13,094
edits
Changes
From Nordan Symposia
Jump to navigationJump to search
mLine 5:
Line 5: + + + + + Line 21:
Line 26: + + − − <center>For lessons on '''Attitude''', follow [http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Attitude this link].</center> − − ==Theoretical Description== − The [[research]] of '''attitude''' is probably one of the most controversial, yet fascinating, areas of [[psychology]]. Although contemporary psychologists tend to define attitudes as evaluations of people, objects, and [[ideas]], attitude theories and research have looked at attitudes in many different ways and from several varying [[perspective]]s. The study of attitudes was already popular in the 1920s and 1930s when they were being studied and developed by well-known psychologists like Thurstone and Allport. From the mid-1950s until the early 1970s, the research of attitudes in general, and of attitude formation in particular, had been approached from several different perspectives, including behavioral, cognitive, and even psychodynamic. However, by the late 1970s and 1980s, the [[cognitive revolution]] that influenced psychology in general had a decisive effect on the study of attitudes. As a result, sociocognitive perspectives dominate today's approaches to attitude research. One of the most widely accepted [[model]]s that emerged at that time was the sociocognitive tripartite model of attitude [[structure]], proposed by Katz and Stotland. In this model, attitudes are mainly structured by three components—[[thought|cognitive]], [[feeling|affective]], and [[action|behavioral]]—that interact to serve as the backbone of the attitudinal model. The cognitive element encompasses all the [[information]] the individual has about a particular attitude object. The affective component contains the individual's [[feeling]]s and [[emotio]]ns. The behavioral component consists of the overt [[action]]s ([[physical]] or [[speech|verbal]]) of the subject toward the attitude object. Each of these components or [[dimensions]] is represented as an evaluative [[continuum]] that can go from the extremely negative to the extremely positive, resulting in a three-dimensional representation for any particular attitude. Line 44:
Line 46: + + +
Text replacement - "http://" to "https://"
*2. a. A [[posture]] of the [[body]] proper to, or implying, some [[action]] or mental [[state]] assumed by [[human being]]s or [[animals]]. to strike an attitude: to assume it theatrically, and not as the unstudied expression of action or [[passion]].
*2. a. A [[posture]] of the [[body]] proper to, or implying, some [[action]] or mental [[state]] assumed by [[human being]]s or [[animals]]. to strike an attitude: to assume it theatrically, and not as the unstudied expression of action or [[passion]].
----
<center>For lessons on the [[topic]] of '''''Attitude''''', follow [https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Attitude this link].</center>
----
:b. fig. Of inanimate [[things]], [[concept]]ions, etc.
:b. fig. Of inanimate [[things]], [[concept]]ions, etc.
*6. attrib. and Comb., as attitude measurement, [[research]], scale, study, test, [[theory]]; attitude-taking vbl. n.
*6. attrib. and Comb., as attitude measurement, [[research]], scale, study, test, [[theory]]; attitude-taking vbl. n.
==Theoretical Description==
The [[research]] of '''attitude''' is probably one of the most controversial, yet fascinating, areas of [[psychology]]. Although contemporary psychologists tend to define attitudes as evaluations of people, objects, and [[ideas]], attitude theories and research have looked at attitudes in many different ways and from several varying [[perspective]]s. The study of attitudes was already popular in the 1920s and 1930s when they were being studied and developed by well-known psychologists like Thurstone and Allport. From the mid-1950s until the early 1970s, the research of attitudes in general, and of attitude formation in particular, had been approached from several different perspectives, including behavioral, cognitive, and even psychodynamic. However, by the late 1970s and 1980s, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_revolution cognitive revolution] that influenced psychology in general had a decisive effect on the study of attitudes. As a result, sociocognitive perspectives dominate today's approaches to attitude research. One of the most widely accepted [[model]]s that emerged at that time was the sociocognitive tripartite model of attitude [[structure]], proposed by Katz and Stotland. In this model, attitudes are mainly structured by three components—[[thought|cognitive]], [[feeling|affective]], and [[action|behavioral]]—that interact to serve as the backbone of the attitudinal model. The cognitive element encompasses all the [[information]] the individual has about a particular attitude object. The affective component contains the individual's [[feeling]]s and [[emotion]]s. The behavioral component consists of the overt [[action]]s ([[physical]] or [[speech|verbal]]) of the subject toward the attitude object. Each of these components or [[dimensions]] is represented as an evaluative [[continuum]] that can go from the extremely negative to the extremely positive, resulting in a three-dimensional representation for any particular attitude.
