Attitudes and the ABC Model

The views that we hold about ourselves, others, objects, and experiences make up our attitude (J. M. Olson & Zanna, 1993). Over the years, psychologists have proposed various theories and models to explain them. This includes the tri-model, also known as the ABC model of attitudes, which include affect, behavior, and cognition (J. M. Olson & Zanna, 1993). The affective model refers to the feelings an individual has and it results in a positive, negative, or neutral response as a result of a judgment. The behavioral component refers to how our attitude is expressed through actions. This includes actions we have taken or actions we will take should the need for us to act arises. Lastly, the cognitive component is our beliefs that we have about things. This may be a person, a group of people, an object, event, or issue.

ABC model of attitudes help us to not only be consistent, but to also help us to understand an attitude (J. M. Olson & Zanna, 1993). A person may say that they are terrified of snakes (affective), if they see one they’ll run (behavioral), and that they believe snakes are dangerous (cognitive). We also use affect, behavior, and cognition to help us interact with others because we develop schemas and attitudes that help us to better understand them (Tatsuya, Takezawa, & Hastie, 2003).

Attitudes can serve a myriad of functions including aiding in decision-making by way of object appraisal, expressing values that a person may have about themselves, or making the world easier to understand. Each one of these functions serves an important purpose in helping us, protecting us, or helping to define who we are. For instance, a value-expressive function is integral to a person’s self-concept. This attitude is part of who a person is and it communicates things about a person to others.

Research has shown that accessible attitudes not only ease decision making, but they increase the quality of decision making (Fazio & Olson, 2007). This was done by way of an experiment that measured participants’ blood pressure. Participants were forced to make pair-wise preference ratings of abstract paintings that were presented to them briskly. Some of the participants rehearsed attitudes about the paintings before hand and this resulted in a lower blood pressure than those who did not. Having a pre-formed attitude reduced the stress of making a decision and enhanced the quality of the decision itself (Fazio & Olson, 2007).

Stereotyping is a way the knowledge function of attitudes work. Stereotyping requires very little mental effort (Fazio & Olson, 2007). Though it allows us to quickly make decisions or make sense of people, it can lead us to make inferences of people that are largely inaccurate. Stereotypes have played a large role in the way the NYPD utilizes its “stop and frisk” law (Gelman, Fagan, & Kiss, 2007). The majority of the people who are stopped and frisk for no reason tend to be African Americans and Hispanics. Commercials have also played on stereotypes as one advertiser has done by sending a couple into a movie theater full of bikers. The typical view of bikers is that they’re mean and unruly (Poole & Staf, 2005). However, for those who stayed, the guys cheered and gave the couple a beer. Others left because they felt intimidated based on what they already had stereotyped about them. Stereotypes can help in the decision making process and protect us at times as well. If a person sees a large group of loud people headed in their direction late at night, the person may make the decision to head in the other direction.

When a person starts looking at question such as views on premarital sex, abortion, or any multitude of other issues in which people may hold strong opinions, they have developed attitudes about these beliefs (Fazio & Olson, 2007). These attitudes have influenced their beliefs as well as behavior. Researchers have found that attitudes and behaviors are not always aligned (Fazio & Olson, 2007). However, I feel that attitudes have an affect on behavior in the form of decision-making. As an example, many people hold some kind of religious or spiritual belief. Though they may have this belief, they do not always act in accordance with it. This particular belief may teach no premarital sex, but many may partake in it anyway. Though that may be the case, the attitude they may have about it is that it’s wrong and immoral. As a result, they will not go out preaching that premarital sex is “okay”.

In other cases, a person may actually change their attitude to align with their behavior or a person will change their behavior to align with their attitude. Some of these include: if a person is an expert on a particular subject matter, if there is some benefit from doing so, if they express that opinion repeatedly, or if they’ll win or lose something as a result. In the event that a person changes their attitude based on their behavior, there is a possibility that they have experienced cognitive dissonance. Lets say for instance that I am a vegetarian, and I started dating someone who eats meat. In order to reduce the tension that may come from our differences in eating habits, I could both end the relationship and find someone else who is a vegetarian, or I can de-emphasize the importance of not being a meat eater. As a personal reflection, I doubt that few people would opt to eat meat. In order to minimize the dissonance I may feel in that situation, my option is either to change my attitude or change my behavior.

How we feel, our beliefs, and our how we express ourselves is essential to how our attitudes are formed. We may not always act in accordance with our beliefs. In some of those instances, we may even change our beliefs or attitude to align with our behavior. Understanding the reasons why is complex and researchers continue to plug away at it. Though science has not been able to tell use why our behaviors do not always match our attitude, I feel that one day it will be able to.

References

Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2007). Chapter 6: Attitudes: Foundations, Functions, and Consequences. In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper, The Sage handbook of social psychology. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. ↩1 ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5
Gelman, A., Fagan, J., & Kiss, A. (2007). An Analysis of the New York City Police Department's ‘Stop-and-Frisk’ Policy in the Context of Claims of Racial Bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102(479), 813–823. doi:10.1198/016214506000001040 ↩
Olson, J. M., & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Attitudes and Attitude Change. Annual Review of Psychology, 44(1), 117–154. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.001001
Poole, I. J., & Staf, C. Q. (2005). Bikers a surprising force in grass-roots lobbying. CQ Weekly. ↩
Tatsuya, T., Takezawa, M., & Hastie, R. (2003). The logic of social sharing: An evolutionary game analysis of adaptive norm development. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 7(1), 2–19. ↩