JOURNAL

OF EXPERIMENTAL

SOCIAL

PSYCHOLOGY

26, 124-148 (1990)

The Role of Attitude Objects in Attitude Functions

SHARON SHAVITT
University

of Illinois

at Urbana-Champaign

Received January 3, 1989

Previous approaches to attitude functions have examined personality and situational influences on the multiple functions that can be served by the same
attitudes. The present analysis focuses on the role of attitude objects in attitude
functions and proposes that attitudes toward some objects tend to serve a single
function. Using newly developed measures of attitude functions, Study 1 established that objects that are primarily associated with a single attitude function
(utilitarian, social identity, or self-esteem maintenance function) can be identified.
In Study 2, such objects served as a basis for directly varying the functions of
attitudes, by varying the types of objects that served as experimental stimuli.
This study investigated whether attitudes toward objects that engage different
functions respond to different types of persuasive appeals. Subjects read appeals
(advertisements) containing function-relevant or function-irrelevant information
about products assumed primarily to engage either a utilitarian or a social identity
function. Function-relevant ads were more persuasive than function-irrelevant
ads, consistent with the findings of previous functional approaches. Additional
data identified a situational factor, the juxtaposition of appeals, that influenced
the magnitude of these effects. D 1990 Academic PWS, 1~.

Decades of research on attitudes have

form opinions quickly and spontaneously
defend and slow to change those opinions.
silience of attitudes suggests that attitudes
the individual. The psychological functions

suggested that people often

and that they are quick to
This pervasiveness and reserve important functions for
of attitudes have eluded em-

This paper is based on a doctoral dissertation submitted to Ohio State University. The
research was supported by a Graduate Student Research Award and an Ohio State University Presidential Fellowship awarded to the author. The author was supported by NIMH
Postdoctoral Fellowship MHl7146-04 at Indiana University during part of the preparation
of this manuscript. Thanks are due Timothy C. Brock, Russell H. Fazio, Anthony G.
Greenwald, Thomas M. Ostrom, Steven J. Sherman, and Mark Snyder for their valuable
comments on previous drafts. I also thank Lisa Leitzell, Michael Martin, and Tina Thome
for their assistance in data collection and coding. Finally, I am grateful to Thomas K.
Srull for his sagacity and support. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be
sent to Sharon Shavitt, Department of Advertising, University of Illinois, 119 Gregory
Hall, 810 S. Wright Street, Urbana, IL 61801.
124
0022-1031190 $3.00
Copyright
0 1990 by Academic
Press. Inc.
All rights of reproduction
in any form reserved

ATTITUDE

FUNCTIONS

125

pirical scrutiny until recently, largely because they lacked operational

definitions. This paper focuses on a heretofore neglected factor in attitude
functions-the
attitude object. It proposes that attitude objects influence
attitude functions, derives new functional operations based on attitude
objects, and illustrates the utility of this approach in predicting the persuasiveness of appeals.
Functions

of Attitudes

Theories about the functions of attitudes were first proposed over 30

years ago (Smith, Bruner, & White, 1956; Katz, 1960; Katz & Stotland,
1959; Kelman, 1958, 1961). For the present research purposes, the attitude functions that were proposed are grouped into three conceptually
distinct categories: utilitarian,
social identity, and self-esteem maintenance. These categories, and their relationship to the originally proposed
attitude functions, are reviewed below.
Katz (1960) proposed that attitudes serve a knowledge function, helping
to organize and structure ones environment and provide consistency in
ones frame of reference. All attitudes probably serve this fundamental
function to some extent (see Fazio, 1989). In addition, attitudes can
serve to maximize rewards and minimize punishments obtained from
objects in ones environment (Katzs utilitarian or instrumental function).
Smith et al.s (1956) object-appraisal function resembles both the knowledge and utilitarian functions in its focus on how attitudes classify objects
to make responses available that maximize ones interests. This role of
attitudes in maintaining
rewards is referred to here as the utilitarian
function.
Attitudes can also aid in self-expression and social interaction. Smith
et al. (1956) noted that attitudes mediate self-other relations and establish
ones identity (the social-adjustment
function). Similarly,
Katz (1960)
suggested that attitudes symbolize and express ones central values and
self-concept (the value-expressive
function). This role of attitudes is
referred to here as the social identity function. This function can be
thought of as a category of motives that includes both private identity
and public identity goals. Important insights have been provided both
by examining the distinction between public and private identity motives
(e.g., Snyder & DeBono, 1985) and by considering these motives together
as part of a broader symbolic category of attitudes (e.g., Abelson, 1982;
Herek, 1987; Sears & McConahay,
1973). This paper focuses on this
broader category of social identity (symbolic) attitudes.
Finally, attitudes can play a variety of roles in maintaining self-esteem.
Functional theorists, focusing on psychodynamic
principles, suggested
that attitudes can serve as defense mechanisms for coping with internal
conflicts (Smith et al.s externalization
function and Katzs ego-defense
function). These attitudes distance the self from threatening outgroups

126

SHARON

SHAVITT

by projecting ones own unacceptable impulses onto them. Attitudes also

serve to maintain self-esteem in other ways. For example, ones attitudes
toward the self affect self-esteem directly (in fact, they define selfesteem). Also, the choice of others to affiliate with or distance oneself
from depends in part on whether they provide a basis for self-enhancing
social comparison (Tesser & Campbell,
1983). In sum, attitudes may
affect self-esteem through a variety of social and ego-defensive processes
that are together referred to here as the self-esteem maintenance
function.
Which Factors Injkence the Functions of Attitudes?
The functions outlined above, although not necessarily comprising an
exhaustive list, represent the major motivational
categories that were
proposed by functional theorists. Which of these functions an attitude
would serve was thought to depend on personality and environmental
factors (Kiesler, Collins, & Miller, 1969). The same attitude could presumably serve different functions for different people, or different functions in different situations. Tests of functional hypotheses, therefore,
typically operationalized
attitude functions by assessing or manipulating
the different functions of a single attitude. These studies employed a
variety of attitude objects and topics (e.g., blacks, racial policies, science
education, and various consumer products), stipulating the ways in which
personality or situational factors would influence the functions of attitudes toward them. But research did not explicitly consider the role of
the attitude objects themselves.
However, attitude objects may differ in the attitude functions that are
associated with them. Some objects may be primarily associated with a
single function and may rarely be associated with others. Understanding
the relation between attitude objects and functions could provide new
conceptual and operational approaches to functional theory. A consideration of previous functional approaches will illustrate (see Shavitt,
1989, for a review).
Individual

Difference

Approaches

Many studies used personality measures to identify the functions that

ones attitudes are likely to serve. Most focused on one of the key
hypotheses of functional theory: The conditions necessary for attitude
change depend upon the function that the attitude serves. For example,
early studies used individuals
level of ego defensiveness to predict the
relative effectiveness of different types of appeals in changing prejudiced
attitudes toward blacks (e.g., Katz, Sarnoff, & McClintock,
1956;
McClintock,
1958; Stotland, Katz, & Patchen, 1959).
More recently, studies by Snyder and DeBono (1985; DeBono, 1987;
DeBono & Harnish, 1988) employed a measure of self-monitoring
(Sny-

