Changes

==Theoretical Description==

==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.

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 [[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.