In addition, this research explores how online and offline inter- action affects attitudes in political participation. The theoretical background of the research is based on the theory of planned behavior, in which the behavior of individuals is determined by attitudes towards behavior, and the subjective norms that influence intended behavior.
Depending on how much time is spent on personal online activities, you can predict offline behavior through online attitudes, which can help to increase the explanatory power of the theory of planned behavior. In this study, there is a verifica- tion of offline political action related to the attitudes formed through social media.
Social network service hereafter SNS could have important implication for modern society as a predictive tool. The research was conducted on members of an SNS community and based on the survey data gathered, a hierarchi- cal regression analysis was applied.
The analysis was found to significantly predict the behavioral tenden- cy of the subjects to cooperate and share information online when there is an intent and motive towards personal empathy.
Online cognitive behavior control shows that the higher level of information sharing and trust, the higher the offline intent to participate in political action.
Finally, there is a high correlation between online and offline political attitudes. The more positive the political attitudes, either online or offline, the more intent to participate in offline political action.
Related Articles:. Home References Article citations. Journals A-Z. Journals by Subject. There is no tension, rather, behavior just serves an informative purpose. We calmly observe our behavior, and draw reasonable inferences from it, just as we do when observing other people. EX: Bem showed that the results of cognitive dissonance experiments could be replicated quite well by observers.
People read descriptions of the procedures, and predicted people's attitudes correctly. EX: "I must have really been tired, I slept a long time. However, there is evidence that, as c. Further, when arousal is eliminated through the use of drugs or alcohol , attitude change does not occur.
On the other hand, self-perception can explain some things dissonance can't. For example, when people are suddenly rewarded for doing something they did before just because they liked it, they can come to like it less.
EX: From Myers : Child was reading books a week. Library then started a reading club which promised a party to those who read 10 books in three months. Child started checking out only 1 or 2 books a week. We feel tension, so we adjust our attitudes to reduce it. Dissonance explains attitude change. When attitudes aren't well- formed, self-perception theory explains attitude formation that occurs as we act and reflect. I think he may be right about the latter point, but I'm not so sure about the first.
Key thing, then, is how discrepant is the behavior with the attitude. Real world applications a. It has often been said you can't legislate morality. Yet, changes in civil rights laws and policies have been accompanied by changes in attitudes.
Since Brown vs. Board of Education in , the percentage of white Americans favoring integrated schools has more than doubled. Since Civil rights act of , the percentage of white Americans who described their neighborhoods, friends, co-workers, or fellow students as all white declined by 20 percent for each of these measures. Possible explanations: 1. Predicted calamities did not occur. Information inconsistent with previous beliefs led to attitude change. People were forced to behave in a counter-attitudinal manner.
People who said they would not comply with laws did. Ergo, they reasoned blacks must not be so bad. Racist attitudes became non-instrumental, because of the high costs of violating laws. You had to interact with blacks, so you might as well like them. Value-expressive - racism became inconsistent with the images most people like to hold, so they adopted anti-racist attitudes.
Suppose you wanted a friend to support a political candidate. What might you do? Get them to do some small task as a favor to you. Counter-attitudinal actions might influence attitudes; exposure to dissonant info might change their minds; classical or instrumental condition could take place - they receive praise for working for the candidate, which leads to positive attitudes.
If friend is for another candidate - provide them with dissonant info. Point out candidate is weak in areas friend likes him. What if friend doesn't change his mind? This could occur because a friend discredits the source of the info - you b instead of liking the candidate, friend could decide he doesn't like you.
Attitudes and Behaviors 1. Is there an attitude-behavior relationship? LaPiere's work apparently said no. Subsequent work over next 35 years did little better.
As Abelson quoted in Myers said, "we are, apparently, very well trained and very good at finding reasons for what we do, but not very good at doing what we find reasons for. Later work found a relationship A. Expressed attitudes are not always the same as true attitudes, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Methods such as the "bogus pipeline" and other methods for dealing with sensitive questions are helpful here.
Specificity of measures was found to be important - items used were not specific enough. Should determine attitudes toward the specific behavior, rather than some more general topic. Fishbein and Aizen note that, ideally, measures should correspond in Target, Action, Context, and Time. Suppose I say I think drugs are bad - yet I smoke marihuana, or drink alcohol. There are different targets here. When you say drugs, I may think more of thinks like cocaine and heroin than I do marihuana or alcohol.
I might have favorable attitudes toward the environment, but have negative attitudes toward recycling because I find it inconvenient. In LaPiere's case, subjects may have viewed the target as a devious oriental, rathern than a nicely dressed oriental couple traveling with a white man.
I can be against selling cocaine, but still willing to use it personally. I might support somebody's right to have an abortion, while being opposed to having an abortion myself. We see this in public opinion polls today - a lot of people oppose abortion, while still supporting the right of others to have abortions, at least under certain circumstances.
I might support the right to have an abortion under certain circumstances save the life of the mother, rape, incest while being opposed to it in others. Indeed, depending on the question asked, you get widely varying levels of support for abortion.
I might think it is ok to drink when I am going to stay at home, but not when I am going to drive. It is ok to drink at night or on the weekends, but not in the morning.
