The attitude-behavior relationship

%i:-^

S30

no- 110

Oz,f- A

Faculty Working Papers

ersity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Michael Ross
University of Waterloo

May 1, 1973

College of Commerce and Business Administration

University of Illinois at Urbano-Champaign

The Attitude-Behavior Relationship

Bobby J. Calder
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Michael Ross
University of Waterloo

May 1, 1973

■if//0

Attitude-Behavior Relationship

Please send proofs to Bobby J, Calder, Organizational Behavior Program,
194 Commerce West, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801

Abstract

The purpose of this review is to establish the current status of
research relating attitudes and behavior. It is argued that special
attention must be given to theoretical conceptualizations of attitude
and behavior. When a representative sample of studies from a number
of areas are drawn together, it is possible to specify conditions
under which attitudes and behavior are related. Explanations for
failures to demonstrate this relationship are emphasized in order to
direct future research.

I

t

The Attitude-Behavior Relationship
May 1, 1973

The failure to demonstrate an unequivocal relationship between
attitudes and behavior has been one of the more persistent problems in
the social sciences. Since LaPlere (1934) reported an inconsistency
between an indicant of racial attitude and behavior toward Chinese,
numerous investigators have concluded that attitudes seem to be unre-
lated to behavior (cf. Deutscher, 1969; Wicker, 1969). At the same
time, attitude, to use Allport's oft-cited phrase, has been "the
primary building stone in the edifice of social psychology," and has
served as a major tool in formulating social and business policy.
Unless the relationship between attitudes and behavior can be estab-
lished, however, it is not at all clear that this reliance on the con-
cept of attitude has been justified. In fact, the negative findings
in this area have contributed to the rejection by some of the entire
concept of attitude, Bern (1965, 1967, 1972), for example, has
theorized that people do not have attitudes but rather infer them from
their behavior. Similar thinking by Mischel (1968) with regard to
personality traits raises the entire question of the need for postu-
lating covert internal states. Such views have gained increased
currency with the publication of Skinner *s Beyond Freedom and Dignity,
The policy implications of this debate are enormous: Should social
programs attempt to change people or should they concentrate on the
environment in which people live (cf. Etzionni, 1972)?

It is not yet certain that the pessimism concerning attitude is
Justified. Although there have been a few excellent reviews of

Digitized by tlie Internet Archive

in 2011 witli funding from

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

http://www.archive.org/details/attitudebehavior110cald

attitude-behavior studies (e.g., Festinger, 1964; Wicker, 1969), they
have generally addressed rather specific interests or have been exposi-
tory in nature. There has been little effort to review and draw
together all of the disparate findings relevant to the attitude-
behavior relationship. Not even textbook accounts such as the one
by Keisler, Collins and Miller (1968), though valuable, make any
pretense of being integrative. The purpose of this paper is to
review a truly representative sample of studies and to delineate the
current status of this research in specifying the relationship between
attitudes and behavior.

We will begin by discussing briefly the conceptual nature of both
attitude and behavior. Much of the attitude literature has been able
to bypass such considerations because of its focus on attitude change,
since any change in a measure of attitude may be assumed to reflect
some change in the unspecified concept of attitude. In contrast, the
conceptual underpinnings of attitude cannot be so easily ignored if
attitudes are to be related to behavior.

Theoretical Conceptualization

Attitude

As McGuire (1968) has noted, conceptions of attitude vary along a
continuum from positivistic to latent process. Positivistic research-
ers equate attitudes with the operations designed to measure them
(e.g., DcFleur and Westie, 1963). Attitude may thus be defined
entirely in terms of a person's responses to an attitude question-
naire just as I.Q. may be equated with a score on an I.Q. test.

Despite its appealing simplicity, the positivistic approach is prob-
lematic. If a theoretical explanatory structure approaches the com-
plexity of natural events, then W' can no more understand our theory
than we can the real world V7e seek to explain. Investigators at the
other end of the continuum view attitude as a latent process. Some
propose that this latent process is an inference based on response
consistency (e,g,, Campbell, 1959) while others assume that it is
literally an affective or drive-like state within the organism (Doob,
19A7; Thurstone, 1931). Attitude is probably best conceived, however,
as a theoretical abstraction useful for explanation and prediction.
This conception of attitude does not imply any necessary behavioral
or phenomeno logical referent.

At the level of measurement, behavior in the form of self-reports,
physiological reactions, and other overt responses serve as indicants
of attitude. If a behavior is to be accepted as an indicant of atti-
tude, it must constitute an appropriate operationalization of the
Concept, That is, there must exist some theoretical rationale for
inferring an attitude from that behavior. There can be no inconsis-
tency between an attitude and its behavioral indicant, otherwise we
would have no knowledge of the attitude. This does not imply, as is
sometimes concluded (e,g, , Sechrest, 1969, p. 147), that attitude-
behavior inconsistency cannot exist by definition-- an attitude may
be inconsistent with other behaviors that are not direct dperationa-
iizations of the attitude.

No doubt much of the confusion centering around this point lies
in the difficulty of operational izing attitude. Though several

i

I

classes of attitude measures may be distinguished (Cook and Selltiz,
1964), only the traditional attitude scaling techniques are satisfac-
tory as operationalizations. The implicit, and in fact ill-
acknowledged, rationale for attitude scaling is that attitudes are
derived from the informational beliefs one has about an issue (cf.
Ostrom, 1968; Calder, Insko, and Yandell, in press). Unfortunately,
the other classes of measures have little rationale at all. Obser-
vational techniques (e.g., Webb, Campbell, Schwartz and Sechrest,
1965) while often intriguing seem particularly weak ii. this respect.
For example, in one study, investigators chose seating aggregation as
an Index of attitude (Campbell, Kruskal and Wallace, 1966). Observers
noted the extent to which black and white studett s tended to sit apart
in lecture halls at two universities. Racial separation was found to
be greater at one of the schools. As a result the authors suggested
that the white students at this school v/ere more prejudiced than the
white students at the other school. Is oeating aggregation, however,
Operationallzation of attitude, o?- ±s it more appropriately viewed as
& behavior that under some cJ^rcumstances might be under the control of
(or predicted from) attitudes? In short, there is often no theoretical
rationale for taking an observatior of overt behavior as an operational*
ization of an attitude. In terms of the general attitude-behavior
relationship, attitude must first be adequately operationalized and
measured if it is to be related to overt behaviors.

As the above discussion points up, behavior serves a dual role
in psychology. First it represents what most psychologists wish to
understand or predict. Behavior Is the object of psychological

theory. In order to understand behavior, concepts such as attitude
are developed. Yet, in deriving these concepts, behavior must serve a
second role. Behavior must function as the evidence by which these
concepts are inferred and quantified. Behavior in some form is the
only source of data about psychological processes. We are thus faced
with the problem of using behavior to develop concepts which will aid
in understanding behavior. All of this has fundamental implications
for the attitude-behavior relationship. Behavior must serve as the
evidence for attitudes. At the same time, to be of any value an
attitude must aid in understanding and predicting behavior that is not
a direct operationalization of that attitude.

Behavior

What is it that attitudes should be behavioral ly related to?
Much confusion concerning the attitude-behavior relationship has
centered around this question. Most investigators have not treated
behavior as an abstract concept but have attempted instead to relate
attitudes to quite specific acts. For example, LaPiere's study inves-
tigated whether an attractive Chinese couple was refused service at
hotels and restaurants. There is a need for a broader theoretical
treatment of behavior. Attitudes should be related to rather general
behavioral syndromes or tendencies to perform a class of actions
rather than to single acts. Any one instarscc of an act is neces-
sarily too overdetermined to test the attitude-behavior relationship.
Although most studies have followed LaPiere in using a single act as
a measure of behavior, Fishbein (in press) has recently approached

this problem by viewing behavioral observations as criterion scores.
He argues that ideally such behavior scores should be based on repeated
observations of multiple acts. While studies employing one-observation-
single-act behavior scores may be quite interesting, they are incon-
clusive, for there is no way of knowing whether attitude would have
more adequately predicted a related act or the same act on a different
occasion. Attitudes tovards blacks, for instance, should be related
to a behavioral pattern manifested in a set of prejudicial actions.