ATTITUDE

FUNCTIONS

127

der, 1974) to identify the private versus public identity functions that
individuals attitudes were likely to serve. This research produced consistent results about the persuasiveness of different types of appeals for
high versus low self-monitoring individuals. However, in one set of studies (Snyder & DeBono, 1983, there was suggestive evidence that the
differences between attitude objects could also be important in predicting
the persuasiveness of appeals. Among the products studied, strong results
were obtained for whiskey, a product whose brands would appear to
have some relevance to a variety of functions, including social identity.
However, nonsignificant results were obtained for coffee and cigarettes,
products whose brands (particularly coffee) may have fewer implications
for social approval.
Situational Approaches

Perhaps the most often-cited studies on situational factors in attitude

functions are those that tested Kelmans (1958, 1961) model of comphante, identification,
and internalization
processes. Although this model
was not strictly a theory of attitudes, but of social influence more broadly
defined, it did focus on the motives underlying acceptance of social
influence. Kelman induced the motivational
conditions he proposed for
these processes by manipulating aspects of the communications
(or communicators) to which subjects were exposed. He found that attitude
change toward racial segregation (Kelman, 1958) and science education
(Kelman,
1961) served different functions in different communication
situations.
Toward an Object-Based Approach

Previous functional approaches were based on the assumption that

different functions could be associated with attitudes toward the same
object: Utilitarian,
social identity, and self-esteem goals could all underlie
attitudes toward science education, racial policies, and many consumer
products. However, not all attitude objects are necessarily multifunctional. Some may be more limited in their functions, and this may have
important conceptual and operational implications.
The role of attitude objects has been overlooked to date in functional
theory and research. Yet, the purposes that an object serves may substantially influence the functions of attitudes toward those objects. The
purposes served by an object can stem from a number of factors: Attributes of the object itself, including its physical features (e.g., its taste,
its size), and other characteristics (e.g., its flammability,
its cost), as
well as cultural or societal definitions of the object (e.g., glamorous,
fashionable),
should contribute to the purposes an object can serve.
Some objects seem to serve primarily a single type of purpose. For
example, coffee serves primarily utilitarian purposes of providing pleas-

128

SHARON SHAVIM

ant taste and increased alertness. It typically does not serve, say, social
identity purposes of self-expression. Other objects serve multiple purposes. For example, a car serves both the utilitarian purpose of providing
transportation
and the social identity purpose of communicating
status.
Thus, attitudes toward coffee would likely derive from its utilitarian
purposes and should serve the utilitarian function of guiding purchase
and consumption
of coffee so as to maximize its rewards. But coffee
attitudes would be unlikely to serve a social identity function. Meanwhile,
attitudes toward a car may derive from either its utilitarian or social
identity purposes or both.
Some caveats should be noted in the proposed relation between attitude
objects and attitude functions. First, the purposes served by an object,
and the functions served by attitudes toward it, are not predetermined
or immutable. They can change as attributes of the object are modified
or as societal definitions change over time. Second, because societal
definitions contribute to the purposes an object can serve, those purposes
may sometimes differ between populations. For example, some groups
may define coffee in terms of religious values, while other groups may
define certain coffees as symbols of sophistication (consider a yuppies
view of cappuccino). Despite these limitations,
it may be possible to
identify objects that are likely to be primarily associated with a single
attitude function at a particular time and in an undifferentiated
population. Identification
of such objects would underscore the important role
of attitude objects in attitude functions. Identifying such objects would
also have operational utility: By presenting subjects with different types
of single-function
objects to respond to, the functions of their attitudes
could be varied experimentally.
Study 1 was conducted to investigate whether-for
some objectsattitudes would predominantly
serve a single function, and whether such
objects could be identified. Of course, the identification of single-function
objects would not imply that a majority of objects would fit this criterion,
simply that a subset of objects do, and that members of this subset
represent an important category of objects that influence the functions
of attitudes.
STUDY 1: A SEARCH FOR SINGLE-FUNCTION

ATTITUDE OBJECTS

Subjects open-ended descriptions of their attitudes were used to assess

the functions of attitudes toward objects expected to engage a single
function (see Herek, 1987, for a similar open-ended approach). An important additional goal was the development of a valid and reliable coding
method for measuring attitude functions that could be applied across a
variety of objects. Utilitarian,
social identity, and self-esteem maintenance functional categories were examined here for the following reasons: (1) They represent the major conceptual distinctions among the

ATTITUDE

FUNCTIONS

129

many functions that have been proposed (see Introduction).

(2) Evidence
was needed regarding major distinctions between functions before applying this approach to subtler functional differences. (3) Clearly differentiable coding categories could be more readily developed for these
functions.
Criteria for selection
of objects. Objects were selected with the expectation that they would engage predominantly
one attitude function.
Although several of the objects may engage more than one function, it
was expected that their predominant function would be as indicated here,
particularly for the population from which the subjects were drawn (college students). The criteria used to select these objects are outlined
below.
1. Objects were expected to engage a utilitarian attitude function to
the extent that they were intrinsically associated with rewards and punishments, and with behavior routines that maximize their rewards. For
example, an air conditioner could be considered utilitarian because there
are rewards (e.g., comfort) and punishments (e.g., high energy bills)
intrinsically
associated with it, as well as behavior routines relevant to
those outcomes. Based on these criteria, the utilitarian objects chosen
were (1) air conditioners, (2) coffee, (3) the flu, and (4) final examinations.
2. Objects were expected to engage a social identity attitude function
to the extent that they were commonly considered as symbols of identity
and values, or to represent social classifications or reference groups.
They were also expected to be linked to public behavior routines, in
which ones attitudes toward the objects are displayed or discussed. For
example, a nations flag is a social identity object because it symbolizes
national values and represents a social (i.e., national) classification with
which people may identify. Also, a flag is associated with public behavior
routines designed to communicate
ones attitude toward it. Based on
these criteria, the social identity objects chosen were (1) the American
flag, (2) a wedding ring, (3) the Republican party, and (4) an Ohio State
Buckeyes sweatshirt.
3. Finally, objects that represent aspects of ones self-concept should
be directly associated with self-esteem and, thus, were expected to engage a self-esteem maintenance function. The major components of the
self-concept may differ among persons, but some aspects were thought
to be central for most individuals (e.g., appearance, personality, and
intelligence). In addition, objects that people tend to distance themselves
from psychologically
(e.g., outgroups) were expected to engage a selfesteem maintenance function through social comparison or ego-defensive
processes. The self-esteem maintenance objects chosen were (1) subjects
appearance, (2) subjects personality, (3) the bottom 5% of subjects high
school graduating class, and (4) homosexuals.

