What factors have been identified as being responsible for attitudes not being related to behaviour?How have these factors been incorporated into psychological models of behaviour choice?

Social Essay

What factors have been identified as being responsible for attitudes not being related to behaviour?

How have these factors been incorporated into psychological models of behaviour choice?

Himmelfarb and Eagly (1974) described an attitude as “ a relatively enduring organisation of beliefs, feelings and behavioural tendencies, towards socially significant objects”. Many researchers (Cohen, 1964; Festinger, 1964; Abelson, 1972) have questioned the strength of the attitude-behaviour relationship. This essay will firstly discuss attitude formation and proceed to propose several factors which may hamper corresponding behaviours from attitudes. Subsequent models that incorporate discretionary factors will also be presented as each is discussed. The essay will conclude by summarising the illustrated factors, and their relevant roles within behaviour choice models, lastly proposing four essential factors within the attitude -behaviour relationship.

Attitudes contain functional and structural components which are believed to be the foundation of behaviour and attitude relationships (Pennington, 1990). Four main attitude functions are proposed to facilitate between internal and external demands enabling individual mediation with the environment; adaptive (hedonistic functions), knowledge (about the physical and social world), self-expressive (identity) and ego defensive (maintaining self image) (Pennington, 1990). It could be surmised that, if these functions are elusive, attitude exhibition may be reduced. Structural components may be explained by the ‘Three Component Model’, which comprises of cognitive, affective, and connotative parts, (beliefs, values, and behaviour towards an attitude object) (Rosenberg and Hovland, 1960, cited in Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). Research has found possession of mixed beliefs, but univalent feelings enabled stronger affective influences on attitude than cognitive ones (Lavine, Thomsen, Zanna and Borgida, 1998). This small correlation between cognitive and affective components has been shown to result in weaker behaviours (Millar and Tesser, 1989). Furthermore, individuals may share attitudes, but hold different beliefs and behaviour intentions (Thomas, 1971), thus resulting in different behavioural responses (Zimbardo and Leippe, 1991). Therefore, as attitude parts work interdependently, the divergence of beliefs and values will prevent attitudes from inducing behaviour intentions and subsequently producing behaviour (Pennington, 1990). For example, if one usually sings loudly at a football game, but loses one’s voice, then behaviour demonstration is restricted.

Research suggests (Ajzen and Fishbein 1970,1980) that attitudes influence behaviour indirectly through their impact on behavioural intentions. Factors including personal moral beliefs and self-identity are said to shape behavioural intentions (Aarts, Verplanken and Knippenberg, 1998). However, whether intention is directly antecedent to behaviour is dependent on internal factors (i.e. commitment) and external factors (i.e. context, target, time) (Tanner, 1999; Fishbein and Ajzen 1980). These are incorporated into the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) which suggests that although positive attitudes and intentions to act may be consistent, due to the inadequacy of opportunities imposed by individuals’ internal (Leon, Perugini and Ercolani, 1999) external conditions (environment, time, money), non-engaging behaviours may result.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Behaviour maximisation is ostensibly dependent on the tangibility of individuals’ plans about ‘where, when, and how’ the behaviour is realised (Sheeran and Orbell, 1999). The time frame and information (Matheson, Holmes and Kristiasen, 1999) value are suggested to be important in order for expressions towards attitude objects to occur. Kaiser, Wolfing, and Fuher (1999) found that if situational influences are controlled (i.e. traffic), environmental attitudes become good predictors of ecological behaviour. Similarly, planning attitude elicitation and maintaining the behaviours are considered an important process in the attitude-behaviour relationship (Ogden, 2000). As controlling and planning are not always elicited; the strength of the relationship is subjective. The Stages of Change Model, (Diclemate, 1982) proposes if such processes have not transpired, resulting actions are unlikely. Equally, the Rubicon Model illustrates the necessity of deliberating when, where and how behaviour can be revealed (Frey, Stahlberg and Gollwitzer, 1993). Thus, if no contemplation of attitude demonstration has occurred, behaviour correspondences may not result.

Personal attributes are considered to contribute to the strength of the attitude-behaviour relationship (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1969) i.e. knowledge, motivation, and controllability. Individuals that have an external locus of control are believed to lack motivation to exhibit held beliefs (Myers, 1999). Rotter’s (1966) Locus of Control Theory exemplifies the need for self-worth and feeling in control for attitude-behaviour correspondence. Low self-efficacy, in relation to behaviour correspondence, is incorporated into the Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977). Behavioural intentions are largely explained, by individual’s knowledge and values about the environment (Kaiser, Wolfing, and Fuher, 1999). It is argued, (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980) that knowledge only provides information about overall behaviour patterns and little about behaviour likelihood. This suggests therefore, that insufficient qualitative knowledge may reduce behaviour predictability. Attitude commitment has also been illustrated (Tanner, 1999) to contribute to behaviour, since the occurrence of introspection may alter attitude stability (Wilson, Hodges and LaFleur, 1995). Thus, attitude instability may not cause corresponding actions.