Finally, in order to examine the relation between attitudes and
overt behaviors it is necessary to specify v;hat we mean by "overt
behavior." Certainly it is common to distinguish between pencil and
paper measures and overt behaviors. However, as Aronson and Carlsmith
(1968) note, "it is possible to conceive of a continuum ranging from
behaviors of great importance and consequence for the subject down to
the most trivial paper and pencil measures about which the subject
couldn't care less (p. 54)," In practice, researchers have employed
three distinct forma of behavioral measures: (1) retrospective self-
reports of behavior (e.g.. Tittle and Hillj 1967), (2) behavioroid
measures which indicate how & person intends to behave at some point
in the future (e„g,, DeFleur and Westic, 1958), and (3) actual
instances of overt behavior (e.g,, LaPiere, 1934),

Clearly forms (1) and (2) are acceptable measures of behavior
only to the extent that they are congruent with form (3), actual
behavior. (This is not to say, of course, that behavioral intentions
may not be of interest in their own right.) Yet in some circumstances
retrospective reports may be distorted and intentions unfulfilled.

8

As an example of distortions in memory Bern and McConnel (1971) and
Ross and Shulman (in press) found that subjects who had undergone con-
siderable attitude change tended to greatly underestimate the amount
of attitude change that had taken place. Also, Oskamp (1972) notes
a tendency for people to report that they voted for the winning
candidate in an election. In 1964, 667o of a group of respondents
indicated that they had voted for Kennedy in 1970, though only 50%
actually had done so. With regard to intentions, Linn (1965) found
that 187o of a group of subjects who agreed to pose for a photograph
with a Negro failed later to keep their appointments. Likewise,
Fishbein (1966) obtained a correlation of only .39 between males'
intentions to engage in premarital sex during a school semester and
their subsequent retrospective reports, suggesting that males were not
always able to convert their intentions into behavior. Thus studies
employing retrospective or behavioroid measures may introduce addi-
tional sources of variance. The strongest evidence about behavioral
prediction is derived from research in which samples of actual be-
havior are obtained or where special attention is given to the
adequacy of surrogate variables such as self-reports or intentions.

Testing and Observational Research

One approach to studying the attitude-behavior rcliitionship is
to construct tests for both attitude and behavior and then to corre-
late the results. Vfhile such covariation clearly does not imply
causality, it may provide evidence that the two concepts are related.
Several studies have compared attitude scales on the basis of how

well they predict behavior. These studies have yielded mixed results,
probably due to variation ±n the quality of the attitude scales
evaluated (e.g., Kamenetsky, Burgess, and Rowan, 1956; Poppleton and
Pilkington, 1963; Carr and Roberts, 1965), One study, however, is of
particular interest, and illustrates the potential of this approach.
Tittle and Hill (1967) obtained attitude measures toward participation
in student political activities using Thur stone, Likert, Guttman, and
semantic differential scaling techniques. Moreover, they used scaling
techniques to construct behavior scores from self-reports of partici-
pation in various types of student political activity. The results
were encouraging: "it is clear that attitude measurement alone ... is
not totally adequate as a predictor of behavior. However, when it is
possible to obtain an average association of 0.543 [the gamma statis-
tic] using a Likert scale in its crude form, it seems entirely possible
that technical refinements and additional methodological considerations
could increase predictive efficiency (1967, p. 210-211)," This would
certainly seem a. fruitful avenue for further research.

Most of the research in this area has concentrated not on measures
of attitudes but on the actual observation of a specific behavior,
li"/hile this observational research is .often socially relevant, it is
weak methodologically, with single acts being studied far more often
than patterns of behavior. It is this research that has most fre-
quently failed to obtain a relationship between attitudes and behavior.

Much of the observational research has attempted to relate atti-
tudes as expressed on simple questionnaires to overt behaviors toward
minority groups, LaPiere's work was an early example of inconsistency

10

between such verbal measures and overt behavior, and other similar
findings have been reported (Kutner, Wilkins, and Yarrow, 1952;
Saeger and Gilbert, 1950) » A well known study by DeFleur and Westie
(1958) revealed a greater degree of attitude- behavior consistency.
A Likert-type measure of attitudes toward blacks was administered to
250 college students. Subjects in the upper and lower quartiles of
the attitude distribution were then compared in terms of a simulated
racial interaction. Each subject was asked if he would pose at some
time in the future for a photograph with a black of the opposite sex.
If a subject agreed, he was requested to permit one of several possible
uses of the photograph, ranging from limited laboratory exposure to use
in a nationwide integration campaign. DeFleur and Westie found that
subjects who had reported prejudicial attitudes tended to be less
willing to have their picture taken and widely distributed. Yet over
257o of the subjects behaved inconsistently with their attitudes, a
very high proportion given that only subjects with extremely positive
or negative attitudes were tested.

Linn (1965) reasoned that a more specific measure of attitude
would increase the consistency between attitudes and behavior in the
DeFleur and Westie situation. Accordingly, Linn conducted a study
in which the attitude questionnaire items were the same as the be-
havioral alternatives. The difference between the attitude items and
the behavioral scale administered four weeks later was that the
attitude statements were presented as hypothetical commitments as
opposed to actual cooanitments for the behavioral scale. Despite the
similarity of the two measures ^ subjects' responses on the two scales

11

were not significantly related. Although there are several possible
explanations for this negative result, not the least of which is the
possible transparency of the procedure, it is clear that the study is
more relevant to the relationship between verbally expressed prior
intentions and behavior rather than the relationship between attitudes
and behavior, A more descriptive overview of much of this research
on racial attitudes and behavior is given by Katz (1970, p. 80-90).

Turning briefly toother content areas, we find striking examples
of the possible failure of attitudes to predict behavior. Corey (1937)
related attitudes toward honesty in the classroom with frequency of
cheating on tests. A Likert-type measure of attitudes failed to pre-
diet cheating though the students' performance on the tests did. In
organizational psychology, an area of very active interest has been
the relationship between job attitudes (usually operationalized as
reported job satisfaction) and job performance. Vroom (1964) reviewed
twenty studies relating job attitudes to job performance and found the
correlations to be disappoint 3.ngly small and often nonsignificant.

Although these observational studies would in general lead to
pessimism about a strong attitude- behavior relationship, their
methodologies are typically too weak to allow a definitive answer
to the problem. Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that even
if the studies were better designed high attitude-behavior correla-
tions would not necessarily have been obtained. For this reason, we
will concentrate on the general theoretical issues involved rather
than a study- by-study critique. These issues have taken the form of
attempts to explain why the attitude-behavior link may not occur.

12

The specificity of behavior explanation

In many instances, the behavior observed may be so specific as to
have had little relation to the more general attitude measured.
Fishbein (Ajzen and Fishbein, in press; Fishbein, 1967a) has contended that
attitudes toward the particular act to be engaged in, rather than
general attitudes, should be related to behavior. For example, you
should ask a person specifically about his attitude toward posing for
a photograph with a black if you wish to predict this behavior.
Favorable or unfavorable attitudes toward blacks in general, as
assessed by DeFleur and Westie (1958), should be far less predictive
of the behavior. Wicker and Pomazal (1971) conducted an experiment to
test this reasoning. Students were asked to volunteer to participate
in a psychology experiment after their attitudes towards scientific
research (general), psychological research (less general), and par-
ticipating as a subject in a psychology experiment (specific) were
assessed. While all of the correlations were weak, the only signi-
ficant association was between volunteering and the specific attitude
(r - .17).

