Psychology 3723F/G Chapter Notes - Chapter 2: Three Witches, Semantic Differential, Blood Donation
30 Apr 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Chapter 2- The Three Witches of Attitudes:
Attitude content:
• Multicomponent model- att summary evals object that have cognitive, affective and
behav components (CAB)
Getting into the CAB (cognition, affect and behavior):
• Cog component= beliefs, thoughts and attributes ass w object- any cases person’s att
might be based primarily upon positive and neg attributes indvid ass w object
• Affective- emotions/ feelings linked to att object
• Primary way feelings shape att through feelings aroused in response to att object- spiders
make feel scared (neg aff response= neg att)
• Behav- past behavs/ experiences regarding att object
• Self-Perception Theory- individs don’t always have access to opinions about dif objects,
esp if feelings on issue vague/ uncertain
• Sometimes people infer att thinking about how behaved w respect att in past
Are the CAB components really different?
• Beckler had Ps report their cog, affective and behav responses about snakes- in presence
real snakes, Ps indicated whether snakes are kind/ cruel (cog), snakes make them feel
anxious/ happy (affect) and like handle snakes (behav)
• Used responses compute score each components- only moderately correlated w each
other= empirically distinct (not completely independent of each other= all contrib each
other)
• Valence of cog, affect and behav responses can vary
Semantic differential measures of the CAB components:
• Semantic differential approach- can be used asses cog and affect components att- use
content-specific semantic dif scales/ generic scales applicable both cog and affect (can
use same/ dif scales assess both cog and affect)
• Content-specific approach use dif scales cog and affect- reliable and valid and can be
used across dif att objects and both components, word pairs more specific than broad,
eval semantic dimensions (good/bad, like/dislike) used measure overall att
• Can use same semantic dif scales asses both cog and affect for part object, but framed
scales dif- cog= blood donation good/bad, wise/foolish, useless/useful and
important/unimportant and affective responses assessed having Ps respond “blood
donation makes me feel” on same semantic dif scale
• Attitudinal components useful- simple admin and complete and by presenting same items
for dif att objects, can be used compare fav of responses across attitude objects but
diffuse nature behav made dif researchers imagine valid semantic dif scales for
component
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Open-ended measures of the CAB components:
• Open-ended qs measure all 3 attitudinal components- people asked write down thoughts,
feelings and behav experiences associate w att object
• Cog measure asks Ps list characteristics, attributes and values ass w attitude object, affect
measure asks Ps list feelings and emotions ass w att object and behav measure asks Ps list
relv past experiences have had w att object
• Limitations may find hard articulate thought, feelings and past exps associate w part att
object, might not provide any responses 1/more components- measures require more time
and effort from Ps (open-ended approach not feasible measure cog, aff and past behav
many att objects)
• Open-ended technique measuring att components has been used in many studies and
number advantages- devise measure behav component, allowing more comprehensive
test multi-component model of att
• Respondents asked indicative cog, affective and behav responses most personally salient
and relevant, permitting be unrestrained from dimensions provided by “close-ended”
response formats- provide responses matter to them, even though may have no sig others
Do the CAB components predict attitudes?
• Try explain degree to which favourability of people’s cogs, feelings and behavs
correlated w overall attitude and does each component explain some part overall att not
explained by other components
• Given pop semantic dif measures components assessed lim cog and affective components
• Survey respondents ascribed personality traits Democratic and Republican primary
candidates in 1980, feelings each candidate and att toward each candidate- fav aff
responses correlated w overall evals above and beyond corr w fav beliefs about cands but
beliefs also uniquely predictive att
• Relative importance each class info was, to some extent, function stimulus object under
examination ex: affect best blood donation, cog info best predictor att abortion and
comprehensive exams
• Open-ended measures cog and affect- listed beliefs and feelings ass w various ethnic
groups and rated positivity and neg each belief/ feeling- correlations b/w overall att and
avg responses both important predicting prejudice
• Rel contribution cog and affective responses depended on target group under study- att
strongly disliked groups best predicted by cog info, form symbolic beliefs, whereas att
towards liked groups best predicted by affective info
• Open-ended approach better suited examining roles cog and aff info than closed-ended
rating scales- rate beliefs/ feelings more + expressed more fav att than Ps more neg
• Unique contribution each class info some degree function att object under examination-
affect cont sig prediction some attitudes (att about Republicans), but beliefs most imp
predictor in most instances
• Quality Ps past experiences w Native CNs predicted att independent fav of Ps thoughts
and feelings about group
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