130

SHARON

SHAVITT

Method
Subjects. Subjects were 127 introductory psychology students at Ohio State University,
who participated as part of a course requirement.
Materials.
Each subject responded to questions about three randomly assigned attitude
objects, one object in each function category. The order of responding to these objects
was counterbalanced in a Latin-square design. Subjects first read a cover sheet that gave
the thought-listing instructions:
You will be asked to describe your attitudes towards some objects on special
forms that contain boxes in which to write your description.
. Please list in
the boxes what your feelings are about the attitude object, and why you feel the
way you do. That is, write down all of your thoughts and feelings that are relevant
to your attitude, and try to describe the reasons for your feelings.
Subjects described their attitudes on standard thought-listing forms (Cacioppo & Petty,
1981) on which six boxes were printed. They also received instructions to rate the favorability of each of their thoughts to the attitude object along a favorability scale with values
of -3, -1, 0, +I, and +3.
Another form assessed how important subjects felt each of their listed thoughts was to
their attitude. The form described a 5-point scale for this importance rating and instructed
subjects to rate each of their first three thoughts and to write explanations for these ratings.
Attitudes toward each object were assessed on a single I-point scale (endpoints were
labeled very negative/very positive). Finally, a structured measure was employed as a
check on the functions assumed to be engaged by the objects. On this measure, subjects
rated directly the contributions of three function-relevant factors to their attitudes: my
values and my friends beliefs (social identity), my past experiences with object/group
(utilitarian), and my self-esteem: how confident I feel about myself (self-esteem maintenance). The extent of each factors contribution to ones attitude toward each object
was rated separately on a S-point scale.
Procedure.
Subjects participated in groups of approximately 30. They were informed
that all their responses would be anonymous. Subjects began by describing their attitude
toward the first assigned object for 4 min. after which they rated the favorability of each
thought. The same procedure was followed for the second and third objects. Next. subjects
returned to their first set of listed thoughts and rated those thoughts for their importance
to the attitude. They then did this for the second and third sets of thoughts. Finally,
subjects completed the attitude items and the direct, structured measure of attitude functions, and were debriefed and dismissed.

Results

Direct Assessment of Attitude Functions

Subjects ratings on the direct measure of attitude functions yielded
a pattern consistent with a priori assumptions about the objects (see
Table I). Objects assumed to engage primarily a utilitarian function elicited the highest ratings for the contribution
of the past experiences
The wording of the utilitarian item was based on the reasoning that past experiences
with the object would be salient to the extent that they involved rewards or punishments.
A subsequent version of this measure (see Study 2). which included wording that was
more specific to the utilitarian function, yielded ratings consistent with the present item.

ATTITUDE

131

FUNCTIONS

TABLE
1
MEANS ON DIRECT RATINGS OF ATTITUDE FUNCTIONS AS A FUNCTION
AND RATED FACTOR

OF

TYPE OF OBJECT

Rated factor

Type of object
Utilitarian*
Social identity
Self-esteem maintenance*

My values and
My self-esteem:
My past
experiences with
my friends
How confident I
beliefs
feel about myself
object/group
(Social identity)* (Self-esteem maintenancy)*
(Utilitarian)*
4.32,
3.27.
3.59~

2.07h,
3.4F
3.88.

2 .40,
3.0@
4.05bz

Note. All means are based on N = 125 (two observations were deleted from withinsubject analyses due to missing data). Ratings were made on a 5-point scale, where 5
indicates that the factor contributes a great deal to my attitude and 1 indicates that the
factor does not contribute at all to my attitude. Duncan pairwise comparisons were
conducted for all pairwise combinations of means for each row and for each column. Means
sharing the same a, b, or c superscript in a particular row or the same x, y, or z superscript
in a column were not significantly different at p < .05.
* Analysis of a simple main effect of other variable was significant for this condition at
p < .05. For example, the main effect of type of factor being rated on the ratings an object
received was significant at the level of utilitarian objects and of self-esteem maintenance
objects.

factor, both as compared to the other factors rated and as compared to

other objects rated on the same factor. The same is true of the selfesteem factor for objects assumed to engage a self-esteem maintenance
function. Finally, objects assumed to engage primarily a social identity
function elicited the highest ratings for the values and friends beliefs
factor as compared to the other factors rated.
These ratings were submitted to an analysis of variance with type of
object (utilitarian vs social identity vs self-esteem maintenance) and rated
factor (past experience vs values vs self-esteem) as within-subject variables and counterbalance order of objects as a between-subjects variable.
This analysis yielded significant main effects for type of object (F(2,
244) = 45.20; p < .Ol) and rated factor (F(2, 244) = 19.01; p < .Ol),
as well as a significant Object x Factor interaction (F(4, 488) = 60.32;
p < .Ol). The main effect for object indicated that all factors, overall,
were rated as making a stronger contribution
to attitudes toward selfesteem maintenance objects than to attitudes toward other objects. The
main effect for factor indicated that, over all objects combined, the factor
rated as making the strongest contribution
to attitude was own past
experience (utilitarian factor). The significant Object x Factor interaction
is the key result, suggesting that the factor rated as making the strongest
contribution
to ones attitude depended upon the attitude function as-

132

SHARON SHAVIT-I-

sumed to be engaged by the object. A series of simple main effects

analyses were conducted for attitude object and rated factor, nearly all
of which yielded significant effects. And Duncan pairwise tests were
significant for several of the key comparisons (see Table 1).
The ratings for each attitude object individually
were also supportive
for most of the objects (see Shavitt, 1985, for details). Thus, these results
provided initial evidence that the identification
of primarily single-function objects was generally successful. Subjects apparently were describing attitudes toward objects that predominantly
served the particular
function they were expected to serve.
Functional Content Rejected in Attitude Descriptions
Coding manual development. Prior to reviewing subjects attitude descriptions, a manual for coding them was developed from theory-based
expectations about the content likely to reflect particular functions. Three
major categories of function-relevant
themes were used in classifying
thoughts. The utilitarian category included themes about (1) features or
attributes
of the attitude
object
and (2) references
to rewards/punishments
associated with the object. The social identity category included thoughts about (1) others attitudes toward the object (2)
what the attitude communicates
to others, and (3) ones own values.
Finally, the self-esteem maintenance category included (1) implications
of the attitude for self-regard and (2) concerns about self-evaluation,
as
well as such ego-defensive themes as (3) distortions of information about
the object and (4) statements that distance the self from the object (including favorable comparison of self to the object). See Appendix for a
fuller description of the coding manual.
There was also a category for thoughts conveying multiple functions.
Judges were instructed to specify two functions when classifying a
thought into this multiple category. Finally, there was a category for
thoughts that contained no function-relevant
content (e.g., I dont like

To insure that subjects

ratings on this measure were not in some way affected by the
preceding task of describing ones attitudes, a comparison group of 53 subjects were asked
simply to rate the extent to which each of the three function-relevant factors contributed
to their overall attitude toward each of three objects (assigned from the same 12 objects).
Comparison subjects ratings were identical to the pattern of means in the main experiment,
and analyses of variance yielded a similar set of significant effects.
3 Although public and private identity functions are aggregated here under the social
identity category, the coding manual provides separate classifications for these motives
and, thus, can be employed to examine public and private identity functions separately.
The classification public identity includes thoughts that focus on what the attitude communicates to others or on rules for attitude expression. The classification private identity
includes thoughts that focus on the values represented by the attitude object or on approval
or disapproval of the object.