One problem in comparing attitudes toward the act to be engaged
in with iftore general attitudes toward an object or issue is that the
two are frequently highly correlated, A dominant action may be more
or less inherently associated with an object so that the two are dif-
ficult to separate. Ajjeen and Fishbein (1969), for instance, obtained
extremely high correlations between attitudes toward certain activities
and attitudes toward objects corresponding to those activities,
Schwartz and Tessler (1972), in a study described more fully later.

12

The specificity of behavior explanation

In many instances, the behavior observed may be so specific as to
have had little relation to the more general attitude measured.
Fishbein (Ajzen and Fishbein, in press; Fishbein, 1967a) has contended that
attitudes toward the particular act to be engaged in, rather than
general attitudes, should be related to behavior. For example, you
should ask a person specifically about his attitude toward posing for
a photograph with a black if you wish to predict this behavior.
Favorable or unfavorable attitudes toward blacks in general, as
assessed by DeFleur and Westie (1958), should be far less predictive
of the behavior. Wicker and Pomazal (1971) conducted an experiment to
test this reasoning. Students were asked to volunteer to participate
in a psychology experiment after their attitudes towards scientific
research (general) , psychological research (less general) , and par-
ticipating as a subject in a psychology experiment (specific) were
assessed. While all of the correlations were weak, the only signi-
ficant association was between volunteering and the specific attitude
(r « .17).

One problem in comparing attitudes toward the act to be engaged
in with more general attitudes toward an object or issue is that the
two are frequently highly correlated, A dominant action may be more
or less inherently associated with an object so that the two are dif-
ficult to separate, Ajzen and Fishbein (1969), for instance, obtained
extremely high correlations between attitudes toward certain activities
and attitudes toward objects corresponding to those activities,
Schwartz and Tessler (1972), in a study described more fully later.

13

used an issue of sufficient complexity as to suggest many behaviors,
obtaining an average correlation of only .20 between the two attitudes.
Accordingly, their study provides an interesting test of the specificity
argument. The results indicated that attitudes toward acts were much
better predictors of behavioral intentions than attitudes toward
general issues. Intriguingly, however, in this study attitudes toward
general issues were also significantly correlated with intentions and
this association was not washed out by partialing out the effects of
attitudes toward acts. It would thus appear that both specific and
general attitudes may predict behavior, though the relationship with
specific attitudes toward acts may be stronger.

The behavioral threshold explanation

In an attempt to reconcile any apparent inconsistency between
various behavioral manifestations of an attitude, Campbell (1963)
pointed out that different behaviors have different thresholds of
appearance. Low threshold indicants of attitudes will occur even with
a weak attitude whereas high threshold indicants may require a strong
attitude before they will occur. Campbell noted that LaPiere assessed
two behaviors with different thresholds: refusing service by letter
is easier (low threshold) than refusing service in person (high
threshold). Thus, Campbell concluded that LaPicre's results were not
inconsistent. By their willingness to perform only low threshold
behavior, the hotel clerks indicated that they were somewhat, but
not strongly, anti-Chinese. Rosen and Komorita (1971), moreover, have
demonstrated that a conventional attitude assessment predicted a

14

behavioroid measure significantly less well than an index based in
part on subjects' intentions to perforin a series of acts varying in
behavioral thresholds.

Campbell's formulation has received direct support from a study
of attitudes toward organ transplantation (Goodmonson and Glaudin,
1971). The behaviors involved ranged from participating in a tele-
phone interview (low threshold) to actually signing a legal form
authorizing posthumous donation of organs (high threshold). The
results indicated a significant correlation (r - .58) between the
strength of previously assessed attitudes toward organ transplantation
and the extremity of the behavior engaged in. Higher threshold behaviors
tended to be elicited only when the respondents possessed extremely
positive attitudes.

Unfortunately the behavioral threshold explanation has been
associated with the view that attitude-behavior inconsistency can
never be said to exist (e.g., Sechrest, 1969, p. 147): Inconsistency
only appears to exist because of the varying thresholds of the be-
havioral indicants of attitude. As argued earlier, however, not all
behaviors constitute evidence for a specific attitude. While there
can be no inconsistency between an attitude and the behaviors that
operationali^e that attitude, other behaviors a person performs may
be inconsistent with that behavioral operationalization. Thus the
behavioral threshold approach confuses the two roles of behavior in
psychology. It assumes that all behavior relevant to an attitude repre-
sents an operationalization of that attitude.

15

The behavioral threshold perspective is valuable, however, in
alerting researchers to the problems inherent in measuring two variables
which may be differentially susceptible to situational cues. Attitudes
may be frequently less situationally constrained than behavior. As
pointed out by Hyman (1959), the typical testing setting does not
involve the forces of everyday life. Fendrich (1967), for example,
compared attitudes toward blacks as predictors of actual involvement
in a campus chapter of the NAACP for two groups of subjects whose
definition of the situation was varied experimentally. The results
Indicated that subjects encouraged to view the situation as one where
their attitudes reflected true commitment displayed attitude- behavior
consistency whereas those encouraged to define the situation as the
typical "play- like" experiment did not.

Other variables explanation

An obvious and frequently proposed explanation of attitude-
behavior inconsistency holds that while an attitude may affect behavior,
it is not the sole determinant. Variables other than attitude must be
taken into account if accurate behavioral prediction is to be achieved.
For example, Wicker (1971) attempted to predict frequency of church
attendance by measuring three variables in addition to attitude toward
the church: perceived con?5cqaence3 of church attendance, evaluation of
church attendance, and the judged influence of extraneous events on
church attendance (e.g., the likelihood that the presence of weekend
guests would affect attendance). The correlation found between
attitude and frequency of church attendance (obtained from official

I

* ,

16

church attendance records) was .31. The multiple correlation which
combined the additional three measures with attitude was .50, indi-
cating an improved behavioral prediction when the other variables were
considered.

Several researchers have attempted more systematic formulations
of the other variables explanation. Rokeach and Kliejunas (1972)
have argued that a person *s behavior is determined by two interacting
attitudes-- his attitude toward the object and his attitude toward
the situation. To test this hypothesis j Rokeach and Kliejunas assessed
students' attitudes toward the professors teaching their courses
(attitude toward the object) and their attitudes toward attending
classes in general (attitude toward the situation). The average of
the two attitude measures weighted for their perceived importance was
found to be a significantly better predictor of self-reports of class
attendance (r » -,61) than either attitude measure alone (attitude
toward professor: r « -.20; attitude toward class attendance in
general: r =» -.46). Fishbein (1967a) has proposed a model in which
behavior is a function of attitudes toward the behavior and normative
beliefs regarding the behavior, Similarily Triandis (1971, p. 16)
would add three other variables to attitude: social norms, habits,
and expectancies about reinforcement. Sugar (reported in Triandis,
1971) demoristrated that accuracy of predicting the acceptance of a
cigarette increased if norms and habits were considered in addition to
attitudes toward smoking,

Warner and DeFleur (1969) have taken a somewhat different tack.
They hypothesized that two situational factors, social constraints and

17

social distance, affect whether or not a person's behavior will reflect
a pro- or anti-black attitude. A field experiment was conducted to
test this hypothesis. After obtaining a measure of general attitudes
toward blacks, the investigators sent letters to high and low preju-
diced subjects asking them to engage in a specific behavior toward
blacks. The behaviors requested varied in social distance from dating
a black (low social distance) to contributing to a black charity (high
social distance). Social constraint was manipulated by having the
respondent either believe his reply would be kept anonymous (low
social constraint) or be disclosed toothers via the campus paper (high
social constraint). Each person received one version of the request
and was asked to return the letter indicating his agreement or disa-
greement. The results indicated that with high social constraint, low
prejudiced subjects acted consistently with their attitudes (agreed
with the request) when the behavior maintained social distance. On
the other hand, high prejudiced subjects acted consistently (refused
the request) if the behavior rediiced social distance. As less than
2S7o of the subjects answered the letter, however, the results must
be interpreted with caution.

Along the same lines. Acock and DeFleur (1972) have formulated a
"pivotal hypothesis" arguing that "attitude(3) may provide a base-
line factor for decision-making about action toward the relevant issue
or object. Against this base-line the individual raises other con-
siderations, such as the views held by his reference groups, considering
in particular, possible sanctions for acting one way or another;
then he makes his action decision (p. 725)." As preliminary support

18

for the hypothesis Acock and DeFleur (1972) report a study of atti-
tudes toward the legalization of marijuana. The best prediction of
whether subjects would vote in an experimental situation to legalize
marijuana was obtained only when their attitudes were combined with
measures of the perceptions of their peers and family in a configura-
tional approach.

A recent study by Weitz (1972) indicates just how complex the
effects of other variables can be. White subjects' verbally expressed
racial attitudes ("How friendly would you feel toward this person
in a year's time?") were found to correlate negatively with such
behaviors as task selection, where the tasks differed in the closeness
of the interaction with a black and the amount of time required to
work with the black. Thus subjects displaying more attitudinal
tolerance tended to behave in a more prejudiced manner. One hypo-
thesis explains such findings in terms of a basic psychological
ambivalence in which positive feelings are channeled verbally (and are
likely to be expressed as attitude 5) while negative feelings are
channeled into actual behavior (Katz, 1970). Another interpretation is,
however, that attitudes may in fact be tolerant but other variables
such as social norms still structure behavior along prejudicial lines.
These norms essentially cause the positive attitudinal affect to be
repressed, and can even produce a negative correlation between atti-
tudes and behavior. As Weitz (1972) points out, on a societal level
this system in which positive attitudes are not able to overcome dis-
criminatory racial patterns has been called by Myrdal (1944) the
"American dilemma."

19

Research Based on Models of Attitudinal Organization

Traditionally, attitudes are thought of as unidimensional, as a
favorable or unfavorable evaluation or affect. Yet a number of investi-
gators have treated attitudes as possessing an underlying organization
or structure. Two versions of this putative organization have been
closely related to the attitude- behavior question, the cognitive-
affect ive-conative model and tlie expectancy-value model. The cogni-
tive-af fective-conative model (Roseberg and Hovland, 1960) structures
attitudes in terms of three components: the cognitive component is the
rational, informational basis of attitude; the affective component is
the feeling of liking or disliking for the attitude object, and the
conative component is the strength of a person's behavioral tendencies
toward the attitude object. The major alternative to this model has
been the expectancy-value model which structures attitudes in terms of
the beliefs which make up the attitude. These beliefs may be treated
in different ways but they always refer to the attributes of the
attitude object which the person considers. Typically each belief
18 associated with two numerical indices, one gives the probability
of its occurrence (expectancy) and the other an evaluation of its
worth (value) . Expectancy-value models generally focus on how these
two indices combine with c^ach other and across various beliefs in
order to determine attitude.

The cognitive- affect ive-conative approach

Proponents of a three component model of attitude must first
demonstrate that there are, in fact, distinct components. If a

fj

20

separate conative component of attitude could be identified, we might
expect it to predict behavior more accurately than the overall atti-
tude. On the other hand, the three components may only appear to
differ because they are measured in different ways, Woodmansee and
Cook (1967) factor analyzed responses to a pool of opinion statements
concerning racial attitudes. The factors which emerged concerned
specific content areas such as private rights and could not be
labeled cognitive, affective, or conative. However, the opinion
statements used in this study were probably too homogeneous to afford
an adequate test of the three component model.

Two studies have employed Canrpbell and Ftske's (1959) multitrait-
multimethod matrix technique to determine whether there are separate
components of attitude. Ostrom (1969) constructed four independent
verbal measures of the cognitive, affective and conative components of
students' attitudes toward the church. The four methods used were
Thurstone's equal appearing intervals, Likert's summated ratings,
Guttraan's scaiogram analysis, and a simple rating scale, Kothandapani
(1971a, i971b) employed the same four methodologies to measure the
cognitive, affective, and conative components of attitudes toward
birth control. The multitrait-multimethod analysis in both studies
indicated that the three hypothetical components of attitude are
distinct relative to method variance. These two studies also inves-
tigated the accuracy with which the three components predicted be-
havior. Ostrom found that the conative component was generally a
better predictor of church related behaviors (self report and behavioroid
measures) than the cognitive and affective components, but that the

21

magnitude of this difference was extremely small , Using a stepwise
discriminant analysis, Kothandapani showed that the conative component
was the most accurate predictor ot contraceptive behavior (as deter-
mined from self-reports) and that prediction was not improved by adding
either the affective or cognitive component, or both, to the prediction
equation.

In view of this research, it appears that the conative component
of attitude should be further explored. Some earlier research by
Triandis (1964) is especially relevant. This work investigated the
factor analytic structure underlying semantic differential type ratings
of statements regarding various behaviors, Triandis argued that by
using specific factors underlying the conative component, more accurate
prediction of behavior may be obtained.

Although research on the conative component seems promising, it
is possible to raise a theoretical objection. Perhaps the conative
component is not really a measure of attitude. That is, the conative
component may vreli be different from cognitive and affective components
as measured by various methods, but there is no theoretical basis for
concluding that it is a separate component of attitude. Rather the
conative component may provide evidence about general behavioral
tendencies or intentions. The conative component may thus predict overt
acts because both the acts aud the conative component are indicants of
the same concept, behavior. This argument implies that some theoreti-
cal rationale must be developed for postulating and measuring conation
as a component of attitude. Until such a perspective is developed, the
most parsimonious explanation of the conative component is not as a

22

basis of attitude but as a measure of behavior. This problem is simi-
lar to the issues raised in connection with using observations of
behaviors to infer attitudes.

Insko and Schopler (1967) have proposed a cognitive-affective-
conative model in which conation is not employed as a component of
attitude. In this model, attitudes are defined strictly in terms of
positive or negative affect; cognitions are beliefs about the rela-
tionship between objects of affective significance; conation is
identified as goal directed activity which may be positively or nega-
tively evaluated. Insko and Schopler hypothesized that people try to
maintain consistency between attitudes, cognitions and behavior. Thus
inconsistency between attitudes and behavior should be resolved by
either a change in attitudes or a change in behavior. Although this
prediction has not been adequately tested in the context of their
theory^ Insko and Schopler 's work does provide an example of how
affect, cognition, and conation can be related by a specific psychologi-
cal mechanism.

