Social Psychology is an upfront area and can be of great help to industrialists, researchers and students.

1. Attitudes: Nature,
Formation, Change, and
Resistance

2. Attitude
• Attitude is defined as:
• “ (a) A relatively enduring organisation of
beliefs, feelings and behavioural tendencies
towards socially significant objects, groups,
events or symbols;
• (b) A general feeling or evaluation – positive
or negative – about some person, object or
issue”

3. Structure of attitudes
• A widely held view of an attitude’s anatomy is the
three-component attitude model, consisting of:
• A cognitive (thinking) component – beliefs about
the object of an attitude;
• An affective (feeling) component – positive or
negative feelings associated with the object of an
attitude;
• A behavioural (acting) component – a state of
readiness to take action.

4. • This model can be traced at least as far back to the work of
Milton Rosenberg and Carl Hovland (1960). As well as the three
components, this approach also emphasised that attitudes are:
• Relatively permanent: that is, they persist across time and
situations – a momentary feeling is not an attitude;
• Limited to socially significant events or objects;
• Generalisable and at least somewhat abstract – if you drop a
book on your toe and find that it hurts, this is not enough to form
an attitude, because it is a single event in one place and at one
time, but if the experience makes you dislike books or libraries,
or clumsiness in general, then that dislike is an attitude.
• Each attitude, then, is made up of thoughts and ideas, a cluster
of feelings, likes and dislikes, and behavioural intentions.

5. Attitude Formation
• Refers to how attitudes are formed from experience as
they are thought to be the result of learning.
Behavioural Approaches
1). Direct experience
• Most attitudes are the result of direct experience (positive
or negative).
• This is related to Fishbein & Ajzen’s expectancy value
model (1974), since negative experiences will lead to the
experiencing of negative attitudes.
• Mere exposure effect also accounts for attitudes, since
exposure leads to an evaluation represented in an attitude.

6. 2). Classical conditioning
• Repeated associations can mean that a previously
neutral stimulus is paired with a less neutral response
and can therefore be powerful in the formation of an
attitude.
3). Operant conditioning
• Behaviour that results in positive consequences is
likely to be reinforced and repeated compared to
behaviour followed by negative consequences, and
attitudes are therefore shaped by a system of rewards
and punishments.

7. 4). Observational learning
• Attitudes are the result of modelling the
actions or emotions displayed by real life or
symbolic models, so attitudes are simply
observed and imitated.

8. Cognitive Approaches
1). Information integration theory
• Attitudes are constructed in response to information
we have about objects.
• So, attitudes are formed by evaluating and averaging
information that is collected, and stored, about a
given object.
2). Self-perception theory
• People form attitudes by analysing their own
behaviour and making attributes about them.

9. 3). Mood-as-information hypothesis
• Individuals base their attitudes on evaluations they
make about their mood, so use mood to provide
information and evaluation of an object.
4). Heuristic processing
• Decision rules are used to make a judgement/form an
attitude, so use mental shortcuts/cues available from
memory.
5). Persuasion
• Attitudes can also be formed in response to
persuasion.

10. Attitude Change
• Persuasion is the application of rational and/or emotional
arguments to convince others to change their attitudes or
behavior.
• It is a form of social influence used not only in the courtroom
but also in every part of daily social life.
• The persuasion process goes on in the classroom, church,
political arena, and the media.
• Persuasive messages are so much a part of our lives that we
often are oblivious to the bombardment from billboards, TV,
radio, newspapers, parents, peers, and public figures.

11. 1). The Yale Communication Model
• A model of the persuasion process that stresses the role of the
communicator (source of a message), the nature of the
message, the audience, and the channel of communication.
• According to the Yale communication model, the most
important factors comprising the communication process are
expressed by the question, Who says what to whom by what
means?
• This question suggests that there are four factors involved in
persuasion. The “who” refers to the communicator, the person
making the persuasive argument.
• The “what” refers to the organization and content of the
persuasive message.

12. • The “whom” is the target of the persuasive message,
the audience.
• Finally, the “means” points to the importance of the
channel or medium through which the message is
conveyed, such as television, radio, or interpersonal
face-to-face communication.
• For each factor, there are several variables that can
potentially influence the persuasion process.
The Communicator
• Credibility: Expertise and Trustworthiness
• Credibility-The believability (expertise and
trustworthiness) of the communicator of a persuasive
message.

13. • Expertise-A component of communicator credibility that
refers to the communicator’s credentials and stems from the
individual’s training and knowledge.
• Trustworthiness-A component of communicator credibility
that involves our assessment of the communicator’s motives
for delivering the message.

14. The Cognitive Approach to Persuasion
• Cognitively oriented social psychologists emphasize that a
persuasive communication may trigger a number of related
experiences, memories, feelings, and thoughts that individuals
use to process the message.
• Therefore, both what a person thinks about when she hears the
persuasive message and how the person applies those
thoughts, feelings, and memories to analyzing the message are
critical.
• The Elaboration Likelihood Model
• A cognitive model of persuasion suggesting that a target’s
attention, involvement, distraction, motivation, self-esteem,
education, and intelligence all influence central and/or
peripheral processing of a persuasive message.

15. • One well-known cognitive response model is the elaboration
likelihood model (ELM).
• This model, first proposed by Petty and Cacioppo (1986),
makes clear that audiences are not just passive receptacles but
are actively involved in the persuasion process.
• Their attention, involvement, distraction, motivation, self-
esteem, education, and intelligence determine the success of
persuasive appeals.
• The elaboration likelihood model owes a lot to the Yale model,
incorporating much of the Yale research on the important roles
of communicator and message.
• But its primary emphasis is on the role of the audience,
especially their emotions and motivations.
• According to ELM, two routes to persuasion exist: a central
processing route and a peripheral processing route. Persuasion
may be achieved via either of these routes.

16. Central Route Processing
• In the ELM, information may be processed by effortful,
controlled mechanisms involving attention to and understanding
and careful processing of the content of a persuasive message.
• Central route processing involves elaboration of the message by
the listener.
• This type of processing usually occurs when the person finds the
message personally relevant and has preexisting ideas and beliefs
about the topic.
• The individual uses these ideas and beliefs to create a context for
the message, expanding and elaborating on the new information.
• Because the message is relevant, the person is motivated to listen
to it carefully and process it in an effortful manner.

17. • Peripheral Route Processing
• In the ELM, information may be processed using cues
peripheral or marginal to the content message.
• What if the listener is not motivated, is not able to understand
the message, or simply does not like to deal with new or
complex information?
• In these incidences, the listener takes another route to
persuasion, a peripheral route.
• In peripheral route processing, listeners rely on something
other than the message to make their decisions; they are
persuaded by cues peripheral or marginal to the message.

18. • The Heuristic Model of Persuasion
• A cognitive model of persuasion suggesting that of the two
routes to persuasion, systematic and heuristic, people choose
to use heuristics or peripheral cues more often.
• A second cognitive model of persuasion is the heuristic and
systematic information processing model (HSM).
• Proposed by Chaiken (1987), the HSM has much in common
with the ELM. As in the ELM, there are two routes for
information processing: the systematic and the heuristic.
• Systematic processing in the HSM is essentially the same as
central processing in the ELM, and heuristic processing is the
same as peripheral processing.
• Heuristics are simple guides or shortcuts that people use to
make decisions when something gets too complicated or when
they are just too lazy to process systematically.

19. • The main difference between the two theories lies in the claim
of the HSM that reliance on heuristics is more common than is
usually thought (Chaiken, Liberman, & Eagly, 1989).
• If motivation and ability to comprehend are not high,
individuals rely on heuristics most of the time. Some of these
heuristics might be: “Experts can be trusted.” “The majority
must be right.” “Sheʼs from the Midwest; she must be
trustworthy.” “If it was on the evening news, it must be true.”

20. • Heuristic processing can be compared to scanning newspaper
headlines.
• The information you receive is minimal, and the truth or
relevance of the headline will be determined by those simple
rules.
• “Congress Cannot Agree on a Budget,” reads the headline.
Your response would be to quickly check the available
heuristics that might explain the headline.
• Here it is: “Politicians are incompetent.” Next headline, please.
• The HSM suggests that people are more likely to agree with
communicators who are expert and with messages with which
most people agree. Again we see the cognitive miser at work.