ATTITUDE

133

FUNCTIONS

coffee conveys nothing about the attitudes function). There were very
few such thoughts, and they are not discussed further.
Coding procedure. Two judges practiced using the coding manual by
independently
coding the first 31 subjects attitude descriptions. After
discussion,
they independently
coded the remaining
96 subjects
thoughts. They were permitted to consult subjects responses on the
importance rating forms (see Materials), but were instructed not to allow
responses on those forms to introduce new interpretations
not already
suggested in the thoughts.
The two judges agreed with each other on 74% of their classifications
performed on the 96 subjects thoughts (chance is 26%). This percentage
of agreement is a conservative figure because overlaps were counted as
disagreements. For example, if judge 1 coded a thought into the multiple
category, specifying utilitarian and social identity themes, and judge 2
coded the thought as utilitarian, this counted as a disagreement. (With
a relaxed criterion, in which such overlaps were counted as half-agreements, the percentage of agreement rose to 81%.) The thoughts that
elicited disagreements were found to be distributed among all of the
objects. A third judge coded these thoughts, after being trained on the
first 31 subjects thoughts.
Results of coding. Only the results based on the 96 subjects thoughts
are reported here. As Table 2 shows, objects assumed primarily to engage
a certain attitude function elicited thoughts that were typically coded
into the corresponding function category, particularly for utilitarian and
social identity objects. The numbers of thoughts classified into each of
the three major function categories were submitted to a three-way analysis of variance with type of object and coding category as within-subject
factors and counterbalance order of objects as a between-subjects factor.
This analysis yielded significant main effects for type of object (F(2,
TABLE
MEAN

NUMBER

OF THOUGHTS

CLASSIFIED

INTO EACH
OF OBJECT

CATEGORY

AS A FUNCTION

OF TYPE

Coding category
Type of object
Utilitarian*
Social identity*
Self-esteem maintenance*

Utilitarian*
3.20,
0.73.
0.83.

Social identity*
0. 17hJ
2.38,
1.31h,z

Self-esteem maintenance*
0.29,
0.04,
I .32.

Note. All means are based on N = 96. Means sharing the same a, b, and c superscript
in a particular row or the same x, y, or z superscript in a column are not significantly
different at p < .OS.
* Analysis of simple main effect of other factor was significant for this condition at p <
.05.

134

SHARON

SHAVITT

186) = 7.54; p < .Ol) and coding category (F(2, 186) = 53.71; p < .Ol),
as well as significant interactions between object and order (F(4, 186) =
8.39; p < .Ol) and between type of object and coding category (F(4,
372) = 112.79; p < .Ol).
The main effect for object indicated that more thoughts about utilitarian
objects were coded into the three function categories than were thoughts
about other objects. The main effect for coding category indicated that,
over all types of objects combined, more thoughts were coded into the
utilitarian category than into the other two categories. The Object x
Category interaction,
the key result here, indicated that the types of
thoughts subjects listed in describing their attitudes toward an object
depended on the attitude function assumed to be engaged by that object.
Further support for this conclusion was provided by analyses of variance
for the simple main effects of object and of coding category, all of which
yielded significant effects. And Duncan pairwise tests yielded significant
results on almost all of the key comparisons (see Table 2). In addition,
the classifications of thoughts for each attitude object individually
also
yielded supportive and statistically
significant results for most of the
objects.
Finally, the results for thoughts that reflected multiple functions were
significant and consistent with the results for single-function
thoughts.
The functional themes that emerged in these multiple thoughts tended
to involve those functions engaged by the object rather than other
functions.
Discussion

This study sought to demonstrate that attitudes toward some objects

tend to serve primarily a single attitude function. For most of the objects
employed here, a predominant function emerged in the coding of attitude
descriptions, and this function was consistent with a priori assumptions
about the object. These assumptions, based on functional criteria proposed here, were further supported by subjects direct ratings of their
attitude functions. Overall, then, these results suggest that the identification of primarily single-function objects was generally successful.
While descriptions of attitudes toward utilitarian objects (e.g., coffee)
were typically classified in terms of the objects features (e.g., taste,
caffeine content), attitude descriptions for social identity objects (e.g.,
a wedding ring) were usually classified in terms of concepts symbolized
or communicated
by the object (e.g., symbol of love, communicates a
commitment).
Mixed results were obtained for self-esteem maintenance
objects: Attitude descriptions for two of these objects (own appearance,
own personality) were often coded in terms of implications for self-esteem
(e.g., feelings of confidence or inadequacy). However, the objects expected to engage ego-defensive motives (homosexuals,
bottom 5% of

ATTITUDEFUNCTIONS

135

ones high school class) elicited a high proportion of social identity

thoughts. This may reflect the socially mediated aspects of self-esteem
(see Introduction).
It may also suggest that clear, compelling evidence
for ego-defensive processes is difficult to obtain with this type of objective
coding scheme (see Herek, 1987).
Development of the coding scheme was also an important goal of this
study. The results supported its construct validity as a measure of attitude
functions. Validation was based on the association of thought codings
with objects assumed to engage particular functions. At the level of object
categories, for individual objects, and for single- and multiple-function
thoughts, the coding scheme successfully distinguished between descriptions of attitudes toward objects assumed to engage different functions.
Two additional aspects of this coding scheme support its utility as a
measure of attitude functions. First, it focuses on general content categories, as opposed to object-specific coding rules. Thus, it can be used
to identify attitude functions for a broad range of objects. Second, the
coding of attitude descriptions apparently can be accomplished with reasonable intercoder reliability. In this study, the coders agreed with each
other on 74% of their classifications. Also, preliminary results applying
the coding scheme to other settings and objects are encouraging regarding
both its reliability and generalizability
(Shavitt, Han, Kim, & Tillman,
1988).
In sum, these results point to a category of objects that plays an
important role in attitude functions. For these objects, attitudes appear
to serve primarily a single function. Using functional criteria, a variety
of such objects were successfully identified. This had operational utility,
as well, providing initial validation for a coding scheme that assesses
the functions of attitudes.
STUDY 2: THE ROLE OF SINGLE-FUNCTION
PERSUASION

OBJECTS

IN

How does this category of attitude objects affect important functional

processes? Study 2 was conducted to address one of the key predictions
of functional theory: The conditions necessary for attitude change vary
according to the functions of the attitude. Previous approaches used
personality and situational factors to demonstrate that attitudes that serve
different functions respond to different types of persuasive appeals (e.g.,
Snyder & DeBono, 1985). If certain attitude objects are reliably associated with a particular attitude function, then it should be possible to
demonstrate the same implications for persuasion by using these objects
to vary the functions of attitudes. That is, appeals about objects that
predominantly
engage a utilitarian function should be more persuasive
if they describe the objects features and outcomes than if they focus
on what the object communicates to others. And the opposite should be