The exp e c t an cy- value appr o ach

While several investigators have developed expectancy-value
toodels of attitude organization (e.g., Peak, 1955, 1958; Rosenberg,
1956, i960a, 1960b), the work of Fishbein (1963, 1965, 1967a, 1967b,
in press) is the most relevant to the attitude-behavior relationship.
Fishbein 's expectancy-value model is given by the equation

23

where A is the attitude toward some action or object, B is the strength
of the belief i about the object or action, and a is the evaluative
aspect of belief i. This basic moael of attitude organization has
been extended to the predi-ction of behavior as follows. Fishbein
believes that behavioral prediction can be increased by employing
specific attitudes and other variables in addition to attitude. The

extended model is written as

m
B « BI . [A^^^]w^ + [r(NB.)(M^.)lw^ , [2]

where B is some overt behavior, BI is the intention to perform that

behavior, A is the attitude toward performing the behavior, NB

Is the strength of the normative belief j about what other people

think the individual should do, M is the individual's motivation to

* c

comply with normative belief j, and w and w- are empirically derived
regression weights. Note that Equation [1"] can be substituted into
Equation [2], An interesting feature of the model is that overt
behavior and behavioral intentions are seen as being approximately
the same, Fishbein (in press) argues that most behavior is under
volitional control and that intentions will be very closely reflected
in behavior if they are measured properly, i.e., temporally close to
the behavior, etc. Equation [2] then predicts these behavioral
intentions from the additive combination of an individual's attitude
toward the action and his perception of and susceptibility to norma-
tive pressures regarding the behavior. Behavioral prediction thus
rests on an expectancy-value model of both attitude and normative
influence.

24

Several studies have tested Fishbein's attitude-behavior model.
One of these provides a useful illustration. Fishbein (1966) attempted
to predict the occurrence of prema..ital sexual intercourse for male and
female subjects. Behavioral intentions were correlated with actual
behavior though the association was higher for females than for males
(r » .69 versus r = ,39). The multiple correlations between behavior
and the attitudinal and the normative components of the model were
quite high for both males and females (r = .89 and r = ,94 respectively)
The regression weights, however, differed for males and females. For
females, the attitudinal component received the most weight in the
regression equation while, for males, the normative component contri-
buted more. This finding is also reflected in a higher correlation
between attitudes and sexual behavior for females (r » .92) than
males (r » .52). Again we see the complicated interaction of attitu-
dinal and situational factors.

Ajzen and Fishbein (in press) review nine studies that support
the model. All of these studies obtained relatively high correlations
between specific attitude measures (A ) and behaviors such as inten-
tions to engage in recreational activities (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1969)
or cooperative intentions and choices in a Prisoner's Dilemma game
(Ajaen and Fishbein,, 1970)' Schwartz and Tessler (1972) report an
excellent study exploring the adequacy of Fishbein's model in predic-
ting intentions about six kinds of medical transplant donations. The
tested version of Fishbein's model consisted of three components,
attitude toward the act, social normative beliefs, and personal norma-
tive beliefs in the sense of moral obligation. Although previous work
(Ajzen, 1971; Ajzen and Fishbein, 1969, 1970, in press) has suggested

25

omitting personal normative beliefs and the motivation to comply from
the model, Schwartz and Tessler argue that the former may prove valuable
if operationalized as moral obliges :ion. The results of the study re-
vealed significant correlations between all three components and
behavioral intentions for all six transplant donations. An average
of more than 507c of the variance in intentions was explained. This
proportion was not even reduced very much for a crossvalidation sample
using the original regression weights. A step-wise regression analysis
indicated that all three components contributed significantly to the
explained variance,

Schwartz and Tessler also examined whether Fishbein's model media-
ted the infliience of six exogenous variables. The relationship of four
variables, attitude toward the object, age, religiosity, and occupa-
tional prestige, with intentions was not eliminated by controlling for
the effects of the model's components. This result along with similar
findings by Ajzen and Fishbein (1969, 1970) casts doubt on the suf-
ficiency of Fishbein's model. Finally, Schwartz and Tessler obtained
measures ox volunteering behavior too, but found that only personal
normative beliefs predicted actual behavior. The authors conclude
that Fishbein's model may be a better predictor of intentions than
behavior. While this is probably true, these results really serve to
highlight the myriad of other variables besides attitude which affect
behavior and to a lesser extent intentions.

Expectancy-value models have also been popular in the area of
crganiziational behavior. Vroom (1964) has devised an expectancy-
value model for job performance. Empirical studies, however, have
generated only weak support for these models (e.g., Galbraith and

26

Coranings, 1967; Hackman and Porter, 1968; Lawler, 1968; Lawler and
Porter, 1967). Graen (1969) has provided some possible limitations and
extensions of Vroom's model.

Attitude Change- Behavior Change Research

Most of the studies of attitudes over the past two decades have
focused on measuring attitude change as a result of a specific experi-
mental manipulation. Very few of these studies have also included a
measure of behavior change. In an early review of this area, Festinger
(1964) was able to find only three studies that incorporated measures
of both attitude and behavior (Fleishman, Harris and Burtt, 1955;
Janls and Feshback, 1963; MacCoby, Romney, Adams, and MacCoby, 1962).
While all three studies successfully modified attitudes, corresponding
shifts in behavior were not obtained,

A number of more recent investigations have been specifically
designed to test whether behavior change accompanies attitude change.
In two studies, Greenwald (1965, 1966) found that a communication
changed both children's attitudes toward a task and their performance
on the task. Freednan (1965) failed to produce the expected attitude
change, yet behavior change was obtained. Hendryk and Seyfrled (1972)
developed a novel paradigm for studying the consequence of attitude
change. Experimental and control subjects were yoked on the bases of
initial attitude responses. Experimental subjects were then exposed
to a persuasive conmunication and their attitudes were reassessed
(post-test). The next stage of the experiment capitalized on Byrne's
research on interpersonal attraction which establishes a link between
attitude siJDilarlty and liking. Hendryk and Seyfrled showed subjects

fcl.

27

in both conditions the attitude responses of two strangers. The atti-
tude responses of one stranger were similar to the subjects' pre-test
attitudes. The attitude responses of the second stranger were identi-
cal to the experimental subjects' post-test attitudes. Rating of
attraction showed that the experimental subjects preferred the post-
test attitude stranger while control subjects preferred the pre-test
attitude stranger. Though measures of overt behavior were not obtained,
Hendryk and Seyfried demonstrated that effects of attitude change spread
to a conceptually related response, liking for an anonymous stranger.
Further extensions of this type of paradigm could provide important evi-
dence linking attitude change and behavior change.

Other research which has simultaneously included measures of atti-
tude and behavior has yielded inconsistent results (e.g., Weick, 1964;
Leventhal, 1970). Leventhal reported five studies on fear arousing
communications that successfully produced attitude change, but only two
of these studies also yielded changes in behavior. In summary, changes
in attitude do not always appear to produce changes in behavior, A
number of factors are. likely to affect whether or not attitudes and
behavior will covary and some of the most important of these are dis-
cussed below.

The functional ricitura of the attitude-brhavlor relationship

Even if Hshavior is functionally related to attitudes, it is not
necessary that any change in attitude result in a change in behavior.
The precise nature of this relationship might take a number of forms
as illustrated in Figure 1. For the first curve (1), large changes in
attitude (ac) produce only small changes in behavior (be). If

28

attitudes were related to behavior by this function, it would not be
surprising if research successfully obtained attitude change but was
not able to detect the resulting small amount of behavior change. The
second curve (2) depicts a more complicated functional relationship.
Here the slope changes with the region of the curve examined. Different
portions of the attitude scale yield substantial differences in the
amount of behavior change. A moderately religious person, for example,
who becomes less religious may change his behavior far less than an
extremely religious person who loses his former zeal.

Insert Figure 1 about here

Attitude change may be unstable

Festinger (1964) offered a further explanation for the frequent
lack of correspondence between attitude change and behavior change.
Attitude change may be transitory and unstable unless it is supported
by accompanying environmental changes. Such a hypothesis is illus-
trated by Newcomb's (1943, 1963, 1967) finding that girls at Benning-
ton College who came into the more liberal academic community tended
to adopt more liberal attitudes. Newcomb relates the subsequent per-
sistence of these attitudes over a twenty- five year period to the
environmental support provided by the girls' husbands who also
possessed liberal views. In the absence of a supportive informational
environment, attitudes may not persist long enough to affect behavior.

