Abstract
The resurgence of motivation science in recent decades ushers in a new functionalism whereby behavior, cognition and emotion are viewed as means to specific goals. Two classic social psychological issues are analyzed from the means-ends perspective: (1) humans’ alleged need (or drive) for cognitive consistency, and (2) the notion that attitudes drive behavior. A careful conceptual analysis yields, contrary to received views, that cognitive consistency, rather than constituting a general need or goal, represents instead a means of knowledge validation. Consequently, the degree to which inconsistency is experienced as aversive depends on the desirability of the knowledge that is being invalidated. Furthermore, the notion that attitudes directly drive behavior is contested on the grounds that attitudes (i.e., liking) must transmute into wanting and wanting must transmute into a (dominant) goal for behavior to be initiated. Major theories of attitude-behavior relations are discussed from this perspective and their supportive evidence is reinterpreted in the present means-ends terms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Other writers made this same point. Specifically, Calder and Ross (1973, p. 7), expressed doubt that “the mere fact that one has an attitude would produce behavior in and of itself.” Echoing these writers’ sentiment, Fazio (1995, p. 271) expressed reluctance “to ascribe any energizing value to attitudes.”
By ‘liking’ we mean a positive evaluation rather than merely an affective response.
For instance, an individual may abandon the goal of showing up at an important meeting, if the goal of caring for his/her sick child was activated. Again, it is not only the positive attitude toward the child’s health but attainability of improving the child’s health through one’s staying at home that drives the behavior. If the child was at a faraway land, so that one could do little for its benefit, one might have attended the meeting as planned originally.
Behavioral intentions differ from goals insofar as a goal is “a desirable future state of affairs one intends to attain through action” (Kruglanski 1996, p. 600), whereas a behavioral intention concerns a specific behavior that serves that goal.
It will be noted that in the situation depicted in this study subjective norm was highly correlated with attitude toward the behavior (r = 0.85), suggesting that the attitude reflected an internalized norm, and perceived behavioral control was uniformly high among participants (restricting the range on this variable).
References
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J.
Ajzen, I. (2012). Attitudes and persuasion. In K. Deaux & M. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 367–393). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ajzen, I. (2014). The theory of planned behaviour is alive and well, and not ready to retire: A commentary on Sniehotta, Presseau, and Araújo-Soares. Health Psychology Review. Advance online publication.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Eglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Allport, G. W. (1929). The composition of political attitudes. American Journal of Sociology, 35(2), 220–238.
Allport, G. W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), A handbook of social psychology (pp. 798–844). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.
Aronson, E. (1969). Some antecedents of interpersonal attraction. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 17, 143–173.
Aronson, J., Blanton, H., & Cooper, J. (1995). From dissonance to disidentification: Selectivity in the self-affirmation process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 986–996. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.6.986.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 178–204.
Berridge, K. C. (2004). Motivation concepts in behavioral neuroscience. Physiology & Behavior, 81(2), 179–209.
Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (2003). Parsing reward. Trends in Neurosciences, 26(9), 507–513.
Cacioppo, J. T., Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1981). The nature of attitudes and cognitive responses and their relationships to behavior. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 31–54). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Calder, B. J., & Ross, M. (1973). Attitudes and behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Cohen, A. R. (1960). Attitudinal consequences of induced discrepancies between cognitions and behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24(2), 297–318.
Cooper, J., & Fazio, R. H. (1984). A new look at dissonance theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 229–266.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 247–282). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fazio, R. H. (2007). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations of varying strength. Social Cognition, 25(5), 603–637.
Fazio, R. H., Powell, M. C., & Williams, C. J. (1989). The role of attitude accessibility in the attitude-to-behavior process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 280–288.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203–210. doi:10.1037/h0041593.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2011). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Higgins, E. T. (2011). Beyond pleasure and pain: How motivation works. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hilgard, E. R., & Marquis, D. G. (1961). Hilgard and Marquis’ conditioning and learning (2nd ed.). East Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts. doi:10.1037/14591-000.
Krosnick, J. A., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 1–24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kruglanski, A. W. (1996). Goals as knowledge structures. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 599–618). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kruglanski, A. W., & Shteynberg, G. (2012). Cognitive consistency as means to an end: How subjective logic affords knowledge. In B. Gawronski & F. Strack (Eds.), Cognitive consistency: A fundamental principle in social cognition (pp. 245–264). New York: Guilford Press.
Kruglanski, A. W., Bélanger, J. J., Chen, X., Köpetz, C., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (2012). The energetics of motivated cognition: A force-field analysis. Psychological Review, 119(1), 1–20.
Kruglanski, A. W., Chernikova, M., Rosenzweig, E., & Köpetz, C. (2014). On motivational readiness. Psychological Review, 121(3), 367–388.
Kruglanski, A. W., Jasko, K., Chernikova, M., Milyavsky, M., Babush, M., Baldner, C., & Pierro, A. (2015a). The rocky road from attitudes to behaviors: Charting the goal systemic course of actions. Psychological Review, 122(4), 598–620.
Kruglanski, A. W., Chernikova, M., & Kopetz, C. (2015b). Emerging trends in motivation science: The “What” and the “How” of Willing and Striving. In R. Scott & S. Kosslyn (Eds.), Emerging trends in social and behavioral sciences. New York, NJ: Wiley.
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Matching versus mismatching attitude functions: Implications for scrutiny of persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(3), 227–240.
Sheeran, P., & Orbell, S. (1998). Do intentions predict condom use? Meta-analysis and examination of six moderator variables. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37(2), 231–250.
Thibodeau, R., & Aronson, E. (1992). Taking a closer look: Reasserting the role of the self-concept in dissonance theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 591–602. doi:10.1177/0146167292185010.
Thurstone, L. L. (1931). The measurement of social attitudes. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 26(3), 249–269.
Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20(2), 158–177.
Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 249.
Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25(4), 41–78.
Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2007). A new look at habits and the habit-goal interface. Psychological Review, 114(4), 843–863.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Presidential address delivered at meeting of the Society for the Study of Motivation (SSM), May 21, 2015, New York City.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kruglanski, A.W. Rethinking social cognition in means-ends terms: A tale of two surprises. Motiv Emot 40, 343–350 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-016-9565-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-016-9565-7