136

SHARON SHAVITT

true for appeals about objects that predominantly

engage a social identity
function. Thus, to the extent that one can identify the functions engaged
by an object, this approach would provide important insights for a priori
prediction of the persuasiveness of appeals.
The predictions were tested in the context of attitudes toward consumer products, with two attitude functions-utilitarian
and social identity-as
the focus. The utilitarian
products were air conditioners and
coffee (as in Study 1). The social identity products were greeting cards
and perfume. Greeting cards were assumed to mediate self-other relations by conveying information about the senders tastes and sentiments.
Perfume was assumed to symbolize aspects of the wearers identity and
reference groups (e.g., career women). Both products are associated
with public behaviors (sending, wearing) that convey ones attitudes
toward the products and what they symbolize.
Method
Subjects. Fifty-six female subjects were recruited through newspaper advertisements
and notices on campus. They were paid for their participation.
Materials.
Each subject read and responded to four pairs of ads about the four products.
Each pair of ads consisted of messages about two fictitious brands of a product, one brand
advertised with a utilitarian appeal and one with a social identity appeal. The order of the
four products subjects read about was counterbalanced in a pairwise balanced Latin-square
design. The order of appeals within each pair of ads was varied so that the utilitarian
appeal came first for half of the products and second for the other half.
Each ad consisted of a short headline and approximately 120 words of text. No pictorial
material was used. Utilitarian ads featured such arguments as, The delicious, hearty
flavor and aroma of Sterling Blend coffee come from a blend of the freshest coffee beans
and, The fresh, floral scent of Cadeau perfume comes from a balanced blend of oils and
essences. Social identity ads included such arguments as, The coffee you drink says
something about the type of person you are. It can reveal your rare. discriminating taste
and Astoria [perfume] is the sophisticated scent that tells people youre not one of the
crowd. Several of the arguments used in both the function-relevant and function-irrelevant
ads were patterned after actual ads for these products.4
An instruction sheet asked subjects to list the thoughts and feelings that went through
your mind as you read the last advertisement, on a thought-listing sheet containing six
blank boxes. Subjects rated the favorability of their thoughts to the brand along the same
scale used in Study 1. Subjects also responded to three preference measures, each consisting
of a 9-point scale, anchored by definitely prefer [Brand A] and definitely prefer [Brand
B]. The first preference measure assessed attitudes toward the brands, instructing subjects

4 It was important to determine whether function-relevant and function-irrelevant ads

differed on important dimensions other than their functional relevance, such as their comprehensibility, familiarity of arguments, or readability. To assess the comparability of the
ads on these dimensions, 10 judges who were blind to the hypotheses each evaluated a
randomly ordered set of the eight ads. For each ad, they rated (1) how well written the
ad was and (2) how often they had seen such a set of arguments for purchasing any product.
Judges were instructed to make these ratings independently of the products advertised.
Their ratings were nearly identical for the function-relevant and function-irrelevant appeals.

ATTITUDE

137

FUNCTIONS

to indicate which of the two brands of a product they liked better. The second measure
assessed purchase intention, asking subjects to rate which of the two brands they would
prefer to buy if they were planning to buy the product. The third measure assessed attitudes
toward the ads, instructing subjects to rate which of the two ads they liked better.
Finally, subjects completed a structured attitude function measure similar to the one in
Study 1. On it, subjects rated the contribution of two function-relevant factors to their
attitude toward each product: my identity and my values: how my attitude expresses
me (social identity) and, my past experiences with the product: how satisfied I am with
the product (utilitarian).
Procedure.
Subjects participated in groups of three to eight. They were told that this
consumer study was being conducted together with an advertising firm to test possible
magazine ads for some new brands and that they would evaluate both the ads and the
brands. Subjects were informed that they would read pairs of ads for brands of a product
and then indicate which of the two brands they preferred. They were instructed not to
consider the possible price of an item in making this rating.
Subjects began by reading the ad for the first brand of the first product and then the ad
for the second brand for the first product. Then, they listed their thoughts for 3 min to
the second ad, after which they rated the favorability of their thoughts to that brand.
(Subjects did not list thoughts toward the first ad they read in each pair.) Next, subjects
filled out the three preference measures. In this way, they read and responded to each of
the four pairs of ads in turn. Finally, subjects completed the structured measure of attitude
functions and then were debriefed, paid, and dismissed.

Direct Assessment of Attitude

Results
Functions

Subjects ratings on this measure yielded a pattern consistent with

assumptions about the functions engaged by each product (see Table 3).
For each factor rated two average ratings were calculated for each subject: her average rating of the utilitarian products on that factor and her

TABLE
MEANS ON DIRECT RATINGS

OF ATTITUDE FUNCTIONS
RATED FACTOR

AS A FUNCTION

OF PRODUCT AND

Rated factor

Product
Air conditioner*
Coffee*

Greeting cards*
Perfume

My past experiences
with the product
(Utilitarian)

My identity and
my values
(Social identity)

4.25
4.27
3.24
3.76

2.33
2.58
4.35
4.09

Note. All means based on N = 55 (1 observation was deleted from analyses due to
missing data). Ratings were made on a S-point scale, where 5 indicates that the factor
contributes a great deal to my attitude and 1 indicates that the factor does not contribute
at all to my attitude.
* Main effect of rated factor was significant for this product at p < .Ol.

138

SHARON

SHAVITT

average rating of the social identity products on that factor. These average ratings were submitted to an analysis of variance with type of
product (utilitarian vs social identity) and rated factor (past experiences
vs identity) as within-subject variables and counterbalance order of products and of appeals as between-subjects variables. This analysis yielded
significant main effects for type of product (F(1, 47) = 32.49; p < .Ol)
and for factor (F(1, 47) = 12.90; p < .Ol), and a significant Product x
Factor interaction (F(l) 47) = 77.19; p < .Ol). The main effect for product
indicated that social identity products, overall, elicited higher ratings
than did utilitarian products. The main effect for factor indicated that
the past experience factor, overall, yielded higher ratings than the social
identity factor. The key finding is the significant Product x Factor interaction, indicating that the factor rated as making the stronger contribution to ones attitude toward a product depended upon the attitude
function assumed to be predominantly
engaged by the product.
The ratings for each product individually
were also supportive. As
Table 3 shows, only perfume ratings did not yield a significant main
effect of rated factor (F( 1,47) = 1.97). These results suggest that perfume
engaged multiple functions, as evidenced by its high ratings on both
factors.
Favorability

of Listed Thoughts

Subjects had listed their thoughts to the second ad within each pair
of ads for a product. Thus, half of the subjects listed thoughts to one
set of four ads, and half to the remaining four ads. A favorability index
was calculated for each thought list by averaging the favorability scores
a subject assigned to her thoughts. As Table 4 shows, the favorability
of thoughts was strongly affected by the relevance of the ad to the attitude
function engaged by the product: Utilitarian
appeals elicited favorable
thoughts when touting utilitarian
products, but unfavorable thoughts
TABLE
FAVORABILITY

OF THOUGHTS

AS A FUNCTION

4
OF PRODUCT

Type
Product

TYPE

OF APPEAL

of appeal

Utilitarian

Air conditioner*
Coffee*
Greeting
cards*
Perfume
Note. Maximum
and minimum
mean is based on N = 28.
* Main effect of type of appeal

AND

Social

1.42
1.61
-0.83
-0.14
values

for this

was significant

identity
- 1.22
- 0.20
1.55
0.31

favorability

index

for this product

are

+ 3 to - 3. Each

at p < .Ol.