29

Commitment

Greenwald (1966), in a study referred to earlier, found that com-
mitment to a behavior made it more resistant to change. Whereas both
the behavior and attitudes of noncommitted subjects were influenced by
a communication, subjects conimitted to a conflicting behavior changed
their attitudes toward a task but not their performance. These results
suggest that a prior commitment inay lock a person into a behavior and
decrease its susceptibility to any change in attitude. For example,
once a couple formally announces their engagement, it may become much
more difficult for any subsequent negative attitude change to affect
their behavior.

Behavior is sltuatlonally constrained

While attitude change is generally covert, behavior change is
often public. As a result, changes in behavior are more likely than
changes in attitude to result in negative or positive consequences.
The reformed bigot may find it very costly to change his behavior in a
society, such as South Africa, r'lere racial prejudice is the norm. A
man may become a model prisoner to gain parole, though his attitudes
toward crime remain unaltered.

Behavior-Attitude Research

It is necessary to distinguish between attitudes as causes
(determinants) of behavior and attitudes as predictors of behavior.
Few researchers have explicitly addressed this problem. The implicit
assumption in the literature is that attitudes should predict behavior
because they are a cause of behavior. This assumption may be false.

30

It is possible to argue that attitudes may serve as convenient surro-
gates for predicting behavior in advance, but though they are associated
with behavior they are not major determiners of behivior. It is incum-
bent on such an argument, of course, to provide some explanation for
how such a non-causal association could arise. The most viable explana-
tion simply reverses the asrtumed causal direction. Attitudes may not
cause behavior, rather behavior causes attitudes: attitudes predict
behavior only because the two are related through previous performance.
Past behavior molds our attitudes which will in turn predict future
behavior if this behavior is related to prior performance,

Bern (1968) has indeed suggested that there is more evidence in
support of the counterintuitive notion that behavior affects attitudes
than there is for the common sense assumption that attitudes determine
behavior. The bulk of this evidence comes from research on cognitive
dissonance theory (Festinger, 195?) and Bem's own theory of self-
perception (1965, 1967, 1972), However, just as it is now becoming
clear that attitudes do not always influence behavior, similarly
neither dissonance nor self-perception theory postulate that behavior
always affects attitudes. Behavior that is clearly perceived to be
under the control of extrinsic factors such as reward or punishment is
not hypothesised to influence attitudes, and only behavior that the
Individual perceives himself to be enacting of hiu own free will
determines attitudes.

There have probably been ainost as many failures to obtain the
expected dissonance results of a behavior- attitude link (e.g., Collins,
Ashmore, Hornbeck, & ¥hitney, 1970; Melson, Calder, & Insko, 1969) as

31

there have been failures to demonstrate the attitude-behavior connection,
In recent years research in both areas has attempted to delineate the
crucial parameters j to determine when the attitude-behavior or behavior-
attitude association is likely to occur. With regard to the behavior-
attitude association. Cooper and Worchel (1970) found that counter-
attitudinal behavior resulted in attitude change only when the behavior
was enacted for low inducement and it resulted in negative consequences
for another person. Collins and Hoyt (1972) extended this finding by
demonstrating that the individual must feel personally responsible for
the behavior if attitude change is to result. Finally Calder, Ross,
and Insko (1972) demonstrated the importance of choice: Negative con-
sequences and low financial inducement led to attitude change only
when subjects volunteered to perform the counter attitudinal behavior
(choice condition). When subjects were forced to perform a behavior
resulting in negative consequences, high inducement produced more
attitude change than lovr inducement, (It is likely that choice as
manipulated by Calder at al. and personal responsibility for conse-
quences as manipulated by Collins and Hoyt, while operationally dis-
tinct, are closely related coucnptually. High choice should induce
perccptioriS of high parsoi^al responsibility end low choice perceptions
of minimal personal rer^ponaibiii ty) .

It should also be noted that the behavior-attitude link has been
observed for behaviors r,het were not originally counterattitudinal
(e.g., Valine, 1966; Kiesler, Nisbett, and Zanna, 1969; Ross, Insko,
and Ro3s^ 1971). Again the *iffects of behavior appear to interact
with other variables though. Kiesler and Sakumura (1966), for

32

example, cienons traced that subjects who were paid $5.00 for stating a
position agreeing with their own point of view were subsequently more
■•Ailnerable to countercommunicati ms than subjects vho had been paid
only $1.00« The greater the external reward for a behavior, the less
it seems to affect one's private attitude.

In summary, the behavior- attitude association is complicated by
various interacting factors that determine the precise nature of the
relationship. A number of recent studies have attempted to systemati-
cally identify the most important of these factors. In this sense
attitude-behavior research and behavior-attitude research are pro-
ceeding along siraiiar lines. However, there is a great need to examine
the behavior-attitude link as a possible alternative explanation in
studies relating attitudes to behavior. To prov5.de evidence for a
causal relation, such studies must control for the effects of previous
performance which might have produced an attitude which predicts future
behavior (if it is similar to the prior behavior) but does not actually
cause that behavior. Sincf* it seems likely that both causal processes
are at vjork, it may prove most aifiicuit to disentangle them.

Conclusions

Full consideration of research relevant to the attitude-behavior
question has indicated that evidence for the proposition that atti-
tudes are related to behavior is not as weak as many social scientists
have contended. In general, the research indicates that attitudes will
correlate with behavior when:

33

1. standard attitude scale techniques and multiple act behavior
scores are employed (e.g., Tittle and Hill, 1967),

2. attitudes toward the act and attitudes toward the situation in
which the act occurs are taken into account (e.g., Fishbein,
1967a; Rokeach and Kliejunas^ 1972),

3. the conarive component of attitude is used as a basis of
prediction (e.g., Kothandapani, 1971a),

4. situational constraints do not produce behavior that is
inconsistent with attitudes (e.g., V/arner and DeFleur, 1969;
Weitz, 1972).

Definitive statements concerning the relationship between atti-
tude change and behavior change must be made with greater trepidation
as only a few studies have been directly concerned with this problem.
The proposition that attitudes affect behavior does not imply that the
two arc linearly related. It does follow, however, that attitude
change must produce behavior change in some instances. More research
is required to determine the conditions under which attitude change
yields behavior change.

A considerable amount of research has focused on the behavior-
attitude association. At the present time the research on counter-
attitudinai role playing points to three important interacting varia-
bles: choice (or personal responsibility), financial inducement, and
consequences (Calder, Ross 6e Insko, 1973; Collins & Hoyt, 1972),
identification of these factors has resolved much of the inconsis-
tency in the literature dealing with attitude change following counter-
attitudinal behavior. The behavior-attitude link, however, has not
tested as a possible aitertiative explanation in attitude-behavior studies.

34

Allport (1935) noted that attitude has been an indispensible con-
cept since the very beginnings of experimental psychology. While the
present review is by no means coaclusive, the data certainly suggest
that the concept of attitude still has an important role to play.
After nearly one hundred years it has not yet outlived its usefulness.

35

References

Acock, A. C. and DeFleur, M. L. A conf igurational approach to con-
tingent consistency in the attitude -behavior relationship.
American Sociological Review, 1972, j6, 714-726.

Ajzen, I. Attitudinal vs. normative messages: An investigation of

the differential effects of persuasive communications on behavior,
Sociometry, 1971, 34, 263-280.

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. The prediction of behavioral intentions in
a choice situation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,

1969, 2, 400-416.

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. The prediction of behavior from attitudinal

and normative variables. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,

1970, _6, 466-487.

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors
of specific behaviors: A review of research generated by a theoretical
model . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, in

press.

