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 (1979) provide supporting evidence, measuring female attitudes to birth control and found behaviour prediction was more accurate when questions were close to behaviours. Fishbein and Ajzen (1980) believe general attitudes can only predict behaviour when predicting multiple-act criteria (combination of behaviours), not single specific acts which are affected by many factors e.g. weather, moods, etc.
The ‘theory of reasoned action (TRA)’ (Fishbein and Ajzen 1980) is also a challenge to a non-relationship, who claim behavioural intentions predict behaviour. Subjective norms from significant others guide individuals in believing what action to take. If these are positive and perceived control is high, action will occur. But it only applies to behaviours under volitional (conscious) control. Intention to perform/not perform a specific behaviour is the immediate determinant. Evidence from themselves showed a 0.80 correlation in 1979 voting intentions. However, they claim there is not always an exact intention-behaviour association. This can be shown in daily life e.g. persuasion from another source may prevent someone with a racist attitude harming another. Empirical evidence supports this e.g. Sheppard, Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found average correlations between 0.53 and 0.68 in intentions and behaviour; larger than Wicker’s 0.30 maximum. However it has been criticised, as even behaviour under volitional control does not inevitably conform to the theory. Ajzen (1988) revised this to the ‘theory of planned behaviour (TRB)’ to include perceived behavioural control, based upon past experiences, significant other’s expectations, present context and perceived resources/opportunities. This highlights emphasis on individual choice to assess whether they feel in a strong enough position to perform a behaviour e.g. if they feel they have enough time/money to continue in education. This seems a plausible theory, as we like as high control over our behaviour.
Deviating away from American research Parker, Manstead and Stradling (1995) applied TRB to British driving behaviour, predicting intention to perform offences. Strong correlations were gained between perceived control over driving behaviour and attitudes to driving offences, showing the value-added of perceived behavioural control to TRA. These models have the value of being implemented in society e.g. health issues. Protection motivation theory (Floyd 2000) believes a cognitive equilibrium between perceived danger of illness and coping abilities is required to embrace healthy behaviour and protect us. Protection motivation is interplay between perceived threat appraisal (vulnerability and rewards) and desire for minimal negative results (response cost and self-efficacy). This is indicative of equity theory where individuals attempt to minimise costs (threat appraisal/response costs) and maximise rewards (intrinsic/extrinsic rewards), which shows cognitive rationality/planning. However Hogg and Vaughan (2002) believe the above assumptions of intention, calculation and reason predicting behaviour is not always true.
It has been suggested that behaviour determines attitudes, therefore a reverse relationship e.g. adopting a role with expected behaviour (drinking at university), may alter alcohol attitudes. Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger 1957) supports this; an individual will be motivated to reduce an uncomfortable dissonance (conflict) between two inconsistent psychological cognitions by changing one of them/introducing a new cognition. Following a particular behaviour individuals are likely to change their attitude to match it, e.g. if someone is dieting but eats a cake they may feel discomfort/guilt and do sport to restore harmony. This theory assumes individuals like consistency/balance (Augoustinos & Walker 1995). This seems plausible as individuals and society generally like order and stability. However, Billing (1987) argues individuals are more tolerant of inconsistency than this theory allows. But, Festinger stimulated further models e.g. induced compliance, free choice and effort justification.
A challenge to Festinger was self-perception theory by Bem (1967) claiming psychological processes are exaggerated, believing self-attribution is involved; we infer personal attitudes from our individual behaviour. These are quite different theories, but Fazio, Zanna and Cooper (1977) show both contribute understanding: self-perception practices function when behaviour falls within a ‘latitude of acceptance’ but outside of this, cognitive dissonance processes activate. This shows that individuals have a range of self-perceived acceptable attitudes, those outside this are not and they are motivated under cognitive dissonance theory to change them.
In conclusion, there is wide research conducted in the attitude-behaviour area illustrating an individualized notion, clearly possessing cognitive (attitude) and behaviourist (observed social action) aspects and the extent to which we are manipulated. Focusing on both explanations for attitudes shows how it is useful in combining different approaches in psychology when explaining human behaviour. Originally the consensus from the behaviourist influenced era believed attitudes stimulated behaviour, then this turned to disriputing an association and finally majority opinion that a relationship exists due to contemporary measurement methods, which are better qualified to assume a relationship. Social cognition is the dominant perspective at the moment (Augoustinos & Walker 1995), searching within the person for behavioural causes. Attitude expression requires an audience to receive it thus locating the individual (micro level) in the social (macro level). Focus is on the individual attitude but social group attitudes are important, attitudes are social, shared and communicated. Social interaction is a fundamental need for individuals; displaying attitudes through behaviour is a method of achieving this. The social-cognitive interaction refutes classical behaviourism (Watson) that believes only observable actions constitute behaviour.