ATTITUDE

FUNCTIONS

139

when touting social identity products. The reverse was true for social
identity appeals.
Favorability
indices were submitted to an analysis of variance with
type of product and type of appeal as within-subject variables and counterbalance order of products and of appeals as between-subjects variables. (Because the order of appeals represents which ad of the pair of
ads was accompanied by thought listing, order of appeals was a stimulus
replication factor in the analyses of listed thoughts.) The counterbalancing factors did not interact significantly with any of the other factors.
However, the Product x Appeal interaction was significant (F( 1, 48) =
84.79; p < .Ol), indicating that the effect of appeal type on favorability
of responses depended upon the functional relevance of the appeal to
the product advertised. At the level of individual products, type of appeal
had a significant effect on the favorability of thoughts toward air conditioner, coffee, and greeting card ads.5
Preference Measures
The three preference measures, which assessed attitudes toward the
brands, purchase intentions, and attitudes toward the ads, were highly
intercorrelated
for each of the four products rated. Average intercorrelations across products, calculated via z-prime transformations,
ranged
from .83 to .93.
The preference ratings were recoded so that numbers above the nopreference baseline of 5 would indicate a preference for the brand supported with a utilitarian appeal and numbers below 5 a preference for
the brand supported with a social identity appeal. Table 5 shows the
mean difference from the baseline for each of these measures. As expected, brands supported with function-relevant
appeals were preferred
over brands supported with function-irrelevant
appeals. For air conditioners and coffee, the brands in the utilitarian ads were preferred (indicated by positive numbers). For greeting cards and perfume, the brands
in the social identity ads were preferred (indicated by negative numbers).
Function-relevant
appeals elicited more favorable attitudes toward the
brands they supported, a preference for purchase of those brands, and
a greater liking for the appeals themselves.
5 The perfume thoughts also yielded some support for this hypothesis. Since subjects
function ratings for perfume suggested that this product did not engage primarily a social
identity function, a subsample of subjects who had rated the social identity factor as
contributing strongly to their perfume attitudes were selected for further analysis. The
mean favorability of these 41 subjects thoughts was .90 for the social identity perfume
appeal and - .33 for the utilitarian appeal. This main effect for type of appeal was significant
(F(1, 33) = 6.11; p < .02). No other effects were significant. Thus, for those subjects for
whom perfume strongly engaged a social identity function, the function-relevant ad was
more persuasive than the function-irrelevant ad.

140

SHARON

SHAVITT

TABLE
MEAN

DIFFERENCE

FROM THE NO-PREFERENCE

A FUNCTION

BASELINE

FOR EACH

PREFERENCE

MEASURE

AS

OF PRODUCT

Preference measures
Product
Air conditioner
Coffee
Greeting cards
Perfume

Attitude toward
brands
2.57
1.37
-2.32
-0.77

Purchase
intention

Attitude
toward ads

Average
preference

2.80
1.23
-2.36
-0.79

2.77
0.99
-2.21
-0.71

2.71
1.20
-2.30
-0.76

Note. Each value represents mean difference from no-preference baseline of 5. Numbers
greater than zero indicate a preference in the direction of brand supported with utilitarian
appeal. Negative numbers indicate a preference for brand supported with social identity
appeal. Each mean difference is based on N = 56.

A series of steps were taken in analyzing these data: First, for each
subject, the mean of her three preference ratings were calculated (on a
scale of 1 to 9) for each of the four products. Then, two indices were
calculated: a utilitarian index (the average of the mean preference ratings
for air conditioner and coffee) and a social identity index (the average
of the mean preference ratings for greeting cards and perfume). These
indices were submitted to an analysis of variance with type of product
as a within-subject factor and counterbalance order of products and of
appeals as between-subjects factors. Since higher numbers on the preference measures indicate greater preference for brands supported with
a utilitarian appeal, a significant effect of function relevance of appeals
is represented as a main effect of type of product (high preference ratings
should be associated with utilitarian products and low ratings with social
identity products). This main effect was highly significant (F(1, 48) =
120.11; p < .Ol). No other effects were significant.

This study sought to provide further evidence that attitudes toward

some objects predominantly
serve a single attitude function and to demonstrate the implications for persuasion. As in Study 1, the identification
of objects that predominantly
engage a particular function appeared to
have been successful. Direct ratings of attitude functions indicated that
the primary functions engaged by the products were consistent with a
priori assumptions. The one exception was perfume, for which attitudes
were apparently based both on utilitarian features (e.g., its scent, the
forms it comes in) and on implications for ones social identity. Perhaps
it is not surprising that perfume attitudes would be based partly on the
outcomes associated with perfume. Perfume is intrinsically
associated

ATTITUDE

FUNCTIONS

141

with a variety of rewards and punishments (e.g., pleasant scent, high

cost). Thus, it seems to have been a poor fit to the criteria outlined
earlier for predominantly
social identity objects. Overall, however, the
selection of primarily single-function
objects appeared effective. The
results also pointed to the operational utility of this approach: By varying
the types of objects that served as experimental stimuli, the functions
of attitudes were successfully varied.
Using this object-based approach, the present study yielded persuasion
findings consistent with those of previous approaches. Ads relevant to
the functions engaged by objects elicited more favorable thoughts, a
preference for the brands they promoted, and even a preference for the
ads themselves.
One might argue that these preferences were not due to the function
relevance of the ads but perhaps to some other dimension on which the
ads differed. For example, the writing quality or familiarity of the arguments may have been greater for the function-relevant
ads. Ratings
by pretest judges had suggested that the ads did not differ on these
dimensions (see Note 4). However, although the arguments were judged
to be equally familiar as arguments for any product, it is possible that
the pairings of products with arguments were differentially familiar. Consumers may be unaccustomed to utilitarian arguments for greeting cards
or social identity arguments for air conditioners. Still, the implications
for the persuasiveness of those arguments is not altogether obvious. For
example, an influential viewpoint in the advertising industry focuses on
communicating
a unique selling proposition,
an argument or claim
that has not already been made for a product (Reeves, 1961). A functional
analysis would not focus on the familiarily or uniqueness of arguments,
but on their relevance to the motives underlying the attitudes.
Effects of Ad Pairing
It is possible that the effects observed here were heightened by the
fact that function-relevant
and function-irrelevant
ads for a product were
juxtaposed during attitude formation. This sequence of ads may have
made the functions engaged by the products more salient, heightening
the persuasiveness of function-relevant
appeals. Data from another experiment, in which these appeals were not juxtaposed, supported this.
After listing thoughts for each of the first four ads in turn, subjects read
the second ad of each pair and completed the preference items. As in
Study 2, function-relevant
appeals were significantly more persuasive
than function-irrelevant
appeals. However, these effects were not as
strong as in Study 2, particularly for listed thought favorability,
which
was assessed after subjects had read only one ad in each pair. Although
the overall Appeal Type x Product Type interaction was significant, for
individual products the effect of appeal type was significant only for air