Information [obtained from environmental and intrapersonal sources] is a prime influencer which can result in either avocation or avoidance of a behaviour (Ogden, 2000). For example, one may want healthy lungs, but lack information about cancer, and lack the motivation to stop smoking. Consequently, avoidant behaviour will not result. Fazio (1990) proposed that individuals, who are unable to make dependable decisions about attitude related behaviour, rely on ‘highly accessible attitudes’ that automatically guide behaviour. The MODE model (Fazio, 1990) supposes that in situations where motivations are absent, behaviour may be involuntarily facilitated by attitude. However, if an attitude is inadequately rooted, this automatic component may not precede (Hauston & Stoebe, 1996). Roger and Bandura’s (1980) Procession Motivation Theory asserts that severity, susceptibility, response effectiveness and self-efficacy components are necessary for a stable behaviour intention to follow. Similarly, the Theory of Self-Regulation considers the motivational variable desire as the precursor to behaviour intention and subsequent behaviour, by controlling volition (Bagozzi, 1992). The Ipsative Theory (Frey, 1988) further advocates, that non-action may transpire if motivation, and opportunities are underprovided.

Past Experiences (PE) are considered to arbitrate associations between attitudes, intentions and subsequent behaviour, due to the stability of opportunities and context (Aarts, Verplanken and Knippenberg, 1998). However, Fazio and Zanna, (1981) showed that only when attitudes are acquired through direct experience are subsequent behaviours likely. The TPB, suggests that as direct experience increases (if attitudes are measured by affective components) behaviour correspondence will decrease (Hauston and Stroebe, 1996). However, the frequency and recency of past behaviours are thought to affect intention differently (Bagozzi, 1992). For example, you may have exercised regularly last year, but due to injury have not exercised recently. Fishbein’s Expectancy-Value Model proposed fewer learned experiences would produce a weaker attitude-behaviour relationship (Hogg and Vaughan, 1998). However, PE cannot be solely responsible for this relationship and further factors should be considered.

Alternative choices are considered to aid attitude-behaviour correspondence, suggesting that this is reduced if various alternatives are not available. However, the relationship is also dependent on normative beliefs and other factors (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1970). Decision theories identify the role of ‘Subjective Expected Utilities’ (SEU) in the antecedents of behaviour. Dulany’s (1967) Theory of Prepositional Control demonstrates the relevance of behavioural intention in the arbitration of explicit behaviour. Bentler and Speckart (1979) regard behaviour as resulting directly from attitudes, which are dependent upon the perceived amount of effort involved. Although SEU’s alone may not be adequate determinants of behaviour, it is necessary to consider normative influences.

Normative beliefs consist of individual perceptions of what should be done and what society would want (Thomas, 1971). In addition to socially perceived pressure, moral obligations need noting. Though direct pressure may be absent in group situations, individuals may present behaviours that do not correspond to their moral attitudes. This implies therefore, that individuals use social comparative contexts to adjust their behaviours accordingly (Hogg and Vaughan, 1998). However, if an imbalance in cognitive consistency occurs, individuals experience dissonance, and may subsequently change their attitude in accordance with the situation (Vaughan 1998). For example, one may be reluctant to eat chocolate (person attitude), but if it is a foreign make (environment factor) and one’s friend (other person) is eating it, one may succumb. The ‘Balance Theory’ suggests, that though an attitude is held, if the relationship between the three components is unbalanced, a contradictory behaviour may be elicited (Heider, 1958). Dulany’s Theory also encompasses the role of situational factors, normative variables and motivations as a precursor to behaviour (Thomas, 1971). Other theorists have also recognised, the social determinant implications (i.e. self-concept, moral norms, roles), which are incorporated into the Theory of Interpersonal Behaviour (Triandis, 1967; 1977). However, the most recognised theory for attitude-behaviour relationship is that of Reasoned Action which explains the importance of social norms and how individuals view them in addition to behaviour intention and behaviour control (Leon, Perugini and Ercolani, 1999). Bentler and Speckart’s (1979) model of Attitude Behaviour Relation, also suggests, correlations between attitude and behaviour are equally influenced by attitudes, subjective norms, and previous behaviour.

This essay has proposed several factors that may interfere with the attitude-behaviour relationship, including attitude formation (cognitive and effective components), internal (knowledge, commitment, morals) and external (alternatives choices, information) influences. These have been discussed as having been identified in one or several models including; the TPB and the Decision theory. Through desire, attitudes are shown to be connected to intentions, which in turn are good predictors of behaviour. Thus, there is little direct association between attitude and behaviour. However, four important components are proposed to interfere with the behaviour-attitude relationship; past behaviour, motivation (desire), normative beliefs, and locus of control. Though the MODE model, Expectancy value model, and TPB incorporate these factors individually, no specific model predominantly identifies all four. It is therefore; suggested further investigation needs to be implemented to test the variables.

