Attitude and Attitude Change

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Cognitive dissonance theory, developed by Leon Festinger in 1957, explores the psychological discomfort experienced when an individual holds conflicting beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors. This discomfort motivates people to reduce inconsistencies, often resulting in attitude change.

• Definition: Cognitive dissonance is the psychological tension arising from holding contradictory cognitions (beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors).

• Bi-directional Relationship: Attitudes can influence behavior, but behavior can also shape attitudes. People infer their own attitudes from their actions, especially when those actions are inconsistent with prior beliefs.

• Self-Information: Behaviors provide information about oneself, leading to self-reflection and possible attitude adjustment.

• Counter-Attitudinal Behavior: Actions that contradict existing attitudes are particularly potent in producing dissonance and subsequent attitude change.

• Reduction Strategies: To reduce dissonance, individuals may change their attitudes, reinterpret their behaviors, or attribute actions to external circumstances.

• Example: "Buyer's remorse" occurs when a purchase conflicts with one's values or expectations, prompting attitude change to justify the decision.

Additional info: Cognitive dissonance is often misused in everyday language to refer to inconsistencies themselves, rather than the discomfort they cause.

Festinger's Peg Board Study

This classic experiment tested cognitive dissonance by having participants perform a boring task and then lie about its enjoyment for varying incentives.

• Method: Participants completed a tedious task and were asked to tell another participant it was enjoyable. Half received $1, half $20.

• Prediction (Dissonance Theory): Those paid $1 would experience greater dissonance (insufficient justification for lying) and thus change their attitudes to view the task more positively.

• Prediction (Incentive Theory): Greater reward ($20) would lead to more positive attitudes toward the task.

• Result: $1 group rated the task as more enjoyable, supporting cognitive dissonance theory.

• Conclusion: Insufficient external justification for counter-attitudinal behavior leads to attitude change.

Persuasion Research

Persuasion involves deliberate efforts to change attitudes or behaviors. Robert Cialdini identified several principles and techniques used by persuasion experts.

• Affinity Principle: People are more open to persuasion from those they perceive as similar or likeable. Techniques include finding common interests or backgrounds.

• Reciprocity Principle: Feeling obligated to return favors. Examples include compliments, gifts, and the "door-in-the-face" technique (large request followed by a smaller one).

• Commitment Principle: Once someone commits to an attitude or action, they are more likely to act consistently. "Foot-in-the-door" technique involves gaining compliance with a small request before a larger one.

• Lowballing: After initial commitment, the terms are changed, but the person remains committed due to "mental possession" of the item or idea.

• Bait-and-Switch: Advertising a low-priced item to attract customers, then encouraging purchase of a higher-priced alternative when the original is unavailable.

Example: Tupperware parties and door-to-door sales leverage affinity and reciprocity to increase sales.

Group Behaviour

Intergroup Conflict

Intergroup conflict arises from competition between groups for resources, status, or power, rather than from pre-existing negative attitudes. Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT) explains how competition intensifies hostility.

• Out-groups: Social groups to which an individual does not belong; negative attitudes often stem from ignorance or misconceptions.

• Realistic Conflict Theory: Hostility is a product of competition for scarce resources.

• Example: Anti-immigrant sentiment linked to job competition; anti-trans conflicts over access to spaces and rights.

Sherif's Robbers Cave Study

This foundational study tested RCT by observing boys at a summer camp, demonstrating how group conflict and cooperation can be manipulated.

• Method: Boys were divided into two groups, engaged in competitive activities, and later required to cooperate on a superordinate goal.

• Findings: Competition led to hostility (name-calling, avoidance, pranks). Cooperation on a shared goal (fixing the water pump) reduced tensions and fostered cross-group friendships.

• Implication: Both contact and common goals are necessary to reduce intergroup conflict.

Additional info: Replication studies (e.g., in Beirut) showed that arbitrary group assignment can create conflict, and a common enemy or goal can unify groups.

Mass Panic and Contagion

Contagion theory explains how irrational group behaviors, such as riots or mass panic, can spread rapidly among otherwise rational individuals.

• Definition: Contagion refers to the spread of behaviors, emotions, or ideas through a group.

• Example: The 1938 "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast caused mass panic as listeners believed a Martian invasion was real, influenced by others' reactions and attribution errors.

• Attribution Errors: Misinterpreting others' actions as evidence of danger, leading to escalation of panic.

• Social Influence: People often rely on group behavior as a cue for their own actions, especially under uncertainty.

Groupthink

Definition and Dynamics

Irving Janis coined "groupthink" to describe the tendency for cohesive groups to make poor decisions due to pressures for conformity and consensus.

• Definition: Groupthink is a mode of thinking in which the desire for harmony in a decision-making group overrides realistic appraisal of alternatives.

• Narrowing of Options: Groups focus on shared viewpoints, avoiding dissent to maintain unity.

• Isolation: Groups may ignore outside perspectives, believing in their own special expertise.

• Group Norms: Dissenters may be sanctioned or excluded, and decisions acquire a moral dimension (alternatives seen as "wrong").

• Example: Committees, juries, and tribunals may fall prey to groupthink, making worse decisions than individuals.

Reducing Groupthink: Minority Influence

Research on "minority influence" explores how individuals holding minority opinions can affect group decisions and counteract groupthink.

• Key Factors (Serge Moscovici):

  • Minority must present high-quality, credible arguments (informational influence).

  • Consistency in holding views increases influence.

  • Minority is more persuasive if they previously held the majority opinion.

  • Support from others enhances effectiveness.

  • Minority should appear to have little personal stake in the issue.

  • Present views as compatible with majority, but ahead of the curve.

• Conformity Research: Presence of a non-conformist increases likelihood that others will resist conformity, even if they do not agree with the dissenting opinion.

• Effectiveness: Minority influence is strongest when the group seeks accurate, informational decisions rather than normative or moral consensus.

Summary Table: Persuasion Principles and Techniques

Summary Table: Groupthink vs. Minority Influence

Key Terms and Definitions

• Cognitive Dissonance: Psychological discomfort from holding conflicting beliefs or behaviors.

• Counter-Attitudinal Behavior: Actions inconsistent with one's attitudes.

• Persuasion: Deliberate attempt to change attitudes or behaviors.

• Realistic Conflict Theory: Hostility arises from competition for resources.

• Groupthink: Poor group decisions due to conformity and consensus-seeking.

• Minority Influence: Impact of dissenting individuals on group decisions.

• Contagion Theory: Spread of behaviors or emotions through a group.