142

SHARON

SHAVIM

conditioner thoughts. For perfume thoughts the pattern of means ran

counter to expectations, but not significantly.
Analyses directly comparing this experiment with Study 2 indicated that the juxtaposition
of
appeals in Study 2 magnified the role of function relevance in persuasion,
increasing the effect size for appeal type on thought favorability
and
reducing the variance associated with thought favorability.
Thus, the
juxtaposition
of appeals apparently did strengthen the persuasive effect
of function-relevant
messages.
Contributions
to the Psychology of Persuasion
It might be argued that the insights offered by the functional approach
are not unique contributions
to understanding persuasion. The finding
that function-relevant
appeals are particularly persuasive could be viewed
in terms of Fishbein and Ajzens (1975) contention that effective appeals
must address the salient beliefs underlying an audiences attitudes. However, as Chaiken and Stangor (1987) noted, the functional approach to
persuasion focuses on a different set of issues. It does not seek to identify
the specific salient beliefs underlying a target audiences attitudes toward
a particular object. Rather, it is concerned with theory-based categories
of beliefs (utilitarian, social identity, etc.), the motivational underpinnings
of these belief categories, and the conditions that elicit those motives.
The goal is to predict the types of beliefs that underlie an attitude by
focusing on the motives served by the attitude.
GENERAL

DISCUSSION

The results of these studies identified a category of attitude objects

that has an important
influence on attitude functions. Previous functional approaches focused on the different functions that can be associated with attitudes toward the same object. The present analysis proposed that attitudes toward some objects tend to serve a single function.
Using newly developed measures of attitude functions, Study 1 indicated
that objects that are primarily associated with a single attitude function
can be identified. Study 2 demonstrated that single-function attitude objects have implications for the persuasiveness of appeals. Consistent with
the findings of previous approaches (e.g., Snyder & DeBono, 1985), ads
relevant to the function predominantly
engaged by an object elicited
more favorable responses than function-irrelevant
ads on a variety of
measures.
The present findings expand the scope of functional theory. They
suggest that functional predictions (e.g., regarding persuasion) apply to
factors beyond the personality and situational variables examined in
previous research. Even for attitudes toward objects that appear unlikely
to engage different functions for different people or in different situations,
functional predictions still apply.

ATTITUDE

FUNCTIONS

143

The results also illustrate the utility of an object-based functional analysis in predicting a priori the persuasiveness of appeals. An appeal should
be persuasive to the extent that it cogently addresses the functions engaged by the attitude object. Consistent with previous research, the
present findings suggest types of appeals relevant to utilitarian and to
social identity functions: Appeals dealing with features of the attitude
object and with rewards intrinsically associated with it appear persuasive
for utilitarian attitudes. Appeals focusing on the objects symbolic value
and social outcomes associated with it appear persuasive for social identity attitudes.
Operational Contributions
to the Study of Attitude Functions
Functional theories were often criticized because they did not provide
methods for measuring or manipulating attitude functions (Insko, 1967;
Kiesler et al., 1969). Recent research has developed functional operations
that focus on personality or situational variations (see Shavitt, 1989, for
a review). The present studies contribute new, object-based methods for
operationalizing
attitude functions. This research provided evidence that
attitude functions can be directly varied by varying the types of objects
that serve as experimental stimuli. Selection of the objects used in these
studies was guided by a set of functional criteria, which were supported
by subjects direct ratings of their attitude functions. Furthermore,
through analysis of subjects attitude descriptions for objects engaging
different functions, Study 1 yielded a coding scheme for measuring attitude functions. This study and subsequent research have supported the
reliability and construct validity of the coding scheme as a measure that
can be applied to a variety of attitude objects and settings (Shavitt et
al., 1988).
These findings have implications for self-report assessment of attitude
functions. One might argue that subjects attitude descriptions in Study
1 or their direct ratings throughout were simply rationalizations
for their
opinions and did not reflect the actual functions served by their attitudes.
However, subjects in the persuasion study also responded according to
functional predictions, even though the key measures did not involve
self-reports of functions. This convergence between studies involving
both self-reports and functional outcomes (attitudes, intentions, etc.)
suggests that people can provide accurate reports of the functions served
by their attitudes.6
It should be noted that the direct. structured ratings performed reasonably well in
measuring attitude functions. Although the information provided by this measure is not
as rich as that provided by listed thoughts, it is useful in providing convergence for more
detailed assessment of attitude functions. Further, it may serve as a sole measure when
more detailed assessment is not feasible.

144

SHARON

SHAVE-I-

One possible limitation

of the object-based methods proposed here,
compared to situational and personality approaches, is that they do not
attempt to induce an actual motivational
state. In studies employing
situational or personality methods, subjects attitudinal
responses are
observed while they strive for a goal made salient either by the situation
or by their personality.
Object-based methods might be considered a
parallel, but somewhat colder,
approach that does not focus on inducing goal states. Instead, it relies on subjects previously learned associations between goals and particular objects.
Interactive

Effects on Attitude

Functions

Previous research established that personality and situational factors

influence the functions of attitudes. These studies focused on the different
functions associated with attitudes toward the same object and employed
objects that are likely to engage multiple functions. Would personality
and situational factors have the same impact on the functions of attitudes
toward single-function objects? One might expect that, for single-function
objects, the impact of these factors would be smaller. Personality or
situational effects on functions may be mediated by whether the object
tends to engage the corresponding functions. That is, situations, personalities, and objects may interact in their effects on attitude functions
(Shavitt, 1989).
Research by Snyder and DeBono (1985), reviewed earlier, provided
suggestive evidence for such an interaction. They found that ads targeting
the function associated with ones self-monitoring
level were significantly
more persuasive than other ads. This effect was strong when the product
was whiskey (a product that seems likely to engage a variety of functions), but was nonsignificant when the product was coffee or cigarettes.
This is consistent with the present results suggesting that coffee is a
primarily single-function
product. Additional research has also yielded
preliminary
evidence for an interaction of self-monitoring
and object
categories (Shavitt et al., 1988).
The present persuasion data suggested a similar interaction between
situational and object factors. Recall that a variation in message exposure
context (i.e., whether or not appeals were juxtaposed) had a greater
effect on responses to an apparently multiple-function
object (perfume)
than on responses to other objects (see Discussion, Study 2). That is,
the predominant attitude function engaged by perfume appeared to differ
with situational variations, but this was not the case for the other, primarily single-function
objects.
An interactional perspective highlights the complementarity
and utility
of personality, situational, and object-based operations of attitude functions. Although each operational approach, individually,
may be more

ATTITUDE

informative
information

145

FUNCTIONS

in some circumstances,
interactively
on the antecedents and consequences

they provide unique

of attitude functions.

APPENDIX
Coding Scheme for Attitude Functions

Utilitarian
Thoughts
Focus on features or attributes

of attitude

object

Like, it blows cold air and you can set the temperature you like.
(Air conditioner)
Its helpful-provides
caffeine for alertness. (Coffee)
Refer to past experiences
punishments

with

object

that

involve

rewards

or

Any time I ever had the flu I felt miserable.