References

Aarts H., Verplanken B., and Knippenberg A. (1998) predicting behaviour from actions in the past: Repeated decision making or a matter of habit? Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 28

(15), 1355-1374

Ajzen., I. and Fishbein., M. (1969). The prediction of behavioural intentions in a choice situation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 5, 400-416

Ajzen., I. and Fishbein., M. (1970). The prediction of behaviour from attitudinal and normative variables. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 6, 466-487

Ajzen., I. and Fishbein., M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Bagozzi, (1992) cited in Leone L., Perugini M., and Ercolani A.P. (1999) A Comparison of Three Models of Attitude-Behaviour Relationships in the Studying Behaviour Domain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 161-189.

Bandura, (1977) cited in Esysenck., M. (2000) Psychology: A students handbook. UK: Psychology Press Ltd.

Bentler and Speckart (1979) Attitude cause behaviour. Journal of personality and social psychology. 37, 1364-13376

Cohen, (1964); Festinger, (1964); Abelson, (1972) cited in Reid, B., and Adcock, C. (1982) Values, attitudes and behaviour change. USA: Methuen & Co.

Diclemate, (1982) cited in Ogden, J. (2000) Health Psychology. UK: Open University Press.

Dwyer D., and Scampion J. (1995). A Level Psychology. Malaysia: MacMillan Press LTD.

Dulany, (1967) cited in Ajzen., I. and Fishbein., M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Eiser and Pligt, (1988) Attitudes and Decisions. London and New York: Routledge.

Esysenck., M. (2000) Psychology: A students handbook. UK: Psychology Press Ltd.

Fazio (1990) cited in Moghaddam F.M. (1998). Social psychology: Exploring Universals Across Cultures: USA. W.H.Freeman and company.

Fazio and Zanna, (1981) cited in Hauston M., Stoebe W., and Stephenson G.M.. (1996). Introduction to Social Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell

Frey, (1988) cited in Tanner, C. (1999). Constraints on Environmental Behaviour. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,19, 145-157

Frey, Stahlberg and Gollwitzer, (1993) cited in Hauston M., Stoebe W., and Stephenson G.M.. (1996). Introduction to Social Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell

Hauston M., Stoebe W., and Stephenson G.M.. (1996). Introduction to Social Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell

Heider, (1958) cited in Hogg, M.A., and Vanghan, G.M., (1998) Social Psychology. Bath: Prentice Hall Europe.

Himmelfarb and Eagly (1974) cited in Hogg, M.A., and Vanghan, G.M., (1998) Social Psychology. Bath: Prentice

Hogg, M.A., and Vanghan, G.M., (1998) Social Psychology. Bath: Prentice Hall Europe.

Kaiser F.G., Wolfing S., and Fuher U. (1999). Environmental Attitude and Ecological Behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 19, 1-19

Lavine H., Thomasen C.J., Zanna M.P., and Borgida E. (1999). On the Primacy of Affect in

determination of attitude and behaviour: The Moderating Role of Affective-Cognitive

Ambivalence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 398-421.

Leone L., Perugini M., and Ercolani A.P. (1999) A Comparison of Three Models of Attitude-Behaviour Relationships in the Studying Behaviour Domain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 161-189.

Millar and Tesser, (1989) cited in Hauston M., Stoebe W., and Stephenson G.M. (1996). Introduction to Social Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell

Myers D.G., (1999) Social Psychology. USA: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Moghaddam F.M. (1998). Social psychology: Exploring Universals Across Cultures: USA. W.H.Freeman and company.

Matheson, K., Holmes, J.G., and G.M. Kristiasen. (1999). Observational Goals and Integration of trait perceptions and behaviour: Behaviour prediction versus Impression formation. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology. 27, 138-160

Ogden, J. (2000) Health Psychology. UK: Open University Press.

Pennington, D.C. (1990). Essential Social Psychology: Kent. Page Bothers (Norwich) Ltd.

Reid, B., and Adcock, C. (1982) Values, attitudes and behaviour change. USA: Methuen & Co.

Rotter’s (1966) cited in Myers D.G., (1999) Social Psychology. USA: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Tanner, C. (1999). Constraints on Environmental Behaviour. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,19, 145-157

Thomas K. (1971) Attitudes and Behaviour. London: Penguin books Ltd.

Triandis, (1967; 1977), cited in Ajzen., I. and Fishbein., M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Wilson T.D., Hodges S.D., and LaFleur S.J. (1995). Effects of introspecting about reasons: Inferring attitudes from accessible thoughts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 69, 16-28.

Zimbardo, G.P., and Leippe, M.R. (1991). The Psychology of Attitude Change and Social Influence. US: Mc Grw-Holl Inc.