Gordon Allport claimed that 'attitudes' were social psychology's most 'indispensable concept'. To what extent can they predict behaviour?

Authors Avatar

Joanne Ambler – Furness College                                                                        Psychology 101

Gordon Allport claimed that ‘attitudes’ were social psychology’s

most ‘indispensable concept’.  To what extent can they predict behaviour?

Augoustinos & Walker (1995) claim the attitudes area has been the most researched and heavily invested topic in social psychology.  The 1960/70’s saw an era of pessimism regarding the attitude-behaviour association.  However, by the 80’s there was resurgence due to cognitive psychology’s impact (Hogg and Vaughan 2002).  Attitudes influence perceptions of others and also how we perceive ourselves.  Augoustinos & Walker (1995:12) believe attitudes are ‘real and tangible, which influence the way that attitude owner behaves’.  They are tangible in the sense that attitudes are displayed through specific human behaviours and so can be observed e.g. a lazy attitude shown though someone sleeping a lot.  But this does not mean that ‘attitude’ in itself exists as the question infers, it is a concept/theoretical construct.  If G.Allport is correct then, attitudes are the causal stimuli that determine particular behaviour(s).  Alike many social psychological concepts there is a definition problem.  There are blurred boundaries between scientific and everyday meanings of ‘attitude’.  Reber and Reber (2001:63) vaguely claim ‘an attitude is some internal affective orientation that explains the actions of a person – an intended action’.  Hogg and Vaughan (2002) believe it has four components: cognitive (conscious opinion), affective (emotional feeling), evaluative (positive/negative) and behavioural (character for action).  It depends on the theoretical approach taken when considering which factor is more important e.g. behaviourists favouring behavioural - based upon observed behaviour whilst cognitivists would support conscious opinions.  Psychological theories and research will be presented providing evidence for and against an attitude-behaviour relationship.  Recent theories provide support for, but it will be argued there is not a reliable causal relationship.  Limitations of social psychological evidence will be highlighted to show caution is required; we cannot assume western research generalises cross-culturally.

        

Social psychologists assume if attitudes do predict behaviour then by changing them will allow behaviour manipulation/prediction (Hogg and Vaughan 2002). This is similar to Watson’s (1920) behaviourist classical conditioning theory.  However, many psychologists have questioned the attitude-behaviour association, which is a controversial argument in social psychology; generally at first glance it seems a direct relationship, however this is not straightforward.  

Augoustinos & Walker (1995) state that sometimes behaviours are unrelated to attitudes, and behaviours may actually produce attitudes, therefore opposing that attitudes predict behaviour.  If not, this threatens social psychology’s scientific credibility because there is no causal relationship and if there is at all, it is reversed (behaviour as stimulus and attitude as response) and vague.  The first evidence of no relationship was LaPiere (1934) investigating prejudice attitudes and discriminatory behaviour link.  In an anti-Chinese period, he and a Chinese couple travelled America looking for hotels, but were only refused accommodation once.  A questionnaire circulated to the hotels found 92% would refuse Chinese guests: highlighting a discrepancy between behaviours and attitudes. However, attitude measurement was taken six months post-behaviour; hotelier’s attitudes may have changed.  Also, the hoteliers may have been subjected to non-attitudinal influences e.g. low consumer demand leaving them with no choice but acceptance.  The couple may have not lived up to the stereotype, which affects opinions.  This is an old study, but is advantageous being conducted in the field (high ecological validity) as opposed to many social psychology studies conducted in laboratories.  Moreover, it questioned the predictive validity of questionnaires (Hogg and Vaughan 2002).  Wicker (1969) reviewed 32 attitude-behaviour studies and statistically found attitudes only explain 10% of the variance in behaviour, so questioning the concept’s worthiness.  

The above evidence questions the attitude-behaviour link and the attitude concept altogether, however recent evidence has reformed attitude measurement systems seeking to produce accurate research (Augoustinos & Walker 1995) and investigated the variables strengthening the attitude-behaviour relationship.  Moderator variables improve prediction by identifying conditions (context, direct experience, etc) where this relationship is weaker/stronger.  More direct experience with the subject leads to more consistent associations and reinforces the attitude in future due to clarity, confidence and certainty (Fazio and Zanna 1978).  Context variables also affect; different situations when forming attitudes to when displaying behaviour may show inconsistency in the relationship.  Terry and Hogg (1996) show the attitude-behaviour association is stronger when the attitude and behaviour are normal to the social group they belong; group norms govern behaviour.  Personality variables are viewed by Bem and Allen (1974) to influence behaviour.  They showed that individuals consistent on a personality scale were more likely to be in their behaviour.  Individual differences affect the relationship strength; if the attitude holder is consistent and resistant to influences the behaviour is more likely to occur.  Cross-cultural evidence shows individuals believe that attitudes should intend behaviours (Kashima, Siegal, Tanaka and Kashima 1992).  Attitude strengths vary and so differ in their influence over behaviour; strong attitudes exert more behavioural influence.  Issues meaningful to individuals that are current do, e.g. the Iraqi war may influence attitudes towards uncertainty fears and so may be motivated to adopt cautious behaviour e.g. less investment/spending.  

Join now!

Attitudes are embodied in memory and accessible attitudes that are recalled easier and quicker exert powerful behavioural influences (Fazio 1986).  This is because they are stable and defiant to change.  His model claims the extent to which an attitude functionally predicts behaviour, depends on automatic activation of it in memory (information processing).  Although this seems plausible, Hilton and Karpinski (2000) claim object-evaluation associations feebly correlate with self-reports.  

Fishbein and Ajzen (1980) believed the key to predicting behaviour is using specific not general attitudes, which previous researchers like LaPiere faltered on and gained low correlations.  Davidson and Jacard ...

This is a preview of the whole essay