ATTITUDE

According to Fazio and Olson, (2001). It is difficult to imagine a psychological world

without attitudes. One would go about daily life without the ability to think in the terms of

‘good’ and ‘bad’, ‘desirable’ and undesirable’, or ‘approach’ and ‘avoid’. There would be no

activation of positivity or approach tendencies upon encountering objects that would engender

positive outcomes, but, perhaps more severely, there would also be no mental faculty for

avoiding negative objects in one’s environment. (Hogg and Cooper, 2003).

According to Allport (1935), “A mental and neural state of readiness, organized through

experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence on the individual’s response to all objects

and situations with which it is related.” (Bordens and Horowitz, 2001).

Attitude is used to describe potential action toward the object with regard only to the

question whether the potential action will be favorable or unfavorable toward the object.

(Albarracin, Johnson and Zanna, 2005).

1.2.1 Types of Attitude

There are two types of attitude, A Positive Attitude those who maintain a positive

attitude are often referred to as optimists. The old saying “Every cloud has a silver lining” is

their motto. Because of their positive position toward all aspects of life, the optimists are

generally successful in their undertakings, because they refuse to let failure stop them. Failure is

seen as simply another step in the process of succeeding. A Negative Attitude those who have

negative attitudes are pessimists. Their attitude towards learning, relationships, and work build

up barriers to positive events. Pessimists allow even small issues to reinforce their negative
attitude. (Roberts, n.d). This negativity is an obstacle to success. Only by consciously making

the decision to change one’s attitude, and taking steps to make that change happen, can this

obstacle be overcome (Gracia, n.d. 5 Steps to a Positive Attitude).

1.2.2 Structure Of Attitude

According to Fabrigar, Macdonald, and Wegener, (n.d). Although the term attitude

structure is ever-present in the literature, precise definitions are less common. The concept of

structure must begin with one’s conceptualization of attitude. It makes sense to view the attitude

as a type of knowledge structure stored in memory or created at the time of judgment.

(Albarracin, Johnson, and Zanna, 2005).

In the most general sense, an attitude defines as an evaluation of an object in a positive or

negative fashion that includes the three elements of affect, cognitions, and behavior (the

“ABCs” of attitudes). (Breckler, 1984; Eagly and Chaiken, 1998; Zimbardo and Leippe, 1991).

And how do a person know what people’s attitude are? How they act, and a person can attempt

to measure their attitude directly. These three components are following;

The affective component consists of the person’s emotions and affect toward the

stimulus, especially positive or negative evaluations. The behavioral component consists of

how the person tends to act regarding the stimulus. The cognitive component consists of the

thoughts the person has about that particular attitude object, including facts, knowledge, and

beliefs. (Crites, Fabrigar, and Petty, 1994).

1.2.3 Functions of Attitudes

 Attitude are said to sever four basic functions. These different functions are wide –

ranging following;

1.2.3.1 The Utilitarian Function of Attitudes

An attitudinal function that severs to alert us to rewarding objects and situations we

should approach, and costly or punishing objects or situations we should avoid. (Gilovich,

Keltner, Nisbett, 2005). Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, which advocates that those

actions are right which bring about the best overall. (Bentham, n.d.).

1.2.3.2 The Ego-Defensive Function Of Attitudes

In addition to signaling rewards and threats, attitudes also sever an ego-defensive

function, protecting people from awareness of unpleasant facts, including knowledge of their

own unseemly attributes and impulsive. People develop certain attitudes, this reasoning holds,

to maintain cherished beliefs about their selves. The influential ego-defensive account of select

attitudes is the terror management theory. This theory argue that to ward off the anxiety we feel

when contemplating our own demise, we cling to cultural worldview and strongly held values

out of a belief that by doing so part of us will survive death. To ward off the anxiety we feel

when contemplating our own demise, we adopt death-denying attitude, motivated by the belief

that a part of us will survive death. (Gilovich, Keltner, Nisbett, 2005).

1.2.3.3 The Value-Expressive Function of Attitudes

 Attitudinal functions whereby attitudes help us express our most cherished values –

usually in groups in which they can be supported and reinforced. We typically choose to express

our social and political attitude in groups, and this is an important factor in motivating us to

identify with different groups. These are our reference groups that is, groups whose opinions

matter to us and that affect our opinions and beliefs. For example people who are deeply

committed to having low prejudice are more likely to associate with groups that promote those

attitudes, and they feel shame and guilt when their actions contrast their attitudes toward mental

help. (Gilovich, Keltner, Nisbett, 2005).

1.2.3.4 The Knowledge Function Of Attitudes

A fourth and final function of attitudes is the knowledge function, by which attitude help

organize our understanding of the world. Our attitudes guides how we attend to, store, and

retrieve information, making us more efficient, and on occasion more biased, social perceivers.

