Chapter 7: AttitudesInitial thoughtsClassic debate: attitude neutrality (?)Why Neutrality is Difficult#2: mere exposure effectMoreland and Zajonc (1973)Additional information about mere exposure effectClassic Problems in Attitude MeasurementSlide 9Slide 10“Classic” (older) approachesOlder approaches, continuedexamples of “symbolic” attitudes (Kinder, 1986)Newer approach: Implicit AttitudesTypes of implicit priming tasksLexical decision tasks, continuedEvaluative decision tasksSlide 18SummaryWhy implicit attitudes potentially interestingStrong argument: separate systems viewThe critics speakMore realistic view?Subliminal Advertising?Historical BackgroundPeople’s current views toward subliminal vs. “regular” advertising:Evidence?Subliminal influence in laboratory settings— growing evidenceSo why no evidence (yet) that subliminal advertising works outside of the laboratory?Could subliminal priming be used to enhance self-esteem?Slide 31Chapter 7: AttitudesChapter 7: AttitudesInitial thoughts Initial thoughts Attitudes and expression of identity–Identity function–Utilitarian functionInterdiscplinary analysis–Behaviorism–Other fieldsClassic debate: attitude neutrality (?)Classic debate: attitude neutrality (?)Neutrality vs. Ambivalence vs. “No information”–Measurement?Societal value Possible?Why Neutrality is DifficultWhy Neutrality is Difficult#1 Automaticity of attitudes#2: mere exposure effect#2: mere exposure effectZajonc (1968)–The “Turkish word” studye.g., saricik, kadirga, ikitaf0, 1, 2, 5, 10, or 25 exposurespronounce aloud each timeGuess good vs. bad meaningMoreland and Zajonc (1973)Moreland and Zajonc (1973)Subliminal presentation (4 ms)Test phase:–“old” vs. and “new” symbols–Recognition task: chance level–Liking: old symbols preferredAdditional information about mere exposure effectAdditional information about mere exposure effectThe effects of repeated exposure depend on initial appraisal of the stimulusInitially liked, or neutral: increased liking, but:Initially disliked: increased dislikingClassic Problems in Attitude Classic Problems in Attitude MeasurementMeasurement1. Response alternatives not appropriate 2. Acquiescence (yea-saying) biases 3. FramingExamplesAbortionPro-life vs. pro-choice; “fetus” vs. “unborn child”, etc…Cloning“What is your attitude toward research on animal cloning?”“If research on animal cloning could be used to advance our ability to prevent cancer, would you be in favor of such research?”4. Social desirability effects (Goffman, 1959). “true” attitudeSocial desirabilityFundamental problem: “how much” of response is due to one factor or other.““Classic” (older) approachesClassic” (older) approaches Vary context in which responses are made The “Bogus Pipeline” (Jones & Sigall, 1971)–Participants “practice” on machine, to convince that can detect truth from lying–Then asked to express honest attitudes toward mix of new attitudes, some mundane, some socially sensitiveOlder approaches, continuedOlder approaches, continuedDisguise/mask what’s being asked–“Symbolic” attitudesUnderlying attitude A1Overtly expressed attitude A2(socially unacceptable )examples of “symbolic” attitudes (Kinder, examples of “symbolic” attitudes (Kinder, 1986)1986)“____ students receive too much financial assistance from the university” (Boneicki, 1998)“Discrimination against Blacks is a thing of the past” (McConahay, 1986)“Downtown St. Louis has too much crime” Potential advantages vs. disadvantages? Tradeoff: efforts to disguise question threaten construct validityNewer approach: Implicit Attitudes Newer approach: Implicit Attitudes Attitude object (prime)  target–Presentation of prime assumed to facilitate or inhibit response to the target –Semantic priming“chocolate” “food” (semantic priming)–Evaluative priming“chocolate”  “good” (direct) “chocolate”  “flower” (indirect) “chocolate”  “disgusting” Types of implicit priming tasksTypes of implicit priming tasksLexical decision tasks: decide whether target is a word or notprime“good” target chocolate“Word or non-word?”xxxxxxxx “good”responseresponseRT measured decisionLexical decision tasks, continuedLexical decision tasks, continuedConstruct facilitation indices–RT (xxxxx  good) – RT (chocolate good)–(500 milliseconds) - (200 milliseconds) = 300 ms–300 ms represents implicit attitude indexEvaluative decision tasksEvaluative decision tasksVery similar to lexical decision, but judgmental decision differentprime target decisionIs it a good or a bad word?chocolatedesirable responsexxxxxxdesirable responsesome brief demonstrationsSummarySummaryIf “A” and “B” are associated in memory, then presenting A should make B more accessibleConsequences of accessibility: faster to decide if B is–a word (lexical decision)–positive or negative (evaluative decision)Why implicit attitudes potentially Why implicit attitudes potentially interestinginterestingPotential dissociation Conscious vs. unconsciousImplicit attitudes less “contaminated” by self-presentational bias (?)Implicit attitudes “purer” measures of true attitudes (???)Strong argument:Strong argument:separate systems viewseparate systems viewAutomatic (unconscious) systemImplicit tasksControlled (conscious) systemExplicit tasksThe critics speakThe critics speak“just another attitude measure” predictive validity?–see Lambert, Payne, Shaffer, & Ramsey (2005)assumptions may be incorrect–strong correlations sometimes found–controllability of reactions to implicit tasks?“No such thing as a process-pure measure”–Larry Jacoby–No task 100% automatic–No task 100% controlledMore realistic view?More realistic view?Automatic systemImplicit tasksControlled systemExplicit tasksSubliminal Advertising?Subliminal Advertising?Historical BackgroundHistorical BackgroundThe James Vicary incident (late 1950s)–Popcorn sales increase by 50%, he says.Media reaction:Minds have been “broken and entered” (The New Yorker, 9/21/57)“The most alarming and outrageous discovery” since the invention of the machine gun (The Nation, 10/5/57)FCC bans subliminal advertisingPeople’s People’s currentcurrent views