==Competing models==
==Competing models==
This and other sociocognitive models became dominant at the [[time]] and have been very useful in explaining the [[structure]] and [[process]]es involved in attitude development. However, approaches from the sociocognitive perspective have been criticized for being unable to adequately explain attitude formation and for their lack of [[prediction|predictive]] [[value]]. They are unsuccessful in explaining the low attitude-behavior consistency [[dilemma]] and fail to integrate mediating variables such as [[individual]] [[difference]]s in attitude formation, change, and expression. After the development of sociocognitive models, it was believed that attitudes were formed first by acquiring information about the attitude object, then generating an affective evaluation of it, and finally expressing this evaluation with physical or verbal behavior. Therefore, the study of the cognitive and the affective components was regarded as relevant because of their expected predictive value of the behavioral component. However, it was later discovered that the three elements do not necessarily correlate at the individual level, or are not "consistent." Wicker, for example, concluded that there was only a weak correlation between verbally expressed [[belief]]s and actual [[behavior]]. The tripartite model, although not entirely refuted, was vigorously attacked. There was great disappointment, and for a while the study of attitudes fell into abandonment.
This and other sociocognitive models became dominant at the [[time]] and have been very useful in explaining the [[structure]] and [[process]]es involved in attitude development. However, approaches from the sociocognitive perspective have been criticized for being unable to adequately explain attitude formation and for their lack of [[prediction|predictive]] [[value]]. They are unsuccessful in explaining the low attitude-behavior consistency [[dilemma]] and fail to integrate mediating variables such as [[individual]] [[difference]]s in attitude formation, change, and expression. After the development of sociocognitive models, it was believed that attitudes were formed first by acquiring information about the attitude object, then generating an affective evaluation of it, and finally expressing this evaluation with physical or verbal behavior. Therefore, the study of the cognitive and the affective components was regarded as relevant because of their expected predictive value of the behavioral component. However, it was later discovered that the three elements do not necessarily correlate at the individual level, or are not "consistent." Wicker, for example, concluded that there was only a weak correlation between verbally expressed [[belief]]s and actual [[behavior]]. The tripartite model, although not entirely refuted, was vigorously attacked. There was great disappointment, and for a while the study of attitudes fell into abandonment.
It is clear that the tripartite model remains the most empirically supported and popular model for the explanation of attitudes. Furthermore, even among detractors of the model, there is general consensus in the [[idea]] that attitudes are linked to affect, cognition, and behavior. There is still disagreement, however, on whether these three factors are structural components of attitudes, as Katz and Stotland and Rosenberg and Hovland first proposed; evaluative responses, as Fishbein and Ajzen and Eagly and Chaiken [[thought]]; or [[process]]es, as Zanna and Rempel, Eiser, and Petty and Wegener believe. Most researchers, however, even those who do not concur with a process-like view of the tripartite model, agree that during attitude formation, there are cognitive processes, from the perception of the attitude object to storage and analysis of information about it, affective-evaluative processes, and of course, motor and verbal processes involved in the expression of the attitude.
It is clear that the tripartite model remains the most empirically supported and popular model for the explanation of attitudes. Furthermore, even among detractors of the model, there is general consensus in the [[idea]] that attitudes are linked to affect, cognition, and behavior. There is still disagreement, however, on whether these three factors are structural components of attitudes, as Katz and Stotland and Rosenberg and Hovland first proposed; evaluative responses, as Fishbein and Ajzen and Eagly and Chaiken [[thought]]; or [[process]]es, as Zanna and Rempel, Eiser, and Petty and Wegener believe. Most researchers, however, even those who do not concur with a process-like view of the tripartite model, agree that during attitude formation, there are cognitive processes, from the perception of the attitude object to storage and analysis of information about it, affective-evaluative processes, and of course, motor and verbal processes involved in the expression of the attitude.
==Quote==
But the great difficulty of finding a new and satisfying [[symbol]]ism is because modern [[human]]s as a [[group]], adhere to the scientific '''attitude''', eschew [[superstition]], and abhor ignorance, while as [[individual]]s they all crave [[mystery]] and venerate the unknown.[https://www.urantia.org/cgi-bin/webglimpse/mfs/usr/local/www/data/papers?link=https://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper87.html&file=/usr/local/www/data/papers/paper87.html&line=148#mfs]
==Further Readings and References==
==Further Readings and References==