Type of attitude measured is important - cognitive, affective, conative. These are not identical or totally consistent - our minds are not efficient enough to process all information immediately and consistently. Fishbein refers to beliefs, attitudes, and intentions. We have referred to these as the cognitive, affective, and conative behavioral components of attitudes. Assumptions of model: 1. Behavioral intentions are the only direct determinant of behavior.
Behavioral intentions are determined by affective attitudes and subjective norms. EX: I believe that smoking causes cancer. I believe that cancer is very bad. Ergo, I have negative feelings about smoking. EX: I believe that studying leads to higher grades. I do not care what my grades are. Ergo, I do not have favorable attitudes toward studying. Subjective norms are a function of beliefs about the expectations of others times my motivation to comply with them. EX: My friends expect me to smoke.
I want to please my friends. Ergo, I feel I should smoke. EX: My parents expect me to study. I want to please my parents. Ergo, I feel I should study. Implications of the model. Only behavioral intentions directly affect behavior. Effects of any other kind of attitude will only be indirect, and relationship with behavior could be weak.
Sometimes affective attitudes will determine our intentions, other times subjective norms will. Even if we dislike something, we may do it anyway, because of subjective norms. Further, the relative importance of affective attitudes and subjective norms may differ across people.
EX: You might think that somebody who doesn't like to study would not study. Model shows the importance of considering how valued the consequences are. For example, two people might agree that smoking leads to cancer. But if one person doesn't care that much about cancer "we're all going to die sometime" their belief about cancer may not keep them from smoking.
You shouldn't assume that your evaluation of the consequences is the same as theirs. Shouldn't just measure attitudes toward the object - should measure attitudes toward the behavior. EX: You might think that somebody who doesn't like blacks may discriminate against them.
But maybe not. Non-discriminatory behavior may be favorably viewed because of its positive consequences More customers and more money for my business - a bigger pool of laborers I can call upon. Or, subjective norms may force non-discrimination. MORAL: Don't just ask people how they feel about blacks - ask them how they feel about specific behaviors.
At least if you are interested in prediction. Several beliefs may determine your affective attitudes or subjective norms. Affective attitudes are based on the total set of salient beliefs about performing a behavior.
Changing one or more beliefs may not be enough to bring about a change in the overall attitude or intention. EX: I may believe that studying leads to high grades and that high grades are desirable.
I may also believe that studying cuts down on party time, and I love to party. Hence, overall I may have a negative feeling towards studying. EX: I believe smoking causes cancer and that cancer is bad. I also believe that quitting smoking will cause me to gain weight. If I fear gaining weight more than I fear cancer, my overall evaluation of smoking may be positive.
EX: I might change affective attitudes toward smoking - but if normative pressures are the primary determinant of behavior, behavior won't change. EX: I might convince you that your friends expect you to study - but if you don't care what your friends think, your behavior won't change.
MORAL: If you want to change behavior, you have to figure out what beliefs are having the strongest impact on behavior. Criticisms and proposed modifications of Fishbein - when, and how strongly, do attitudes affect behavior? When do attitudes not affect behavior? Fishbein said intentions were the only direct influence on Behavior - but many question this. Many have found that feelings the affective component of attitudes may be a better predictor of what you will do than your intentions.
Often, we don't bother to figure out what we want to do until it is time to do it. When intentions are weak or ill-formed and other beliefs are strong, affective attitudes may be the best predictor of behavior. EX: elections. Liberal Democrat incumbents showed big leads in the polls, yet one after one they fell.
People had not finalized their intention to vote, but they had strong feelings against liberal policies or at least against the current state of the country. Why is this? The model views attitude formation and change as a product of information processing. Yet, as information processing takes time, changes in attitudes may lag behind changes in beliefs, perhaps by months or even years.
Intentions are often not even formed until immediately before behaving. This helps explain why variables besides intentions can be better predictors of behavior. More difficult it is to follow through on intentions, less likely it is you will. Also sometimes need cooperation from others. EX: Suppose a prejudiced person does not intend to hire Hispanics. Suppose it turns out to be extremely difficult to staff his business otherwise.
He may give up on his intention, whereas he would not do so under more favorable conditions. EX: N. Hopefully, it will do so, but it would be easier to follow through on its intentions if it intended to hire a bunch of white males. Psychological traits - willingness to take responsibility - Locus of control.
EX: Locus of control. How much control do you feel you have over what happens in your life. If you don't feel you have control, why bother acting consistently? Experience affects how consistent you are. Affects attitude intensity. Also may affect your knowledge of how to achieve your goals. Some would say he has it backwards - behavior influences attitudes, rather than the other way. Few unwed teenagers want to get pregnant - yet many do.
Not wanting to get pregnant is an attitude toward an object; pregnancy is not a behavior in and of itself, it is a result of other behaviors. Attitudes toward premarital sex and use of contraceptive might not show such discrepancies. Attitudes may not be firmly held, because of lack of prior experience. Those who have been pregnant before may act more consistently. Lack of resources. People may not know about, or have access to, effective means of contraception.
Subjective norms may be determining behavior, rather than affective attitudes. Beliefs about consequences - may not believe their behavior is likely to produce a pregnancy. There is some rational basis for this - some teenagers have sex at very young ages, when they are subfecund; their failure to get pregnant leads them to think they can't. Other beliefs enter into their evaluation of the behavior.
0コメント