Air conditioners bother me; they always screw up my sinuses. If
there is one thing I hate is having a cold in the middle of summer.
Refer to rewards/punishments

associated with object

Dislike,
air conditioners are expensive to run in houses.
Like this object because it makes me feel comfortable in the summers heat. (Air conditioner)
Discuss appropriate
fulfilled by object)

behavior toward object (as a way to satisfy needs

Dislike, because have to study at least eight hours per subject per
exam. (Final exams)
Not necessary to run all summer long-fresh
air is a nice switch.
(Air conditioner)
Social Identity Thoughts
Public Identity Thoughts
Focus on social characteristics (social group or values) of others
who do or do not hold the attitude (or social characteristics of a
messages source)
Republicans
seem to be pretty comfortable financially and usually they seem to set themselves above others. (Republican party)
To me, a person who wears an Ohio State Buckeye sweatshirt
represents the type of person who involves theirself in juvenile
behavior.
Focus on what the attitude

communicates

A wedding ring is sometimes

to others

shown off to show monev.

146

SHARON

SHAWM

It would be something I could wear at home so that everyone

would know that Im attending OSU. (Ohio State Buckeyes
sweatshirt)
Deals with rules for attitude

expression

Sometimes
people are ashamed to say theyre a Democrat and
theyll say theyre Republican to go along with the crowd or be
with most others. (Republican party)
Dislike people that abuse flag by leaving it in rain or out after
dark. (American flag)
Private

Identity

Thoughts

Focus on abstract concepts or values represented by attitude object

It represents a solemn and sacred vow between two people who
love each other. (Wedding ring)
It symbolizes all our lives here. We should live by what it stands
for. (American flag)
Statements

of approval

or disapproval

I feel that too much money is being spent on nuclear arms. I

agree that we have to be prepared for war, but where do we draw
the line? (Republican party)
Some people say a wedding ring is a reminder of the marriage
but if you need a reminder you shouldnt be married.
Concern with consistency

with other attitudes

Approve
of their beliefs: I feel
feelings and attitudes in politics.
Support-Current
administration
anti-abortion),
so Im supportive of
Self-Esteem
Basking

Maintenance

or values

as if they best represent my

(Republican party)
supports my beliefs (church,
them also. (Republican party)

Thoughts

in reflected glory

I like it even better now that they beat Michigan and are going to
the Rose Bowl. (Ohio State Buckeyes sweatshirt)
Focus on implications

of attitude for self-regard,

self-esteem

I should accept myself the way I am, but I always wish I looked
different. (Your appearance)
Very important.
Makes you feel better to look good. Satisfied.
(Your appearance)

ATTITUDE

Reflects downward
sifiable here

147

FUNCTIONS

social comparison:

expressions of pity are clas-

Pity-At
our high school reunion theyll be pumping my gas.
(Bottom 5% of your high school graduating class)
Pity-They
are misunderstood.
I dont understand them either.
Pity their families.
(Homosexuals)
Evaluative

reference to own achievements

and abilities

Intelligent-l
am an above average student and have a very good
insight on many things. I am somewhat of a perfectionist.
(Your
personality)
Creative-I
feel good about this because I am always doing new
things, creating new things with my music. (Your personality)
Distancing

of self from dislikable

group

Do not know very much about them since I was in the upper
middle of my graduating class. (Bottom 5% of your high school
graduating class)
Do not associate with them. (Bottom 5% of your high school
graduating class)
Reflects favorable
(Defensive)

self-regard

while ignoring

actual

attitude

object

Friendly,
outgoing (yet at times shy), tasteful, have alot of character. I unfortunately get too jealous at times. (Your appearance)
Attractive-l
feel my attractiveness
is not only external but alot
comes from within. I feel Im caring, loving, sharing. (Your
appearance)
Involves distortions
object. (Defensive)

of information

about, or properties

of, attitude

Most likely be poor and have some kind of criminal background.

(Bottom 5% of your high school graduating class)
Menace to society-They
can cause severe problems for many
people especially when confronted when very young. (Homosexuals)
REFERENCES
Abelson, R. P. (1982). Three modes of attitude-behavior consistency. In M. P. Zanna,
E. T. Higgins, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Consistency in social behavior: The Ontario
Symposium (Vol. 2. pp. 131-146). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1981). Social-psychological
procedures for cognitive
response assessment: The thought listing technique. In T. Merluzzi, C. Glass, & M.
Genest (Eds.), Cognitive nssessment (pp. 309-342). New York: Guilford.

SHARON SHAVITT

148

Chaiken, S., & Stangor, C. (1987). Attitudes

Psychology,

and attitude change. Annual

Review

of

38, 575-630.

DeBono, K. (1987). Investigating the social-adjustive and value-expressive functions of

attitudes: Implications for persuasion processes. Journal of Personality
and Social
Psychology,

52(2),

279-287.

DeBono, K., & Hamish, R. (1988). Source expertise, source attractiveness, and the processing of persuasive information: A functional approach. Journal of Personality
and
Social

Psychology,

55(4),

541-546.

Fazio, R. H. (1989). On the power and functionality of attitudes: The role of attitude
accessibility. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude
structure
and function
(pp. 153-179). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior:
An introduction
to theory
and research.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Herek, G. M. (1987). Can functions be measured? A new perspective on the functional
approach to attitudes. Social Psychology
Quarterly,
50, 285-303.
Insko, C. A. (1967). Theories of attitude change. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly,

24, 163-204.

Katz, D., Samoff, I., & McChntock,

Relations,

C. (1956). Ego-defense and attitude change. Human

9, 27-46.

Katz, D., & Stotland, E. (1959). A preliminary statement to a theory of attitude structure
and change. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology:
A study of a science (Vol. 3. pp. 423475). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of
attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution,
2, 51-60.
Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarter/y,
25, 57-78.
Kiesler, C. A., Collins, B. E., & Miller, N. (1969). Attitude
change: A critical
ana/ysis
of theoretical
approaches.
New York: Wiley.
McClintock, C. (1958). Personality syndromes and attitude change. Journal of Personality,
26, 479-493.

Reeves, R. (1961). Reality in advertising.

New York: Knopf.
Sears, D. O., & McConahay, J. (1973). The new urban Blacks and the Watts riot. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Shavitt, S. (1985). Functional
imperative
theory
of attitude
formation
and expression.
Unpublished dissertation, Ohio State University.
Shavitt, S. (1989). Operationalizing functional theories of attitude. In A. R. Pratkanis,
S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure
and function
(pp. 31 l337). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shavitt, S., Han, S. P., Kim, Y. C., & Tillman. C. (1988). Attitude
objects
and seF
monitoring
interactively
affect attitude
functions.
Presented at the meeting of the
Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.
Smith, M. B., Bruner, J. S., & White, R. W. (1956). Opinions and personality.
New York:
Wiley.
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality
and
Social

Psychology,

30, 526-537.

Snyder. M., & DeBono, K. G. (1985). Appeals to image and claims about quality: Understanding the psychology of advertising. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,

49, 586-597.

Stotland, E., Katz, D., & Patchen, M. (1959). The reduction of prejudice through the
arousal of self-insight. Journal of Personality,
27, 507-531.
Tesser, A., & Campbell, J. (1983). Self-definition and self-evaluation maintenance. In J.
Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological
perspectives
on the self(Vol. 2. pp.
I-31). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.