Hypocrisy: the attitude-behaviour discrepancy

Hypocrisy the stance-behaviour discrepancyThere argon possibly no better illustrations of attitude-behaviour paradoxes than those of British politics Diane Abbot, a Labour MP and avid collectivized campaigner (who criticized Harriet Harman and Tony Blair for localizeing their children to selective state schools), created controversy when she sent her son to the private City of capital of the United Kingdom School (Swift, 2003). Her actions did non correspond with her evince attitudes Diane was acting hypocritically.In general an attitude is defined as an overall evaluation of an object that is based on cognitive, makeive and behavioral information (Maio Haddock, 2010, p. 4). Such attitudes tummy relate to abstract concepts (such as collectivism) or concrete objects. An attitude is constructed of three distinct components judgements of a cognitive, behavioural and affective nature (Breckler, 1984).Attitudes play a probative usage in human cognition particularly in attent ion (Holbrook, Berent, Krosnick, Visser, Boninger, 2005 Roskos-Ewoldsen Fazio, 1992), interpretation (Vallone, Ross, Lepper, 1985) and memory (Eagly, Chen, Chaiken, Shaw-Barnes, 1999). Attitudes regulate information processing and thitherfore manipulate our unverifiable construct of human race. With attitudes conveying such influence over cognition we would expect their effects to be expressed behaviourally.However, despite such cognitive influences, attitudes argon not always congruent with behaviour. A clear example of this was illustrated by Richard LaPiere (1934) Whilst travelling America with two Chinese individuals, in a time of heightened racial disadvantage against Asians, LaPiere noted all 251 establishments they visited. Despite the current prejudice against Asians only 1 of 251 (0.004%) establishments refused service. However, six months later, when LaPiere sent questionnaires to the establishments 91% of 128 respondents claimed they would not accept Chinese patro ns. The symbolic attitudes expressed in the questionnaire did not reflect the concrete behavioural actions.Such a counter-intuitive result prompted research in this area in a review of 33 studies Wicker (1969) found the average attitude-behaviour correlations to be .15 (rarely exceeding .30, accounting for just 10% of variance). Such a low correlation led Wicker to suggest the rejection of the attitude concept.Yet for certain behaviours a operose attitude-behaviour link feces be established. For example, Fazio and Williams (1986) found a strong correlation (r(121) = .782) in predicting individuals voting behaviour. In a more(prenominal) than recent review, Sheeran and Taylor (1999) found a strong attitude-behaviour correlation (r+ = .45) in relation to base hit usage far exceeding Wickers (1969) analysis. Such inconsistencies illustrate the numerous complex processes that mediate the attitude-behaviour link. Subsequently, research rancid to explaining under what conditions at titudes become action.Individual DifferencesOur behaviour is undoubtedly the product of thought and our thought processes can dissent phenomenally from person to person (Cacioppo, Petty, Kao, Rodriguez, 1986). Thus, individual and cultural differences contribute been offered as an explanation to attitude-behaviour inconsistencies.Schwartz (1973) investigated the role of self-responsibility on the mediation of the attitude-behaviour link. The participants were measured for both their attitudes and the degree to which they assigned responsibility to themselves (to donate bone marrow). Schwartz (1973) found those senior high school in self-responsibility ascription acted far more attitude consistently (r=.44) than those of low responsibility (r=.01) a significant contrast (p The degree to which an individual self-monitors has also been proposed as an attitude-behaviour moderator (Snyder Tanke, 1976). Those high in self-monitoring are more behaviourally variant crosswise situations, as they are more aware of their expected character in a disposed(p) social context, so attitudes are often overridden by social norms. Low self-monitors remain stable across situations, relatively unaware of the social context, acting in line with their attitudes. In an experiment where participants were requested to indite counter-attitudinal essays (Snyder Tanke, 1976) low self-monitors were found to have high attitude-behaviour correlations (r(10) = +.65, p A further individual difference in attitude-behaviour congruence is cognitive processing weather individuals engage in effortful issue-relevant cognition or not (Cacioppo, Petty, Kao, Rodriguez, 1986). Cacioppo et al (1986), in relation to a presidential election, found high-cognition individuals to have stronger attitude behaviour counterpoise (r(40)=.86) than those of low-cognition (r(41)=.41) such a comparison was significant (Z = 3.71, p Weather it is due to cognitive preference, the degree of self-monitoring or resp onsibility ascription individual differences in attitude-behaviour congruence are clear. Individual preference for attitude inertia can account for some variation, yet the situation itself can also provide a bias.Situations solveThe power of the situation has been illustrated by many another(prenominal) studies (for example Asch, 1955 Milgram, 1963), it is therefore unsurprising that the situation can conserve influence over attitude-behaviour congruency.The public or private nature of an attitude can influence conspicuous behaviour. Public behaviour, due to increased saliency of social norms, will involve more normative influence than private behaviour. Froming, Walker and Lopyan (1982) investigated the role of self