Abstract
Recent demonstrations of the plausibility of functional theories of persuasion have occurred within advertising contexts or have targeted potentially nebulous or uninvolving attitudes, and may thus have demonstrated the utility of functional explanations of attitude formation rather than attitude change. In the present study, attitudes that participants have acted on and consider important (i.e., the criteria they use to select dating partners) were the targets of persuasion. High and low self-monitoring individuals, who hold different dating attitudes that serve different functions, were exposed to functionally relevant or functionally irrelevant messages that reached either proattitudinal or counterattitudinal conclusions. As anticipated by functional theory, (a) low self-monitoring individuals changed their dating attitudes only after hearing a counterattitudinal message that addressed thevalue-expressive functions their dating attitudes served, whereas (b) high self-monitoring individuals changed their opinions only after hearing a counterattitudinal message that addressed thesocial-adjustive functions served by their dating attitudes. Although the data revealed that important attitudes can be changed via a functionally relevant appeal, only the low self-monitoring individuals subsequently used their changed attitudes to guide their behavior in a subsequent couple-matching task. Implications of these results for functional theories of persuasion and for variations in attitude/behavior consistency were discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abelson, R. P., & Prentice, D. A. (1989). Beliefs as possessions: A functional perspective. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.),Attitude structure and function (pp. 361–381). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Converse, P. E. (1970). Attitudes and non-attitudes: Continuation of a dialogue. In E. R. Tufte (Ed.),The quantitative analysis of social problems (pp. 168–189). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
DeBono, K. G. (1987). Investigating the social-adjustive and value-expressive functions of attitudes: Implications for persuasion processes.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 279–287.
DeBono, K. G., & Harnish, R. J. (1988). Source expertise, source attractiveness, and the processing of persuasive information: A functional approach.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 541–546.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993).The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Glick, P. (1985). Orientations toward relationships: Choosing a situation in which to begin a relationship.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 544–562.
Glick, P., DeMorest, J. A., & Hotze, C. A. (1988). Self-monitoring and beliefs about partner compatibility in romantic relationships.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 485–494.
Herek, G. M. (1987). Can functions be measured? A new perspective on the functional approach to attitudes.Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 285–303.
Kardes, F. R., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Voss, R. T., & Fazio, R. H. (1986). Self-monitoring and attitude accessibility.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 468–474.
Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes.Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 163–204.
Rokeach, M. (1968).Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rosenthal, R. (1992). Computing contrasts: On sharpening psychological science. In R. F. Baumeister & D. M. Tice (Eds.),Dialogue of the society for personality and social psychology (p. 3) Cleveland, OH: Society for Personality and Social Psychology.
Shavitt, S. (1989). Operationalizing functional theories of attitude. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Beckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.),Attitude structure and function (pp. 311–338). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shavitt, S., & Fazio, R. H. (1988).Attitude functions and self-monitoring in the attitude-behavior relation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.
Smith, M. B., Bruner, J. S., & White, R. W. (1956).Opinion and personality. New York: Wiley.
Snyder, M., & DeBono, K. G. (1985). Appeals to images and claims about quality: Understanding the psychology of advertising.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 586–597.
Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 125–139.
Snyder, M., & Kendzierski, D. (1982). Acting on one’s attitudes: Procedures for linking attitudes and behavior.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 165–183.
Snyder, M., & Simpson, J. A. (1984). Self-monitoring and dating relationships.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1281–1291.
Tesser, A., & Shaffer, D. R. (1990). Attitudes and attitude change.Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 479–523.
Zanna, M. P., Olson, J. M., & Fazio, R. H. (1980). Attitude-behavior consistency: An individual difference perspective.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 432–440.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research is based on a Master’s thesis conducted by the first author under the direction of the second author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bazzini, D.G., Shaffer, D.R. Investigating the social-adjustive and value-expressive functions of well-grounded attitudes: Implications for change and for subsequent behavior. Motiv Emot 19, 279–305 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02856516
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02856516