If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website. Show If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.
The tripartite model of attitude, also known as the ABC model, breaks attitudes down to their three components.  The three components of attitude are:
This model helps us to define attitudes and deconstruct them to see what’s going on under the surface. Sometimes, affect is influencing behavior more than cognition (when we make impulse purchases, for example). Other times, cognition wins over (such as when we want something but decide not to get it right now because it’s too expensive). The ABC model of attitude can be used by marketers to find out why someone would want to buy a product (and better package it!) as well as psychologists to help people self-reflect on their own behaviors. The model emerged from the Yale University Communication and Attitude Program in the 1950s and 60s[1]. However, note that this model has fallen out of favor in recent decades, as discussed in our ‘criticisms’ section later in this article. The Structure of AttitudeAttitude is structured into three components: affect, behavior, and cognition. In this model, we consider there to be an “attitude object” that our attitudes and behaviors are directed at. AffectiveThe affective component of attitude refers to how we feel about something. It’s often our initial reaction and might be positive or negative, such as a fear-based reaction or an excitement-based reaction. It’s important to separate affect from cognition, where affect is what we feel and cognition is what we think. Our affective responses might be driven by deep-seeded memories or experiences that shape our feelings about things. For example, our negative past experiences with certain animals may inform our current feelings toward them. Some examples include:
BehavioralThe behavioral component of attitude refers to our intentions, or what we would do. It can be informed by our attitude or cognition. For example, if we’re afraid of something (our affect), we might run (our behavior). Similarly, if we However, the behavioral component is generally understood to be malleable. If a marketer does a good job at marketing a product, they can influence the behavior so that it is favorable (i.e. that the person purchases the product). The behavior is also often influenced by the ‘cognitive’ component, discussed next. CognitiveOur cognitive component is what we think about something. It’s what happens when we pause and really think hard about it. Cognitive and affective components are interrelated, but don’t always overlap. For example, we might think it’s a bad idea to take a holiday, even though we have positive feelings about it, because it’s too expensive. That’s because we’re overriding our impulsive feelings in order to make decisions based on logic. Sequence of Attitudes in the Tripartite ModelAffect, behavior or cognition could each win out in a decision. This changes depending on the situation. So, different ones come first, second and third at different times. Here are some examples:
Which Wins Out?We’ll often try to reflect on which of the three components in the ABC model will “win” and force a behavior. For example:
Here, the conflict between cognitive and affective components of attitude may be resolved by the third – past experience – which might be enough to cause a consumer to make a purchase. Further ExamplesHere are some more examples:
ConclusionThe ABC model has largely fallen out of favor in social psychology since the 1990s because it is widely understood that behavior should not be subsumed under attitude. They should, perhaps, instead be considered as separate things. As Sutton & Douglas (2020, p. 151) argue[2]:
Nonetheless, this model is useful for students to start thinking about how attitudes are formed and how we can influence behaviors by looking deeper at people’s cognitive and affective reactions to attitude objects. Read Next: A full list of 29 motivation theories References [1] Augoustinos, M., Walker, I., & Donaghue, N. (2014). Social cognition: An integrated introduction. London: Sage. [2] Sutton, R. & Douglas, K. (2020). Social Psychology. London: Springer. [3] McCabe, S. (2010). Marketing communications in tourism and hospitality. Los Angeles: Routledge.
Learning Objectives
Social psychologists have documented how the power of the situation can influence our behaviors. Now we turn to how the power of the situation can influence our attitudes and beliefs. Attitude is our evaluation of a person, an idea, or an object. We have attitudes for many things ranging from products that we might pick up in the supermarket to people around the world to political policies. Typically, attitudes are favorable or unfavorable: positive or negative (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). And, they have three components: an affective component (feelings), a behavioral component (the effect of the attitude on behavior), and a cognitive component (belief and knowledge) (Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960). For example, you may hold a positive attitude toward recycling. This attitude should result in positive feelings toward recycling (such as “It makes me feel good to recycle” or “I enjoy knowing that I make a small difference in reducing the amount of waste that ends up in landfills”). Certainly, this attitude should be reflected in our behavior: You actually recycle as often as you can. Finally, this attitude will be reflected in favorable thoughts (for example, “Recycling is good for the environment” or “Recycling is the responsible thing to do”). Our attitudes and beliefs are not only influenced by external forces, but also by internal influences that we control. Like our behavior, our attitudes and thoughts are not always changed by situational pressures, but they can be consciously changed by our own free will. In this section we discuss the conditions under which we would want to change our own attitudes and beliefs. Social psychologists have documented that feeling good about ourselves and maintaining positive self-esteem is a powerful motivator of human behavior (Tavris & Aronson, 2008). In the United States, members of the predominant culture typically think very highly of themselves and view themselves as good people who are above average on many desirable traits (Ehrlinger, Gilovich, & Ross, 2005). Often, our behavior, attitudes, and beliefs are affected when we experience a threat to our self-esteem or positive self-image. Psychologist Leon Festinger (1957) defined cognitive dissonance as psychological discomfort arising from holding two or more inconsistent attitudes, behaviors, or cognitions (thoughts, beliefs, or opinions). Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance states that when we experience a conflict in our behaviors, attitudes, or beliefs that runs counter to our positive self-perceptions, we experience psychological discomfort (dissonance). For example, if you believe smoking is bad for your health but you continue to smoke, you experience conflict between your belief and behavior. Figure 1. Cognitive dissonance is aroused by inconsistent beliefs and behaviors. Believing cigarettes are bad for your health, but smoking cigarettes anyway, can cause cognitive dissonance. To reduce cognitive dissonance, individuals can change their behavior, as in quitting smoking, or change their belief, such as discounting the evidence that smoking is harmful. (credit “cigarettes”: modification of work by CDC/Debora Cartagena; “patch”: modification of “RegBarc”/Wikimedia Commons; “smoking”: modification of work by Tim Parkinson) Later research documented that only conflicting cognitions that threaten individuals’ positive self-image cause dissonance (Greenwald & Ronis, 1978). Additional research found that dissonance is not only psychologically uncomfortable but also can cause physiological arousal (Croyle & Cooper, 1983) and activate regions of the brain important in emotions and cognitive functioning (van Veen, Krug, Schooler, & Carter, 2009). When we experience cognitive dissonance, we are motivated to decrease it because it is psychologically, physically, and mentally uncomfortable. We can reduce cognitive dissonance by bringing our cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors in line—that is, making them harmonious. This can be done in different ways, such as:
A classic example of cognitive dissonance is John, a 20-year-old who enlists in the military. During boot camp he is awakened at 5:00 a.m., is chronically sleep deprived, yelled at, covered in sand flea bites, physically bruised and battered, and mentally exhausted (Figure 2). It gets worse. Recruits that make it to week 11 of boot camp have to do 54 hours of continuous training. Figure 2. A person who has chosen a difficult path must deal with cognitive dissonance in addition to many other discomforts. (credit: Tyler J. Bolken) Not surprisingly, John is miserable. No one likes to be miserable. In this type of situation, people can change their beliefs, their attitudes, or their behaviors. The last option, a change of behaviors, is not available to John. He has signed on to the military for four years, and he cannot legally leave. If John keeps thinking about how miserable he is, it is going to be a very long four years. He will be in a constant state of cognitive dissonance. As an alternative to this misery, John can change his beliefs or attitudes. He can tell himself, “I am becoming stronger, healthier, and sharper. I am learning discipline and how to defend myself and my country. What I am doing is really important.” If this is his belief, he will realize that he is becoming stronger through his challenges. He then will feel better and not experience cognitive dissonance, which is an uncomfortable state. The military example demonstrates the observation that a difficult initiation into a group influences us to like the group more. Another social psychology concept, justification of effort, suggests that we value goals and achievements that we put a lot of effort into. According to this theory, if something is difficult for us to achieve, we believe it is more worthwhile. For example, if you move to an apartment and spend hours assembling a dresser you bought from Ikea, you will value that more than a fancier dresser your parents bought you. We do not want to have wasted time and effort to join a group that we eventually leave. A classic experiment by Aronson and Mills (1959) demonstrated this justification of effort effect. College students volunteered to join a campus group that would meet regularly to discuss the psychology of sex. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: no initiation, an easy initiation, and a difficult initiation into the group. After participating in the first discussion, which was deliberately made very boring, participants rated how much they liked the group. Participants who underwent a difficult initiation process to join the group rated the group more favorably than did participants with an easy initiation or no initiation (Figure 3). Figure 3. Justification of effort has a distinct effect on a person liking a group. Students in the difficult initiation condition liked the group more than students in other conditions due to the justification of effort. Similar effects can be seen in a more recent study of how student effort affects course evaluations. Heckert, Latier, Ringwald-Burton, and Drazen (2006) surveyed 463 undergraduates enrolled in courses at a midwestern university about the amount of effort that their courses required of them. In addition, the students were also asked to evaluate various aspects of the course. Given what you’ve just read, it will come as no surprise that those courses that were associated with the highest level of effort were evaluated as being more valuable than those that did not. Furthermore, students indicated that they learned more in courses that required more effort, regardless of the grades that they received in those courses (Heckert et al., 2006). Besides the classic military example and group initiation, can you think of other examples of cognitive dissonance? Here is one: Marco and Maria live in Fairfield County, Connecticut, which is one of the wealthiest areas in the United States and has a very high cost of living. Marco telecommutes from home and Maria does not work outside of the home. They rent a very small house for more than $3000 a month. Maria shops at consignment stores for clothes and economizes where she can. They complain that they never have any money and that they cannot buy anything new. When asked why they do not move to a less expensive location, since Marco telecommutes, they respond that Fairfield County is beautiful, they love the beaches, and they feel comfortable there. How does the theory of cognitive dissonance apply to Marco and Maria’s choices?
Think It Over
Cognitive dissonance often arises after making an important decision, called post-decision dissonance (or in popular terms, buyer’s remorse). Describe a recent decision you made that caused dissonance and describe how you resolved it.
attitude: evaluations of or feelings toward a person, idea, or object that are typically positive or negative cognitive dissonance: psychological discomfort that arises from a conflict in a person’s behaviors, attitudes, or beliefs that runs counter to one’s positive self-perception Contribute!Did you have an idea for improving this content? We’d love your input. Improve this pageLearn More |
What is an example of the cognitive component in attitudes?
Pos Terkait
Copyright © 2024 ketiadaan Inc.