attitude salience (using a reflect) or public salience (using an audience) on the attitude-behaviour link. Participants were selected based on their negative views of punishment and subject to an electrical shock teacher/ student task (similar to that of Milgram, 1963). The experimenter manipulated self salience against public salience whilst measuring what level of shock the teachers administered to the learners. Those in the mirror condition (attitude consistent) shocked far less than the participants in the evaluative audience condition (attitude inconsistent) t(23) = 3.64, p The reality of an attitude can effect behavioural outcomes a bias to act unnaturalistically in supposed(p) situations (Brown, Ajzen, Hrubes, 2003). In a contingent valuation scenario Brown et al (2003) found participants to be 48% more possible to donate $8 in a hypothetical senario in comparison to a realistic situation indicating that more prominent beliefs are activated by concrete situations than by hypothetical situations. Aditionally, Ajzen, Brown, and Carvajal (2004) illustrated that hypothetical intension correlate more so (r(120) = .51) than real situations (r(120) = .39). Such a bias could apply to socialism (being a theoretical construct) yet not to a childs education (a concrete action).The salience of attitudes and the salience of situational norms can influence attitude-behaviour congruence. In a court case scenario Snyder and Swann (1976) found that if attitudes were not made salient there was very little correspondence (r(56) = .06 .07, ns), yet if attitudes were made salient (with a short paragraph of text highlighting the importance of ones own view) attitudes did significantly correspond with behaviour, r(28) = .58, p The role of affective (the emotions associated with an attitude) and cognitive (attributes and beliefs associated with an attitude) discover on behavioural action varies between situations. These two categories can be activated separately, by making a category salient. Millar Tesser (1986) successfully manipulated behaviour by making affective or cognitive controls salient those made cognitively salient enacted more instrumental behaviour, whereas those made affectively salient enacted consumatory behav iour, F(1,59) = 8.85, p Another affective motivator is that of vested interest. Vested interest essentially means that the consequence of a decision will personally affect an individual. The more than an issue directly effects an individual, the more logical processing that will take dwelling and the higher attitude-behaviour congruence will be (Sivacek Crano, 1982). Sivacek and Crano (1982) analysed attitude-behaviour congruence in relation to vested interest of a proposed alcohol drinking age limit. Unsurprisingly, those most affected by the change were more attitude consistent (r(39) = .30) and those insensible(p) were most inconsistent (r(18) = .16). As the future of your child is somewhat determined by education, parents would likely have significant vested interest in this decision. Therefore, behaviour should be attitude consistent.The influences of the situation are huge be it through the nature of the situation (its publicity, reality, potential affects or emotionality) or the salience of attitudes activated, it undoubtedly plays a role in mediating attitude-behaviour correspondence.Modelling attitude-behaviour congruenceWith the many factors that influence attitude-behaviour congruence a unified model seems doubtful. However, Ajzens (1991) system of planned behaviour has found significant empirical support. The model focuses on the behavioural intention as a mediator between attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control (see figure 1). The model claims an attitude is the interaction between the individuals expectation of a behavioural outcome and its desirability. The subjective norms component refers to the normative beliefs active a given behaviour, in interaction with the motivation (i.e. high/low self monitors) to comply with these norms. The closing component, perceived behavioural control, refers to the individuals judgement of their own ability to perform the behavioural action. Ajzen, Brown, Carvajal (2004) have shown that intentions correlate powerfully with behaviour (r=.57), as do attitudes (r=.31), subjective norms (r=.27) and perceived behavioural control (r=.45).Since LaPiere (1934) and Wicker (1969) suggested the rejection of attitudes, research has established specifically when attitudes do lead to action. When facing the problem Why a socialist parent would send their child to a private school? many of the situational and individual variables mentioned could apply. For example, deciding a childs future is likely to be classed as a private behaviour and so should be less biased by social norms and more attitude dependent (Froming, Walker, Lopyan, 1982). Incongruously, the reality of such a situation is likely to break-dance behavioural expression of attitudes (Ajzen, T. Brown, Carvajal, 2004 T. Brown, Ajzen, Hrubes, 2003).It is impossible to isolate why any behaviour is enacted as there are too many conflicting variables behaviour is the sum of these many variables. Perhaps the princi ple of aggregation is more suitable for linking attitudes to behaviour As any given behaviour is unlikely to relate to a undivided attitude rather many attitudes, situations factors and individual differences interact to produce behavioural action (Ajzen, 1991 Fishbein Ajzen, 1974). The human disposition subconsciously factors a huge number of variables producing a seamlessly effortless conclusion far too many variables to consciously disentangle.FiguresFigure 1 Reproduced from Ajzen (1991) p.182