21. • Cognitive Dissonance Theory: A Model of Self-Persuasion
• Direct persuasion by a communicator is not the only route to
attitude or behavior change.
• Attitude change may also occur if we find our existing
attitudes in conflict with new information, or if our behavior is
inconsistent with our beliefs.
• Festinger (1957) observed that people try to appear consistent.
When we act counter to what we believe or think, we must
justify the inconsistency.
• In other words, if we say one thing and do something else, we
need a good reason.
• Usually, we persuade ourselves that we have a good reason,
even if it means changing our previous attitudes.
• Inconsistency is thus one of the principal motivations for
attitude change.

22. • Festingerʼs cognitive dissonance theory proposed that if
inconsistency exists among our attitudes, or between our attitudes
and our behavior, we experience an unpleasant state of arousal
called cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957).
• The arousal of dissonance motivates us to change something, our
attitudes or our behavior, to reduce or eliminate the unpleasant
arousal. Reducing the tension helps us achieve consonance, a
state of psychological balance.
• Cognitive dissonance theory is like homeostatic theory in biology.
Consider what happens when you are hungry: Your brain detects
an imbalance in your blood sugar levels, causing a physiological
state of hunger.
• You are motivated to reduce this unpleasant state of arousal by
finding and consuming food.
• Similarly, when cognitive consonance is disrupted, you feel
tension and are motivated to reduce it.

23. • The five key assumptions of cognitive dissonance theory can be
summarized as follows:
1. Attitudes and behavior can stand in a consonant (consistent) or a
dissonant (inconsistent) relationship with one another.
2. Inconsistency between attitudes and behavior gives rise to a
negative motivational state known as cognitive dissonance.
3. Because cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable state, people are
motivated to reduce the dissonance.
4. The greater the amount of dissonance, the stronger the motivation
to reduce it.
5. Dissonance may be reduced by rationalizing away the
inconsistency or by changing an attitude or a behavior.

24. • A theory of attitude change proposing that if
inconsistency exists among our attitudes, or
between our attitudes and our behavior, we
experience an unpleasant state of arousal
called cognitive dissonance, which we will be
motivated to reduce or eliminate.

25. Defining Prejudice, Stereotype,
Discrimination
• Prejudice-A preconceived negative judgment of a
group and its individual members.
• The negative (or positive) evaluations or judgements
of members of a group that are based primarily on
membership in the group and not necessarily on the
particular characteristics of individuals.

26. Stereotypes
• A belief about the personal attributes of a
group of people. Stereotypes are sometimes
over generalized, inaccurate, and resistant to
new information.
• Beliefs about social groups in terms of the
traits or characteristics that they are believed to
share.
• Stereotypes are cognitive frameworks that
influence the processing of social information.

27. • Discrimination-Unjustified negative behavior toward
a group or its members.
• Differential behaviours (usually negative) behaviours
directed toward members of different social groups.
• Prejudice- A affective component
• Stereotypes- A cognitive component
• Discrimination- A behavioural component

28. The Roots of Prejudice
a). Social Learning Explanation
• Social learning theory suggests that people develop
prejudice and stereotypes about members of various groups in
the same way they learn other attitudes, beliefs, and values.
b). Motivational Approaches
• Authoritarian Personality shows prejudice as a consequence
of unconscious hostility toward rigid and demanding parents.
• Realistic conflict theory argues that prejudice is the outcome
of direct competition over valued, but limited, resources.
• Social identity theory suggests that people use group
membership as a source of pride and self-worth.

29. The Roots of Prejudice (Contd..)
• Cognitive Foundations of Prejudice
a). Social Categorization: The process of classifying people
according to particular social characteristics, to sort out the
world of people around us.
Ingroup
Outgroup
Ingroup-outgroup bias: The tendency to hold less favourable
views about groups to which we do not belong, while holding
more favourable opinions about groups to which we do
belong.
Outgroup Homogeneity bias: The perception that there is less
variability among the members of outgroups than within one’s
own ingroup.

30. The Roots of Prejudice (Contd..)
• Illusory correlation- The result of people
overestimating the strength of relationship between
two distinctive or unusual events.
• The ultimate attribution error- The tendency
among people holding strong stereotypes to attribute
negative behaviour on the part of a minority group
member to dispositional characteristics, and
correspondingly, to attribute positive behaviour on the
part of a minority group member to situational
factors.