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. Attitudes and normative beliefs as factors
influencing behavioral intentions in hypothetical situations
involving risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1972, 21,, 1-9.

Aronson, E. and Carlsmith, J. M. Experimentation in social psychology.
In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.). The handbook of social
psychology. Vol. 2. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1968,
Pp. 1-79.

36

Bern, D. J. An experimental analysis of self-persuasion. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology > 1965, ^, 199-218.
Bern, D. J. Inducing belief in false confessions. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 1966, 2. 707-710.
Hem, D. J. Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive

dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 1967, 2^, 183-200.
Bern, D. J. Attitudes as self -descriptions: Another look at the

attitude-behavior link. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, and

T. M. Ostrora (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes.

Academic Press, 1968, Pp. 197-216.
Bern, D. J. Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology, Vol. 6. New York: Academic Press,

1972, Pp. 1-62.
Bern, D. J. and McConnell, H. K. Testing the self -perception explanation

of dissonance phenomena: On the salience of premanipulation

attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, JL4,

23-31.
Celder, B. J., Insko^ C. A.^ and Yandell, B. The relation of cognitive

and memorial processes to persuasion in a simulated jury trial.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, in press ,
Calder, E. J., Ross, M., and InskOj C. A. Attitude change and attitude

attribution: Effects of incentive, choice, and consequences.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 25^, 84-99.
Campbell, D, T. The indirect assessment of social attitudes. Psychological

Bulletin, 1950, 47, 15-38.

37

Campbell, D. T. Social attitudes and other acquired behavioral

dispositions. In S. Koch (Ed.)j Psychology: A study of a

science. Vol. 6. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.
Campbell, D. T. and Friske, D. W. Convergent and discriminant

validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological

Bulletin, 1959, 56, 81-105.
Campbell, D. T., Kruskal, W,, and Wallace, W. Seating aggregation as

an index of attitude. Sociometry, 1966, 29^, 1-15.
Carr, L. and Roberts, S. 0. Correlates of civil-rights participation.

Journal of Social Psychology. 1965, 67, 259-267.
Collins, B. E. and Hoyt, M. F. Personal responsibility-for-consequences:

An integration and extension of the "forced compliance" literature.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1972, 8^, 558-593.
Collins, B. E., Ashmore, R. D. , Hornbeck, F. W. , and Whitney, R. E.

Studies in forced compliance: XIII and XV. In search of a

dissonance-producing forced-compliance paradigm. Representative

Research in Social Psychology, 1970, _1, 11-23.
Cook, S. W. and Selltiz, C. A multiple-indicator approach to attitude

measurentent. Psychological Bulletin, 1964, _62, 36-55.
Cooper, J. and Worchel, S. Role of undesired consequences in arousing

cognitive dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

1970, 16, 199-206.
Corey, S* M. Profesaed attitudes and actual behavior. The Journal of

Educational Psychology « 1937, 38, 271-280.

38

DePleur, M. L. and Westie, F. R. Verbal attitudes and overt acts: An

experiment on the salience of attitudes. American Sociological

Review, 1958, 23, 667-673.
DeFleur, M. L. and Westie, F. R. Attitude as a scientific concept.

Social Forces, 1963, 4^, 17-31.
Deutscher, I. Looking backward: Case studies on the progress of

methodology in sociological research. The American Sociologist,

1969, 4, 35-41.
Doob, L. The behavior of attitudes. Psychological Review, 1947, 54,

135-156.
Etzioni, A. Human beings are not very easy to change after all.

Saturday Review, June 3, 1972, 45-47.
Fendrich, J. M. A study of the association among verbal attitudes,

commitment and overt behavior in different experimental situations.

Social Forces, 1967, 45, 347-362.
Feetinger, L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford California:

Stanford University Press ^ 1957.
Festtnger, L. Behavioral support for opinion change. Public Opinion

Quarterly, 1964, 28, 404 --A 17.
Flshbein^ K. An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about

an object and the attitudes toward that object. Human Relations,

1963, 16, 233-240.
Fishbeln, M. A consideration of beliefs, attitudes and their

relationships. In I. Steincr and M. Fishbein (Eds.), Current Studies

in Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1965,

Pp. 107-120.

ri/-.

39

Fishbein, M. Sexual behavior and prapositional control. Paper
presented at the Psychonomic Society meetings, 1966.

Fishbein, M. Attitude and the prediction of behavior. In M. Fishbein (Ed.),
Readings in attitude theory and measurement. New York: Wiley,
1967a, Pp. 477-492-

Fishbein, M. A consideration of beliefs and their role in attitude

measurement- In M. Fishbein (Ed..), Readings in attitude theory
and measurement. New York: Wiley, 1967b, Pp. 257-266.

Fishbein, M. The prediction of behavior from attitudinal variables.

In C. D. Mortensen and K, K. Sereno (Eds.), Advances in communica-
tions research. New York: Harper, Row and Co., in press.

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. Attitudes and opinions. In P. H. Mussen

and M. R. Rosenweig (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 23.
Palo Alto: Annus! Review, Inc., 1972, Pp. 487-544.

Fleishman, E., Harris, E., and Burtt, H. Leadership and supervision
in industry: An evaluation of a supervisory training program.
Bureau of Educational Research, Ohio State University, 1955.

Freedraan, J. L, Long-term behavioral effects of cognitive dissonance.
Journal of^ ExperitTiental Social Psychology, 1965, J^, 145-155.

Galbraith, J. ami Cuiwuinga, L. L. An empirical investigation of the

motivatioiaal determinants of task performance: Interactive effects
1>etiiit^en instrumental ity-valence and motivation ability. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 1967, 2, 237-257.

40

Goodmonson, C. and Glaudin, V. The relationship of commitment- free

behavior and commitment behavior: A study of attitude toward

organ transplantation. Journal of Social Issues, 1971, 27, 171-183.
Graen, G. B. Instrumentality theory of work motivations: Some experimental

results and suggested modifications. Journal of Applied Psychology

Monographs, 1969, 53^, (Whole no. 2, part 2).
Greenwald, A. G, Behavior change following a persuasive communication.

Journal of Personality, 1965,2^5 370-391.
Greenwald, A. G. Effects of prior commitment on behavior change after

a persuasive communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1966, 29,

595-601.
Hackman, J. R. and Porter, L. W. Expectancy theory predictions of work

effectiveness . Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,

1968, 2* 417-426.
Hendrick, G. and Seyfried, B. A. Attitude change and behavior change.

Unpublished manuscript, 1973.
Hytnan, H. H. Inconsistencies as a problem of attitude measurement.

Jou.r-nal of Social I»8uee , 1959 , 5, 38-42 «
X.nskOj C. A. and Scboplcir, J. Triadic consistency: A statement of

aff«ctive»cognitive-conative consistency. Psychological Review.

1967, 74, 361-376.
Janis, I. L. and Feshbach, S. Effects of fear-arousing communications.

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1953, 48, 78-92.

41

Kamenetsky, J., Burgess, G. G. and Rowan, T. The relative effective-
ness of four attitude assessment techniques in predicting a
criterion. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1956, 16,
187-194.

Katz, I. Experimental studies of negro-white relationships. In

L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology.
Vol. 5. Academic Press, 1970, Pp. 71-117.

Kiesler, C. A., Collins, B. E. and Miller, N. Attitude change. New York:
Wiley, 1969.

Kiesler, C. A., Nisbett, R. E. , and Zanna , M. P. On inferring one's
beliefs from one's behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1969, 4, 321-327.

Kothandapani, V. Validation of feeling, belief, and intention to
act as three components of attitude and their contribution to
prediction of contraceptive behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1971fi, 19, 321-333.