However caution must be issued when considering the values of social psychological research due to the difficulty of reproducing social phenomena in artificial laboratory environments and generalising outside the laboratory. When measuring and prediction behaviour from attitudes, specific behaviours (e.g. racehorse betting) elicit better predicted by specific attitudes (a racehorse gambling attitude) than general attitudes (Fishbein and Ajzen 1980). Eurocentric bias is evident as most attitude research is American; focusing on individual analysis levels (unique consciousness and individuals are centre of situations), which reflects the culture where they were researched. This originated from F.H. Allport’s positivistic and behaviourist methods. Only one cross-cultural evidence piece was found here; a full understanding cannot be gained as self-interest is the dominant ideology (highly individualistic assumptions are made). To enable a fully universalistic understanding of attitude-behaviour relationships, further cross-cultural research with indigenous researchers is required, maybe further research could investigate. Cultural diversity even within societies is apparent; theories developed in individualist societies (America, etc) may not suffice now even here, so research within cultures also needs addressing. We need universal laws of behaviour but if research is culturally biased how can universal laws be gained? Social psychologists believe their theories apply universally but cultures differ in how they think and behave. Allport’s claim that attitudes are the most indispensable concept in contemporary American social psychology, highlights the early Americanised social psychology literature in this area which provided foundations for later research.
The attitude-behaviour relationship can be explained in terms of scientific cause (attitude) and effect (behaviour); which gives the concept and social psychology credibility if behaviour can be reliably predicted from it. It is reductionist as it breaks down the relationship into basic elements for analysis; behaviourists analyse stimulus-response mechanisms, cognitivists - thoughts, plans, etc causing behaviour, researchers then understand the phenomena’s underlying nature, but humanists believe it violates individual’s whole integrity. However, Gergan (1973) believed it could never be scientific because of the area under investigation (social behaviour) is culturally and historically specific whereas natural/physical sciences have universalistic general laws. These cannot be applied to human behaviour as they are always changing. This questions whether there is a direct causal relationship between attitudes and behaviour. We can only infer behaviour from attitudes, not reliably predict certain behaviours will occur every time. Some researchers believe the attitude-behaviour relationship is questionable and suggest concept abandonment.
Although recent research/theories support a strong relationship, attitudes explain behaviour to some extent, but this is not a holistic picture. It is difficult to defend retention of the concept when observed behaviour and beliefs contradict e.g. in political opinion polls. Other variables are involved e.g. external influences such as the media sensationalise issues which may lead to stronger attitudes as a perspective becomes more certain and popular, so attitudes are culturally and historically specific, e.g. the Iraqi war, is currently portrayed as having an anti-war attitude which can have a strong influence on attitudes and subsequent behaviour (e.g. protesting). However, this is not a written rule. The research has high practical uses, if behaviour can be predicted this is beneficial for social order. Australia attempted to control citizen’s attitudes and behaviour to sun exposure, which was successful (Hogg and Vaughan 2002). Marketing success depends heavily on attitudes created in advertising leading to consumption behaviour, though not always successful. Also, if context differs when individuals form an attitude to when displaying behaviour they may be no association because in a different environment our thoughts and feelings may deviate. Hogg and Vaughan (2002) claim intervening variables can encourage or disrupt the attitude-behaviour association. As attitudes are private phenomena, which are unobservable; we can only assume they exist, thus questioning the concept’s credibility as attitudes in themselves cannot be scientifically measured as they occur in the consciousness. Only a subjective, introspective personal evaluation of our attitudes may be truth – however this introduces bias. This is similar to Freud’s critics who claimed the id, ego and superego were fallacies as they were unobservable abstract notions.
Overall, the extent to which attitudes predict behaviour largely depends if the attitude is strong/stable enough to elicit a specific behavioural response and whether individuals are swayed by social influence to change behaviour/attitudes, if so this questions individual’s free will. Fundamental general attitudes are generally shaped during the socialisation process, firstly the immediate family and subsequently by peer/mass media networks. I believe social influence is more important on the attitude construct than the individual as attitudes can be grouped into similar ones which are not essentially individual. Recent social psychologists have recognised this also e.g. Eiser (1994), focusing upon shared attitudes of social groups. If a reference group (Kelley 1952) is involved; one that is psychologically significant to the individual, it is likely that they will be more greatly affected than insignificant others. Therefore, whilst individuals would like to think their attitudes are their own choice, it could be argued that these are shaped largely by external influences. However, Fishbein and Ajzen (1980) identify, it is the individual’s personal evaluation (positive/negative) that characterises whether a behaviour resulting from an attitude is suitable according to their judgement. Attitudes can provide the individual with uniqueness due to cognition. Humans are rational beings and make systematic use of information available (Fishbein and Ajzen 1980), suggesting we are active in attitude processes. It is clear there is evidence on both sides but the matter is yet unresolved, it is highly problematic and still subject to further research. Perhaps there is a need for a standardised attitude definition, to allow universal understanding. There are many definitions utilised in language; how can attitudes predict behaviour if we do not know reliably what constitutes an attitude?
