because it is easier to rely on attitudes than just taking decisions out of the blue. Making decisions is facilitated through the use of attitudes.

An attitude will mainly influence behavior when the attitude is accessible and when the attitude strongly corresponds to the intended behavior.

Attitude accessibility. Once attitudes have to steer behavior, it is important that the attitudes about people, objects, events or ideas are accessible at the right moments. The deep convictions often come up the easiest (in other words, are accessed most quickly). Low self-monitors, for whom expressing the self is really important, have more accessible attitudes than high self-monitors, so that the low self-monitors are more likely to behave according to their attitudes. You really do not have to be a low self-monitor to show such consistency. Attitudes become more accessible in the following ways:

Automatic: if an attitude often emerges, this strengthens the link between attitude object and attitude. This ensures that the likelihood of coming to the forefront of the attitude when observing the attitude object is increased. This ensures that attitudes that occur more often ensure that more consistent behavior is exhibited. Many factors can strengthen the link between the attitude and the attitude object: they are innate (such as flights when we see a dangerous stimulus), are built up by constant activation, deliberate calling, discussion, and taking action.

Deliberate / through effort: attitudes are formed because people think about certain behavior. If one is aware of the relevance of a certain attitude, this can increase the effect of the attitude on behavior. This is related to self-awareness: the more self-awareness, the greater the chance of thinking about important attitudes. However, if the attitude is not the primary idea, the effect of the attitude on behavior is reduced.

Attitudes that have characteristics that make them well-established and regularly used tend to predict behavior rather than less accessible attitudes. What qualities do these attitudes have? Four examples:

• Attitudes that are built up through direct interaction and routine with the attitude objects (and thus are fairly concrete instead of abstract).

• Attitudes that are based on systematic processing.

• Attitudes that are personally relevant.

• Strong, intense attitudes (often have a long history of activation).

Attitude correspondence. These are not just attitudes that must be accessible at the right time; it must also be the right attitudes. The attitude must correspond with the behavior. Implicit attitudes (the attitudes that the automatic evaluation of attitude objects represent) can be different than their explicit attitudes (the attitudes of which we are aware and express openly). The implicit attitudes concern more automatic, less verifiable aspects of evaluations. These attitudes therefore influence behavior other than explicit attitudes. With strong attitudes, it is likely that the implicit and explicit attitudes are consistent, working together to steer both spontaneously and more controlled behavior. When the implicit and explicit attitudes contradict each other, one can have more influence on the behavior than the other, which depends on the precise action. Regardless of whether an attitude is general or specific and implicit or explicit: the right attitude must arise to steer the behavior.

Restraints of attitudes on the behavior. Even when the right attitude comes up at the right time, this is not always enough to steer the behavior. Personal control also plays a major role in attending or not acting on attitudes. According to the theory of planned behavior, the perception of personal control - the extent to which people consider themselves capable of performing the action - plays a major role. This theory states that attitudes, social norms and perceived control are interspersed intentions and thus influence behavior. If you are not convinced that you can carry out the required behavior yourself, you will not act according to your attitudes. Only if one thinks to be able to direct one's own behavior are attitudes efficient.

When our attitudes are positive, our intentions clear and we consider ourselves in control, unexpected factors and / or the lack of skill can still obstruct us in carrying out the behavior. Someone who wants to vote but does not have transport at that moment does not yet carry out the desired behavior. Another limiting factor of attitudes to behavior is the power of habit. A habit is a type of behavior that is automatically activated in a specific situation. Such a habit is the result of associations that have been made for a long time, and are carried out independently of the attitudes, norms, motives or even goals - in principle, with little conscious input at all.

This means that attitudes are capable of influencing behavior if the attitude clearly emerges (is accessible), if the attitude is relevant (corresponds) and if the consistent behavior is not otherwise limited.

What is attitude behavior theory?

Which theory assumes that when we are unsure of our attitudes we infer them by looking at our Behaviour?

What theory is defined as developing themselves based on other people's perception or opinion about them?

What is the perception theory?