Kothfindapani , V . A^ psychological approach to the prediction of

contraceptv-ve behavior. Monograph 15, North Carolina Population
Center, University of North Carolina, 1971b.

Kutner, B»» Wilkins, C.j and Yarrow, P. R. Verbal attitudes and overt
behavror involving racial prejudice. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psvchology, 1952, 47, 649-652.

»..riiii»i»i.i .1.1111 1 I iriiii I I lim III ^if ' ' .__«.'

42

LaPiere, R. T. Attitudes versus actions. Social Forces, 1934, 13.

230-237.
Lawler, E. E, A correlational-causal analysis of the relationship

between expectancy attitudes and job performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 1968, ^, 462-468.
Lawler, E. E. and Porter, L, W. Antecedent attitudes of effective

managerial performance. Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance. 1967, 2, 122-142.
Leventhal, H. Findings and theory in the study of fear communications.

In L, Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology.

Vol. 5. New York: Academic Press, 1970, Pp. 119-186.
Lmn, L. S. Verbal attitudes and overt behavior: A study of racial

discrimination. Social Forces, 1965. 43, 353-364.
Maccoby, N. , Romney, A. K., Adams, J. S., and Maccoby, E. E.

Critical p<sriods in seeking and accepting information. Paris-Stanford

Studies in Cormtiunicetion, Institute for Communication Research, 1962

(cited in Festiager, 1964).
McGuire, W. J. The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey

find E. Aronsom (Eda.), The handbook of social psychology. Vol. 3.

fHQi? York: Addison-Wesley, 1968, Pp. 136-314.
Kelson, W. H. , Galdcr, B. J., and Insko, C. A, The social psychological

status of reward. Psvchonoroic Science, 1969, 17, 240-242.

43

Mischcl, W. Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley, 1968.
Myrdal, G. An American dilen-ima. New York: Harper and Row, 1944. 2 vols.
Newcomb, T. M. Personality and social change. Dryden, 1943.
Newcomb, T. M. Persistence and regression of changed attitudes: Long

range studies. Journal of Social Issues^ 1963, 2J9» 3-14.
Newcomb, T. M. Persistence and change; Bennington College and its

students after 25 years. New York: Wiley, 1967.
Oskamp, S. Methods of studying human behavior. In L. S. Wrightsman (Ed.),

Social psychology in the seventies. Belmont, California: Brooks-Cole,

1972.
Ostrom, T. M. The emergence of attitude theory: 1930-1950. In A. G.

Greenwald, T. C. Brock, and T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological

foundations of attitudes. New York: Academic Press, 1968, Pp. 1-32.
Ostrom, T. M. The relationship between the affective, behavioral, and

cognitive conipon^fnts of attitude. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 1969, 5^, 12-30.
Peak, H. Attitude and ffiotivauion. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska

Symg>oj5lum on Motivation. Vol, 3. University of Nebraska Press,

1955, Pp.. 149-189,
Peak, H. Psychological structure and psychological activity.

Fsyohalo^ical Review, 1953, _65, 325-347.
Poppletcn, ?. K. and Pilkington, G. W. A comparison of four methods

of scoring an attitude scale in relation to its reliability and

validity. British Journal o_f Social and Clinical Psychology, 1963 ,

3, 36-39.

44

Kokeach, M. and Kliejoaas, ?. Behavior as a function of attitude-toward-

object and attitude-toward-situatlon. Journal of Personality,

«Qfi. i£Ei^ i§.X2i2£l2SX> ^^^2' li' 194-201.
Kosen, B. and Komorita, S. S. Attitudes and action: The effects of

behavioral intent and perceived effectiveness of acts. Journal ^
Personality, 1971, 39, 189-203.

Rosenberg, M. J. Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, ^, 367-372.
Rosenberg, M. J. Cognitive reorganization in response to the hypnotic

reversal of attitudinal affect. Journal of Personality, 1960a, 28,

39-63.
Rosenberg, M. J. An analysis of affective-cognitive consistency. In

M. J. Rosenberg, C. I. Hovland, W. J. McGuire, R. P. Abelson, and

J. W. Brehra (Eds.), Attitude organization and change. New Haven:

Yale University Press, 1960b, Pp. 15-64,
Rosenberg, M. J. and Hovland, C. I. Cognitive affective and behavioral

components of attitude. In M. J. Rosenberg, C. I. Hovland,

M. W. McGwire, R. P, Abelson, and J. W. Brehm (Eds.), Attitude

Organization and change. New Kaven: Yale University Press, 1960,

Pp. I -(A.
Ross, M. and Shulmanj, R. S. Increasing the salience of initial attitudes:

Dissonance versus self-perception theory. Journal of Personality

£ikI Sociift 1_ Psychology , in press .
Ross, M., Insko, C. A., and Ross, H.. S. Self-attribution of attitude.

JQ^-^'mIv of. Feraonality and Social Psychology, 1971, JL7, 292-297 .

45

Saenger, G. and Gilbert, E. Customer reactions to the integration of

Negro sales personnel. Interna tional Journal of Opinion and

Attitude Research, 1950, 4_, 57-76.
Schwartz, S. H. and Teseler, R. C. A test of a model for reducing

measured attitude-behavior discrepancies. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 1972, 24, 225-236.
Sechrest, L. Nonreactive assessment of attitudes. In E. P. Willems

and M. L. Rausch (Eds.)* Naturalistic viewpoints in psychological

research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1969.
Skinner, B. F. Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knoff, 1971.
Thurstone, L. L. The measurement of social attitudes. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1931, 26, 249-269.
Tittle, C. R. and Hill. R. J. Attitude measurement and prediction of

behavior: An evaluation of conditions and measurement techniques.

Sociometry, 1967, 30, 199-213.
Triandis, H. C, Exploratory factor anlyses of the behavioral components

of social attitudes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,

1964, 68, 420-430.
TrlandlSj, H. C. Attitude and attitude change. New York: Wiley,

1971.
Valins, S. Cogiii?:ive effects of ifalse heart-rate feedback. Journal

£i. JP€''"^sonality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4^, 400-408.
Vroom, V. H. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964.

46

Warner, L. G. and DeFleur, M. L. Attitude as an interactional concept:

Social constraint and social distance as intervening variables

between attitudes and action. American Sociological Review,

1969, 34, 153-169.
Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schv/artz, R. B., and Sechrest, L.

Unobtrusive measures ; Nonreactive research in the social sciences .

Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.
Weick, K. E. Reduction of cognitive dissonance through task enhancement

and effort expenditure . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology.

1964, 68, 533-539.
Wicker, A. W. Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal

and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of

Social Issues, 1969, 25, 41-78,
Wicker, A. W, An examination of the "other variables" explanation of

attitude-behavior inconsistency. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 1971, 1% 18-30.
Wicker, A. W. and Pomasal, B.. J. The relationship between attitudes

and behavior as & function of specificity of attitude object

and presence of a significant person during assessment conditions.

Represep.tative Re search in Social Psychology , 1971, 2^, 26-31 .
Weitx, S. Attitude, voice, and hehavior: A repressed affect model of inter-
racial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

1972, 24, 14-21.

Figure Caption

Fig. 1 Hypothetical functional relationships between attitude and
behavior.

Note. -"The dotted lines indicate changes in behavior as a
function of changes in attitude. Notice that the
three ac lines are of equal magnitude.

o

t

i5

(2)

QC

be

ATTITUDE CHANGE
BEHAVIOR CHANGE

BEHAVIOR

FACULTY WORKING PAPERS
College of Commerce and Business Administration
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

May 4, 1973

THE ATTITUDE-BEHAVICB RELATIONSHIP
Bobby J. Calder, University of Illinois
Michael Ross, University of Waterloo

#110

::;j .