(2332 words)
References
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitude Structure and Behaviour. In A.R. Pratkanis, S.J. Breckler and A.G. Greenwald (eds), Attitude Structure and Function (pp 241-74). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Allport, G.W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchison (ed.), A Handbook of Social Psychology. Worcester: Clark University Press. pp 798-844.
Augoustinos, M. & Walker, I. (1995). Social Cognition: An Integrated Introduction. London: Sage.
Bem, D. (1967). Self-Perception: An Alternative Interpretation to Cognitive Dissonance Phenomena. Psychological Review. 74: 183-200.
Bem, D. & Allen, A.A. (1974). On Predicting Some of the People Some of the Time: the search for cross-situational consistencies in behaviour. Psychological Review, 81, 506-20.
Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davidson, A.R. & Jacard, J. (1979). Variables That Moderate the Attitude-Behaviour Relation: Results of a Longitudinal Survey. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1364-76.
Eiser, J. R. (1994). Attitudes, Chaos and the Connectionist Mind. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fazio, R.H. (1986). How Do Attitudes Guide Behaviour? In R.M. Sorrentino and E.T. Higgins (eds), The Handbook of Motivation and Cognition. New York: Guildford Press.
Fazio, R.H. & Zanna, M.P. (1978). Attitudinal Qualities Relating to the Strength of the Attitude-Behaviour Relationship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 14: 398-408.
Fazio, R.H., & Zanna, M.P. & Cooper, J. (1977). Dissonance and Self-Perception: An Integrative Review of Each Theory’s Proper Domain of Application. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 13: 464-79.
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Floyd, D.L. (2000). A Meta-analysis of Research on Protection Motivation Theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 407-29.
Gergen, K.J. (1973). Social Psychology as History. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 309-20.
Hogg, M. T. & Vaughan, G. M. (2002) Social Psychology (3rd Edition). Chapters 5 & 6. London: Prentice Hall.
Hilton, D.J. and Karpinski, A. (2000). Attitudes and the Implicit Associations Test. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Kashima, Y., Siegal, M., Tanaka, K. and Kashima, E.S. (1992). Do People Believe Behaviours are Consistent with Attitudes? Towards a Cultural Psychology of Attribution Processes. British Journal of Social Psychology. 31: 111-24.
Kelley, H.H. (1952). Two Functions of Reference Groups. In G.E. Swanson, T.M. Newcomb and E.L. Hartley (eds), Readings in Social Psychology (2nd edn, pp 410-14). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
LaPiere, R.T. (1934). Attitudes vs Actions. Social Forces. 13: 230-7.
Parker, D., Manstead, A.S.R. and Stradling, S.G. (1995). Extending the Theory of Planned Behaviour: the role of personal norm. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 127-37.
Reber, A.S. & Reber, E. (2001). The Penguin Dictionary Of Psychology. London: Penguin.
Shepperd, B.H., Hartwick, J. & Warshaw, P.R. (1988). The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-analysis of Past Research with Recommendations for Modifications and Future Research. Journal of Consumer Research. 15: 325-43.
Terry, D. J. and Hogg, M.A. (1996). Group Norms and the Attitude-Behaviour Relationship: a role for group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 776-93.
Wicker, A.W. (1969). Attitudes versus Actions: The Relationship of Verbal and Overt Behavioural Responses to Attitude Objects. Journal of Social Issues. 25: 41-78.
Sources Utilised
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Augoustinos, M. & Walker, I. (1995). Social Cognition: An Integrated Introduction. London: Sage.
Eiser, R.J. (1980) Cognitive Social Psychology: A Guidebook To Theory and Research. London: McGraw-Hill Ltd.
Hogg, M. T. & Vaughan, G. M. (2002) Social Psychology (3rd Edition). Chapters 5 & 6. London: Prentice Hall.
Ibáňez, T. & Íňiguez, L. (1997) Critical Social Psychology. London: Sage.
Reber, A.S. & Reber, E. (2001). The Penguin Dictionary Of Psychology. London: Penguin.
Tesser, A. (1995) Advanced Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.