Attitudes Predicting Bahiour

Attitudes can often predict a person's behaviour but how can we explain the fact that sometimes they do not? Discuss with reference to relevant psychological evidence

When one behaves in a particular fashion towards an object, it is generally assumed that this is due to the attitude held towards it, whereas in fact this is not always the case. Psychologists such as Petty and Cacioppo (1996) suggest that attitudes are based upon our feelings about a certain object and whether we like or dislike it, thus reinforcing the traditional view. Eiser (1986) on the other hand explains how an attitude is what comes of external observational events. Thus the fact that overall an attitude is the predisposition of an individual to evaluate some symbol, or an object or aspect of the world, in a favourable or unfavourable manner means that their must be an explanation and evidence as to why an attitude cannot be simply regarded as a device used to account for our response to certain stimuli.

Attitude, as an element is split into three components (Eiser, 1986). This view is sometimes called the triadic model or the ABC model, so called as there are three types of responses used in evaluation which are summarised by the acronym ABC; which stands for affective, behavioural, and cognitive respectively. The affective deals with the emotions and feelings people hold regarding an attitude object. The behavioural element is the intentions, rather then actions people have to behave towards an attitude object; and finally, the cognitive component deals with the thoughts of people regarding an attitude object. The important thing to note is that between the three element responses to an attitude object there is no consistency. They are all inter-related and the expression of an attitude takes place after the responses have taken place. Therefore, these three facets of attitude portray that, were the process always implemented, then attitudes overall would predict behaviour.

The most cited study of the attitudinal-behavioural relationship is probably that of Lapiere, 1934 (cited in Albery, 2004) in which he tested the relationship of local Americans with Chinese people in light of widespread anti-Chinese atmosphere. However, the attitudinal-behavioural relationship would not be considered an issue worthy of discussion if it was based only on one study. Another noteworthy example would be of Corey, 1937 (cited in Petty & Cacioppo, 1996). Corey measured the attitudes his students held towards cheating and then tried to predict cheating on tests given to them during that semester. His aim was to be able to determine whether students cheated by grading their true/false tests before giving them back but by making the students think they were going to grade themselves. His index of cheating was the difference between the score the students assigned themselves and their actual score. The study cannot be criticised for reliability and accuracy as there was no problem ensuring that the same people completed the attitude measures also completed the behavioural ones. However, Corey actually found that the correlation between students' attitude towards cheating and the extent to which they actually cheated was close to zero. Therefore, students who had positive attitudes towards cheating weren't any more or less likely to cheat then those with negative attitudes. This led Wicker, 1969 (cited in Petty & Cacioppo, 1996) to state how the studies undertaken to show how attitudes predict behaviour in actual fact showed that it was more likely that attitudes will in fact be unrelated or only very slightly so to behaviour.

In light of this, many psychologists such as Fleishmann, Harris, & Burtt, 1955; Levitt, 1965; Maccoby, Romney, Adams, & Maccoby, 1962 (cited in Bandura, 1969) had put forward different theories and explanations in order to overcome why attitudes sometimes do not predict behaviour. Although the study carried out by Greenwald, 1965 (cited in Bandura, 1969) appeared to be in contrast, it was carried out for subjects who had already expressed commitment to the influence attempt and thus failed to obtain consistent and high relationships. It was interpreted as the fact that nearly all the dependent variables in social psychology are made up of responses to questionnaires and self-ratings. These responses are unreliable as to explaining clearly people's actual opinions and attitudes.

The study Scharick, 1932 (cited in Bandura, 1969) undertook showed that attitudes would not always predict behaviour due to the fact that the attitudes held privately by people differ significantly from those held publicly.

A study which gave quite reasoned results was carried out by Festinger, 1964 (cited in Bandura, 1969) showed that attitudinal changes resulting from persuasive influences are quite unstable and so, unless the behaviour is sustained, will disappear. This study does assume that attitudes do affect behaviour, although temporarily and so when not supported in their temporary behaviour, people revert back to the behaviour originally held.

So in comparison to the aim of Corey's study in 1937 (cited in Petty & Cacioppo, 1996), attitudes do not always measure or predict a person's behaviour. It can be deduced however that attitudes influence behaviour more strongly when only counteracting situational factors are weak such as the theory of planned behaviour from Ajzen, 1991 (cited in Albery, 2004). This approach says that humans are rational beings and therefore make systematic use of available information; people consider the implications of actions before they decide to engage in certain behaviour. The purpose of this theory is to predict and understand motivational influences on behaviour which is not under individual volitional control. The purpose is also to identify how and where to target strategy for changing behaviour and therefore ultimately explaining any human behaviour.

In response to this approach can be brought in one argument of weakness in methodology to demonstrate why behavioural