Most typically, we pay attention to and recall information that is consistent with our preexisting

attitudes. (Eagly and Chaiken, 1998).

1.2.4 Theories of Attitudes

Several theories are helpful for understanding how attitude formed and how they can be

changed. The learning approach regards attitudes as habit, like anything else that is learned.

Principles that apply to other forms of learning also determine the formation of attitudes.

Motivational approaches based on the principle of cognitive consistency assert that we seek

consistency among our attitudes fit into our overall cognitive structure. Expectancy-value

approaches to attitudes maintain that we adopt attitudes that maximize our gains. Each side of

an issue has cost and benefits; expectancy-value approaches maintain that an individual will
adopt the side on which the net gains are greater. And finally, cognitive response theory

considers the condition that leads us to argue against or passively accept a persuasive

communication designed to change our attitudes. These approaches are not necessarily

contradictory or inconsistent with each other. (Taylor, Peplau, Sears, 2006).

1.2.4.1 Learning Theory

The assumption behind this approach is that attitudes are required in much the same way

as other habit. People learn information and facts about different attitudes objects, and they also

learn the feelings and values associated with those facts.

Thus, basic learning processes should apply to the formation of attitudes. We acquire

information and feelings by the process of association. Learning can also occur through

reinforcement, punishment and imitation. People imitate others, especially when those others

are strong, important people. Consequently, major source of basic political and social attitude in

early life is the family. (Abramson, Baker, and Caspi, 2002).

1.2.4.2 Balance Theory

The earliest consistency theory is balance theory. Balance theory considers the

consistency among the effects and beliefs held by a person and are usually described in terms of

a person, another person, and an attitude object. Thus, there are three relevant evaluations: (1)

the first person’s evaluation of the other person, (2) the first person’s evaluation of the attitude

objet, and (3) the other person’s evaluation of the attitude object. (Taylor, Peplau, Sears, 2006).

1.2.4.3 Cognitive Dissonance Theory

 The most influential of the cognitive consistency theories is cognitive theory, purposed

by Leon Festinger (1957). Like other cognitive consistency theories, cognitive dissonance

theory assumes that there is a pressure to be consistent. Dissonance theory deals especial in

consistencies between people’s attitude and their behavior.

Dissonance is defined as an aversive motivational state that results when some behavior

we engage in is inconsistent with our attitude. Dissonance appears to be most consistently

aroused when the attitude and the behavior that are dissonant are important to the self (Aronson,

1968; Stone and Cooper, 2001). Dissonance created psychological tension and negative affect

(Harmon- Jones, 2000), and consequently, people feel pressure to reduce or remove it.

Reducing it means restoring consistency, or consonance. There are three ways of achieving this

consonance. One way is revoke or changes our behavior in some way, although often this is not

feasible. Some time individuals trivialize the dissonance so that they do not have to change their

aptitude (Simon, GreenBerg, and Brehm, 1995). Most often, however, people resolve

dissonance between their attitude and their behavior by changing their attitude.

1.2.4.4 Self perception Theory

Cognitive dissonance theory originally inspired research on the effects of behavior on

attitude change, and for a number of years, it provided the only theoretical self-perception

theory. Bem argued that often we do not really know what our attitudes and simply infer them

from our behavior and the circumstances in which this behavior occurs. (Taylor, Peplau, Sears,

2006).

Most psychologists now assume that aspects of both dissonance theory and self-

perception theory are correct. When people have had few experiences with respect to the
attitude or when the attitudes involve vague, uninvolving, minor, or novel issues, they may infer

their attitude from their self-perceptions of their behavior (Albarracin and Wyer, 2000), as self-

perceptions theory predicts. When more controversial, engaging, and enduring issues are

involved, dissonance teory is more likely to explain their attitudes and behavior. (Taylor,

Peplau, Sears, 2006).

1.2.4.5 Expectancy-Value Theory

People often respond to persuasive communications in terms of incentives, that is, the

costs or benefits associated with particular attitude positions. According to this theory, attitude

formation and change is a process of weighing the pros and cons of various possible attitudes

and then adopting the best alternative. This approach is best illustrated in expectancy-value

theory (Edwards, 1954).

Expectancy-value theory assumes that people adopt a position based on their thoughtful

assessment of its pros and cons, that is, on the values they place on its possible effects. They

tend to adopt positions that will most likely lead to good effects and reject positions that will

most likely lead to bad effects. (Taylor, Peplau, Sears, 2006).

1.2.4.6 Cognitive Response Theory

Cognitive response theory predicts that attitude change depends on how much and what

kind of counter arguing a message triggers. If the messages stimulates strong and effective

counter arguing, resistance to change will follow. Conversely, persuasion can be produced by

interference with the counter arguing process. If a person cannot think of any good counter

arguments and is distracted from thinking about them while listening to a message, he or she is

more likely to accept the communication. (Taylor, Peplau, Sears, 2006).