Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 131–139 | Cite as

The Efect of the Experience with Attitude Object on the Relationships among Cognitive and Affective Components Of Attitude And Behavioral Intentions

  • Yoram Bar-Tal
Article

Abstract

The present study examined the effect of experience with the attitude object on the relationship between the cognitive (Ac) and affective (Aa) components of attitude, and their differential ability to predict behavioral intentions (Bl). It was hypothesized that experience may lead to a greater accessibility of Ac and thus to its better ability to predict Bl if the latter is of a cognitive nature. Participants in the study were 250 nursing department students, with various levels of experience with nursing research activities. Their Aa, Ac, and Bl were assessed by a questionnaire. The results of a regression analysis confirmed the hypothesis: The weight of Aa in predicting Bl decreased as the academic level of the subjects increased, and it became insignificant in the most experienced group. In contrast, the weight of Ac was insignificant in the least experienced group, and it increased as the academic level increased. The importance of the correspondence between the nature of experience and the nature of the tested behavior for predicting the relationship between each of the attitude’s components and behavior is discussed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AJZEN, I. (1982). On behaving in accordance with one’s attitudes. In M. P. Zanna, E. T. Higgins, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Consistency in social behavior, The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 2, 3–15). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. AJZEN, I., & FISHBEIN, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  3. CHAIKEN, S., & BALDWIN, M. W. (1981). Affective-cognitive consistency and the effect of salient behavioral information on the self-perception of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. CHAIKEN, S., & STANGOR, C. (1987). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 575–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. CRONBACH, L. J. (1987). Statistical tests for modarator variables: Flaws in analysis recently proposed. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 414–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DAVIDSON, A. R., YANTIS, S., NORWOOD, M. N., & MONTANO, D. E. (1985). Amount of information about the attitude object and attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1184–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. FAWCETT, J. (1984). Hallmarks of success in nursing research. Advances in Nursing Science, 7, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. FAZIO, R. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior? In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 204–243). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  9. FAZIO, R. H. (in press). On the functionality of attitudes: The role of attitude accessibility. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. FAZIO, R. H., CHEN, J., MCDONEL, E. C, & SHERMAN, S. J. (1982). Attitude accessibility, attitude-behavior consistency, and the strength of the object-evaluation association. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 339–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. FAZIO, R. H., POWELL, M. C, & HERR, P. N. (1983). Toward a process model of the attitude-behavior relation: Accessing one’s attitude upon observation of the attitude object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44, 723–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. FAZIO, R. H., SANBONMATSU, D. M., POWELL, M. C, & KARDES, F. R. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 229–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. FAZIO, R. H., & ZANNA, M. P. (1981). Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 161–202). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. FISHBEIN, M. (1979). A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. In M. M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 27, pp. 65–116). Lincoln: The University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  15. FISHBEIN, M., & AJZEN, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, Ma: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  16. FISKE, S. T., KINDER, D. R., & LARTER, W. M. (1983). The novice and expert: Knowledge-based strategies in political cognition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. KALLGREN, C. A., & WOOD, W. (1986). Access to attitude-relevant information in memory as a determinant of attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 328–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. MILLER, M. G., & TESSER, A. (1986). Effects of affective and cognitive focus on the attitude-behavior relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 270–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. NORMAN, R. (1975). Affective-cognitive consistency, attitudes, conformity, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. POWELL, M. C, & FAZIO, R. H. (1984). Attitude accessibility as a function of repeated attitudinal expression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ROSENBERG, M. J. (1960). Astructural theory of attitude dynamics. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 319–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. SCHLEGEL, R. P., & DITECCO, D. (1982). Attitudinal structure and the attitude-behavior relation. In M. P. Zanna, E. T. Higgins, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Consistency in social behavior, The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 2, 17–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. SHERMAN, S. J., & FAZIO, R. H. (1983). Parallels between attitudes and traits as predictors of behavior. Journal of Personality, 51, 308–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. SMITH, E. R., & LERNER, M. (1976). Development of automatism of social judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 246–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. WILSON, T. D., & DUNN, D. S. (1986). Effects of introspection on attitude-behavior consistency: Analyzing reasons versus focusing on feelings. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. WILSON, T. D., DUNN, D. S., KRAFT, D., & LISLE, D. J. (1989). Introspection and attitude-behavior consistency: The disruptive effects of explaining why we feel the way we do. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 287–343). Orlando, Fl: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. ZANNA, M. P., & REMPEL, J. K. (1988). Attitudes: A new look at an old concept. In D. Bar-Tal & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology of knowledge (pp. 315–334). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yoram Bar-Tal
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Medicine, Department of NursingTel-Aviv UniversityRamat AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations