MEASUREMENT OF ATTITUDE

Before going into the details of measurement techniques of attitude, it

is essential to emphasise that attitude is a hypothetical construct. In
other words, the attitude itself cannot be directly observed, rather it
must be inferred from the behaviour of the persons. One cannot
simply remove the cover of human brain and point to various attitude.
Attitudes are assessed through the behaviours of the person. There
are two general techniques of assessing attitudes—indirect measures
and direct measures. A discussion follows here.
Indirect measures
Indirect measures of attitude are the measures in which persons are
asked about their attitudes directly. They are asked to do something
or give their reactions to stimulus situation. On the basis of those
reactions or behaviours, an estimate about their attitude is made.
Such concealed or disguised approaches are attempted to assess
attitude through measurement of cognitions and feelings, which are
subtly connected with the object in question. Important indirect
measures of attitude are as under:
1. Physiological techniques: Physiological techniques such as
galvanic skin response or GSR, heart rate and pupillary dilation are
commonly used to assess attitude. Here, assumption is that the
affective component of attitudes correlates with the activities of
autonomic nervous system. Rankin and Campbell (1955) used GSR
as measure of attitude. Likewise, Katz et al. (1965) used heart rate as
the measure of attitude. Hess (1965) used pupil size as the measure
of attitude. According to Hess’ findings, if a person’s pupils were
dilated (that is, increase in pupil size), a favourable attitude was
indicated. If there was pupil’s constriction (decrease in pupil size), it
was indicative of unfavourable attitude. However, such approach met
with only limited success.
Cacioppo and Tissinary (1990) tried to assess both the direction
and intensity of the attitude of a person through the measurement of
the person’s facial muscles. Measurement of facial muscles is done
through facial electromyography (or EMG), which captures minute
facial muscle movements or electrical activity, not normally visible to
human eye. In their study, they showed that a favourable attitude is
indicated by the increased activities of the zygomatic muscles (see
Figure 7.7). Unfavourable attitude is indicated by the increased
activities of the corrugator muscles. Electrical activities can be
measured even when the changes in facial expressions are not
visible and reported evidences suggest that these measurements can
accurately assess people’s attitude towards social groups (Vanman et
al., 1997). Apart from these, it is also proposed that the degree of
activities of the either set of muscles is an indicator of strength with
which a person holds the attitude. However, approach (EMG)
requires specialised equipment, a carefully controlled environment
and extremely helpful and cooperative research participants.

Figure 7.7 Facial movement activities and attitude change (based on suggestions
by Cacioppo and Petty, 1981).
There are some problems with the physiological measures.
Unfortunately, the technology is not yet at a stage where such
measurements can be accepted with great reliability. Two specific
problems with such measures are worth mentioning. First, most
physiological techniques have been successful in examining the
extent of the intensity of attitude of a person, but they do not assess
the direction, that is, whether the attitude held is positive or negative
(Cacioppo and Petty, 1981). A second problem with physiological
measurement is the great variation in the way a person’s physiologies
respond to stimuli. For example, Mohan may respond to stimuli,
which make him angry with an increased heart rate. Sohan’s heart
rate may not change when he is angry but his pupils may contract
and Abhishek may display anger by an increase in blood pressure. It
is also accepted that most of the physiological measures are
sensitive to other variables also.
2. Projective techniques: Projective techniques, originally
developed to assess wants and other personality variables, have also
been successfully used to assess the attitudes of the person. Such
techniques take advantage of the fact that people often project their
own attitudes on to others. Figure 7.8 illustrates the use of projective
techniques.
Figure 7.8 Example of projective technique for measuring the attitude of a person.
In Figure 7.8, the person may be asked to fill in the balloons.
Examples are intended to investigate a person’s attitude towards the
parents. From the answers, it may be easily inferred whether a
person has a submissive or disrespectful attitude towards his parents.
Haire (1950) successfully used projective technique in assessing
attitudes of the housewives towards coffee.
3. Error-choice technique: Error-choice technique was developed by
Hammond (1948) for assessing the attitudes towards labour
management. In this technique, the persons, whose attitudes are to
be assessed, are forced to choose between two alternative answers
to questions, each of which is made equally wrong, but in the
opposite direction from the correct answer. One illustrative item from
the labour management test is mentioned below:
Average weekly wage of war worker in 1945 was
(i) *dollar*37.00
(ii) *dollar*57.00
If the subject chooses *dollar*57.00 from both wrong alternatives, it
presents a more favourable picture of the labour that may be
assumed to reflect an underlying pro-labour attitude.
4. Bogus pipeline technique: Some studies have been conducted in
which a form of deception has been used in order to know about the
true attitudes of the people. Jones and Sigall (1971) had called this
technique bogus pipeline technique. In this technique, the participants
are convinced that the researchers already know their true attitudes.
An elaborate-looking electronic machine is attached for measuring
their attitudes towards an issue or object. Subsequently, the
investigators ask the participants to indicate verbally or in written form
what they believe the machine has disclosed. Thus, the participants
tend not to inhibit their true attitudes, since they have been forced to
believe that their true attitudes have already been recorded by the
machine. Sigall and Page (1971) for the first time used this bogus
pipeline technique in their study of racial stereotyping. They asked
one half of white American students to rate on the questionnaire the
extent to which the various stereotypical terms such as lazy, dull, etc.
were applied to black Americans. The other half of the participants
were attached to a bogus pipeline and were asked the same
question. Results were dramatic. For example, while students using
questionnaire technique indicated that they did not think that the
stereotypical terms like lazy, dull, etc. were really applied to black
American students. However, the participants who believed that the
researchers had already got an accurate reading of their attitudes
and opinions by means of bogus pipeline technique, admitted that the
stereotypical terms were applied to black American to some degree.
Thus, in some situations, the bogus pipeline technique is
undoubtedly a useful technique in ascertaining attitudes. Ostrom
(1973), however, cautioned that research evidences were not yet fully
sufficient to hail the bogus pipeline technique as panacea for difficult
attitude measurement.
In contrast to bogus pipeline, there is another technique called
bona fide pipeline, where the implicit attitude or prejudice may be
automatically elicited through priming, that is, through the exposure to
some stimuli or events that prime various types of information stored
in memory, making it easier to influence the on-going reactions
(Towles-Schwen and Fazio, 2001). In this technique, the participants
are usually shown a list of adjectives and they are requested to
indicate whether they have experienced good or bad feeling by
pushing a button. Before seeing the adjective, they are, however,
exposed to the faces of persons from different ethnic or racial groups
(such as tribals, blacks, Asians, etc). Here, assumption is that implicit
attitude will be revealed by how quickly the participants respond to
the words. If a negative attitude is triggered by the exposed face (or
prime), the participant will respond faster towards having negative
meanings. However, they will respond slowly to the words with
positive meanings because this meaning will be inconsistent with the
negative attitudes produced by the priming stimulus (or face).
Researches done using this procedure have revealed, that people’s
implicit attitudes are automatically elicited by the members of racial or
ethnic groups, and this ultimately, affect their important forms of
behaviour such as decision-making, friendliness, etc.
There are advantages and disadvantages of disguised or indirect
measure. Principal advantages are as under:
(i) Indirect measures are less likely to produce socially desirable
responses. Therefore, a true measurement of attitude is likely to
occur.
(ii) Under certain conditions, indirect measures have higher validity
than direct measures such as rating scales. This advantage
applies particularly to the attitudes, which tend to violate group
norms, and hence, are not publicly revealed by the individual as
well as to the attitudes, which are unacceptable to the self-
concept of the person.
(iii) In indirect measures, individuals are unlikely to know about what
attitude is being measured.
(iv) In indirect measures, the indication of the strength with which the
attitude held is also readily obtained.
(v) Indirect measures enable the investigator to measure attitude
without producing an impact upon attitude itself.
Major disadvantages are as under:
(i) Indirect measures do not allow the investigators to measure
attitude directly.
(ii) In indirect measures, attitudes are inferred. Inference sometimes
does not come to the expectation.
(iii) Indirect measures are not as reliable as one would desire. If we
pinpoint the physiological measures, there have been reported
conflicting evidences regarding their validity and reliability.
Direct measures
Direct measures of attitude are those in which direct statements
about the attitude object are presented before the person who
expresses his views in terms of given response options. Attitude
scales in the form of ratings and questionnaires are popular direct
measures of attitudes. An attitude scale may be defined as a series of
questions that provide precise and reliable information about the
extent to which the people like or dislike the attitude object (Dawes
and Smith, 1985). In this section, several direct measures—
Thurstone scale, Likert scale, Bogardus scale, Guttman scale, scale
discrimination technique and semantic differential scale—are
discussed.
1. Thurstone scale: The first major attempt to assess social attitude
through the development of attitude scale was done by Thurstone
and Chave (1929). Thurstone (1931) constructed several scaling
techniques. The most widely used is equal-appearing interval
method. Thurstone’s method consists of statements (about 70 to 75
statements) towards the attitude object. The statements are then
given to a group of about two hundred judges (individuals), who are
asked to place it on a scale having eleven categories that appear to
cover equal portions of scale. One end of this eleven-category scale
is designated to mean that the statement is strongly favourable
towards the attitude object and the other end of the scale is
designated to mean that the statement is strongly unfavourable
towards the attitude. The middle point of the scale (F) is designated
as neutral (see Figure 7.9).
 Figure 7.9 Thurstone equal appearing interval scale.
These categories, ranging from A to K, are commonly assigned the
value from 1 to 11, respectively. Each judge places the statement in
any one of the eleven categories, which he considers appropriate to
the extremity and direction of the statement. One of the fundamental
assumptions here is that the judges do not express their attitudes in
sorting the statement. They simply decide the degree to which the
item is favourable, unfavourable or neutral. For example, suppose the
given statement is ‘Nationalisation improves the economy of the
country’. A judge might decide that this statement expresses
favourable attitude towards nationalisation, and therefore, he might
place it in category J. The final scale value for a statement is
determined from the values assigned by all the judges. The median of
all judgements becomes the scale value of the statement. Another
measure, called Q-value, is determined for each statement by
calculating semi-interquartile range of the distribution of judgements
obtained for that statement. Q-value becomes the measure of
ambiguity; a high Q-value indicates lack of agreement regarding
sorting of statement by judges and a low Q-value indicates high
consensus among the judges. Finally, on the basis of scale value, Q-
value and the desire to have statements that cover the range of
eleven-point scale, approximately fifteen to twenty statements are
selected. In other words, final statements are selected from the larger
pool according to the following two criteria:
(i) Statements having the greatest agreement among judges (that is,
with lower Q-values) regarding scale values are selected.
(ii) Statements are selected so that their scale values may range in
approximately equal intervals all the way along the eleven-point
scale.
After the scale has been constructed, it is used to assess a
person’s attitude. The person simply selects those statements with
which he agrees. His attitude score becomes the median of the scale
values of the statement with which he agrees. For example, suppose
that he agrees with five statements having scale values 3.2, 3.6, 4.7,
4.9 and 5.8. Then, his attitude score will be 4.7 indicating that he is
slightly favourable towards the attitude object, since 6 is the midpoint
of the eleven-point scale. If a person agrees with the statements
having widely varying scale values, then his median score is looked
with suspicion. In Thurstone scale, since the statements are very
carefully scaled, a person should agree only with those statements
which are fairly close to his position. A situation in which a person
agrees with the items having widely varying scale values tends to
indicate carelessness in marking statements, a failure to understand
instruction or a defined and definite position towards the attitude
object.
Some difficulties have been found in Thurstone attitude scaling.
Such important difficulties are as under:
(i) Thurstone assumed that judges’ own attitude did not affect the
sorting of the statements. But contrary evidences were reported.
Hovland and Sherif (1952), Sherif and Hovland (1953) found that
judges with extreme personal attitudes sorted a higher
percentage of the statements into one particular category, and
thus, they biased the scale. These findings indicate that the
attitudes of judges tended to bias the sorting of the statements.
(ii) Thurstone scale takes much time and effort in its construction.
Hence, the scale does not appear to be useful one from the point
of view of construction.
(iii) Thurstone and Chave had not provided any objective basis for
selecting the most discriminating statements from among the
statements having approximately the same scale values. It may
just be possible that the statements having approximately the
same scale values differ in their discriminatory power.
2. Likert scale: Shortly after publication of Thurstone scale, Likert
(1932) developed a scaling method that has come to be known as the
method of summated ratings. This method is one of the most popular
and widely used techniques for attitude measurement. Like Thurstone
scaling technique, the investigator begins with a large number of
statements about the attitude object. These statements are
administered to a group of subjects (judges), who indicate their own
attitudes by responding to one of the five response options like
strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree.
Weights of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are, respectively, assigned to these
response options for favourable statements, whereas for
unfavourable items, weights are given in the reversed order. An
example related to attitude towards nationalisation is provided below:

In the above example, the first statement shows a pro-attitude

towards nationalisation (a favourable statement), whereas the second
statement shows an anti-attitude towards nationalisation (an
unfavourable statement). Accordingly, the first statement has been
weighted as 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 for strongly agree, agree, neutral,
disagree and strongly disagree, respectively, and the second
statement has been weighted in the reversed order.
After scoring or giving weight to individual item, the total score for
each subject or judge is determined by adding their individual scores.
Finally, an internal consistency analysis or item analysis is done. This
is done by determining the extent to which the response of the
persons in the standardisation group to a particular item are
consistent with their total scores. This last step may be accomplished
by computing correlation between scores on an item and the total
scores on all the items. Then, those items yielding higher correlations
are retained for the final scale. In fact, it is the use of item analysis in
the Likert’s method that clearly distinguishes it from Thurstone’s
scaling method. Usually, a set of about twenty items is selected for
the final scale.
One of the basic problems with Likert scale is that the interpretation
of the meaning of the minimum and maximum possible scores is
clear, but the scores falling in between these two limits are difficult to
be interpreted. Maximum score indicates favourable attitude and
minimum score indicates unfavourable attitude. But scores falling in
between the minimum and the maximum possible scores are difficult
to be interpreted because the scores corresponding to the neutral
point is not known (Krech, Crutchfield and Ballachey, 1962).
Obviously, it will be illegitimate to assume that the neutral region in
Likert scale corresponds to the midpoint of the possible range of
scores. Another difficulty with Likert scale is the very assumption that
each statement has identical weight in relation to every other
statement. This is not necessarily a valid assumption. In reality,
different individuals may show a given attitude to the same degree,
yet they may respond differently to different statements of the scale.
Therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, to ensure that each
statement counts the same as every other item.
3. Bogardus scale: Bogardus (1925) had developed a scale for the
purpose of measuring and comparing attitudes towards different
nationalities. His scale is popularly known as social distance scale.
This scale consists of a number of statements, which are selected, on
a prior basis to elicit responses that could be treated as the subject’s
degree of acceptance for any nationality group. For assessing
attitude towards each nationality, seven classifications are offered as
under:
(i) To close kinship by marriage
(ii) To my club as personal friend
(iii) To my street as neighbour
(iv) To employment in my occupation
(v) To citizenship of my country
(vi) To accept as visitors in my country
(vii) Would exclude from my country
If we pay attention to these classifications, it would be obvious that
classifications progress in an orderly way from one implying a
willingness to establish a close degree of relationship with the
nationality to one implying willingness to accept only a remote
relationship or none at all.
With Bogardus’s social distance scale, it is possible to compare
different people’s attitudes towards the same nationality or to
compare a single person’s attitudes towards various nationalities.
This scale has been widely used for these purposes in social-
psychological researches. Social psychologists are of view that with
some appropriate modifications, this type of scale may be adapted to
measure attitudes towards any category of persons. One such
adaptation of Bogardus scale was done by Crepsi (1945) and he
named it as social rejection thermometer, which is frequently used for
the measurement of attitudes towards conscientious objectors.
4. Guttman scale: While studying American soldiers during World
War-II, Guttman (1950) developed a scaling technique, called
cumulative scaling or scalogram analysis that tends to develop a set
of items for attitude measurement, which will be unidimensional.
Guttman proceeded to develop such a scale in which response to any
single item could be determined by a total score on the whole set of
items. In other words, if the scale has properties emphasised by
Guttman, a person with higher rank or score than another person on
the same set of statements will get a ranking just as higher on every
statement in the set as the other individual. Explaining the Guttman
scale in non-technical sense, it can be said that an attitude scale is
considered unidimensional if on every item, a person, with a more
favourable attitude, gives a response which is more favourable than
what is obtained from a person with less favourable attitude. In such
a situation, his response to every item will be perfectly consistent with
his overall position on the dimension of the attitude.
The nature of a unidimensional scale can be illustrated with a
hypothetical illustration. Suppose that an attitude scale consists of
three items and each item can yield four possible scores—3, 2, 1 and
0, representing an agreement with all three items on one end and
disagreement with all three on the other end. If eight subjects are to
take this scale (considering it as a unidimensional scale), the scores
and the pattern of responses would be something like those
presented in Table 7.3.
 A look at Table 7.3 reveals that items are perfectly consistent.
Scores of 3 are made by agreeing with items 1, 2 and 3. Likewise,
scores of 2 are made only by agreeing items 1 and 2 and disagreeing
with item 3, which is apparently a more extreme statement. None of
the subjects makes a score of 2 by agreeing with items 1 and 3 or
with 2 and 3. Likewise, a score of 1 is made by agreeing with item 1
and not with 2 or 3. Still another sign of consistency is picked up by
the observation that everyone who agrees with item 3 also agrees
with items 2 and 1 and everyone who agrees with item 2, agrees with
item 1.
One essential characteristics of unidimensional scale is that its
pattern of responses is reproducible from the knowledge of the scale
score. In the above example, we find that the subject, who has made
a score of 3, agrees with items 1, 2 and 3 and the subject, who has
made a score of 2, agrees with items 1 and 2, but disagrees with item
3. In this way, for every other score, pattern of responses can be
reproduced. In practice, however, such perfect consistency (or
reproducibility or unidimensionality) is seldom achieved. Therefore,
Guttman (1950) opined that a certain measure of error is allowed and
he suggested that the pattern of responses must be at least 90%
reproducible in order for the scale to be treated as unidimensional
one. Clearly, then, 10% of responses may fall outside the range of
unidimensionality.
Guttman cumulative scaling has been criticised on the basis of
selecting the initial set of statements. According to him, selection of a
sample of statements is simply a matter of intuition and experience.
Therefore, the content validity of cumulative scale is difficult to
estimate. Another problem with unidimensional scale is that this is not
fit for measuring complex attitude, which is generally
multidimensional. Still another problem is that a scale may be
reproducible when taken by one group of individuals, but not when
taken by another group of individuals.
5. Scale discrimination technique: This technique was developed by
Edwards and Kilpatrick (1948). In fact, this technique is an attempt to
synthesise the methods of scale construction developed by
Thurstone, Likert and Guttman. The basic steps involved in this
technique are as under:
A large set of dichotomous statements are prepared or selected. As
in Thurstone’s scaling method, these statements are given to the
judges, with the request to sort these statements into categories
according to the degree of favourableness. Those items which are
not sorted consistently by the judges are treated as vague or
ambiguous. Therefore, they are rejected. The remaining statements
or items are constructed in multiple-choice format, with six response
categories such as strongly agree, agrees, mildly agree, mildly
disagree, disagree and strongly disagree. These statements with six
response options are now given to a group of new subjects, who
respond to each item by choosing the alternative that best describes
his own viewpoint. Each statement is then scored to derive a total
score for the subject. Subsequently, like Likert scale, each item is
subjected to item analysis and the items, which are found to be non-
discriminating ones, are rejected. The remaining items are, then,
dichotomised and subjected to cumulative scaling.
Scale discrimination technique, thus, represents a blend of
Thurstone, Likert and Guttmann’s techniques for scaling. But this
approach, however, needs to be tested by various researchers for
determining its strengths and weaknesses.
6. Semantic differential scale: The semantic differential scale is a tool
of measuring attitude developed by Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum
(1957) as a part of their effort to study the measurement of meaning.
All objects have both denotative and connotative meanings. The
denotative meaning refers to the pointing to aspect of the object.
Concrete objects such as table, chair, mobile phone are easy to
define because we can point to the object and clear up any
confusion, if any. Connotative meaning, on the other hand, refers to
emotive meaning or emotional response produced in the person by
that concrete object.
The semantic differential scale is a technique for assessing
connotative meaning. Connotative meaning is more important for
understanding the concept because it generates emotional or
emotive response. According to Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum,
connotative meanings are multidimensional. They identified three
dimensions—evaluative characterised by adjective pairs like good-
bad; potency characterised by adjective pairs like weak-strong and
activity characterised by adjective pairs like fast-slow.
In using the semantic differential scale, the researcher presents the
respondents with a series of bipolar adjective scales. Each scale has
two ends, with two adjectives having opposite meanings (see Table
7.4). In the semantic differential scale, the concept is usually rated on
seven-point scale having bipolar adjectives at two extremes with
opposite meaning. Some have used nine-point scale also, but seven-
point scale is more common.

After the data have been collected, the investigator analyses them
by using various statistical techniques.
The semantic differential scale has advantages and disadvantages.
Major advantages are as under:
(i) Since the semantic differential scale measures the connotative
meaning, it can be used with any concept or object, from a
 specific person to the entire nation.
(ii) In such scale, the investigator can compare the person’s attitudes
on three dimensions, permitting a more complex differentiation
among the respondents.
(iii) The scale has also been successfully used for assessing the
meaning of role identities (father, engineer) and role behaviour
(love, building construction) (Heiss, 1979; Smith-Lovin, 1990).
(iv) The scale permits the study of sub-cultural differences in
attitudes. It may be found that emotive response to the concept
‘I.A.S. Officer’ varies significantly between the different groups
such as Indian tribal culture and Indian non-tribal culture.
(v) The scale also allows studying sex-typed differences. Male and
female respondents may display different connotative responses
to the concept or object.
However, there are some disadvantages with semantic differential
scale. The major disadvantages are as under:
(i) The scale does not possess the trait of practicality because it
requires more time to administer and score.
(ii) In the scale, the appropriateness of pairs of adjectives remains
often questionable and little consensus exists among the experts
regarding the suitability of the pairs selected.
Despite these disadvantages, the semantic differential scale has
been frequently used as a measure of attitude.
Conclusion Regarding Attitude Measurement
Social psychologists have attempted to assess attitude through both
indirect and direct measures. Of these measures, direct measures of
attitudes through attitude scales are most popular. Among the various
attitude scales, Likert scaling technique of attitude measurement is
the most popular choice of the researchers.
SUMMARY AND REVIEW
The use of the concept of attitude is not new. It dates back to
the writing of Herbart Spencer and Alexander Bain during 1862
to 1868. A few years later, some further experimental advances
were made by German scientists, who regarded attitude as a
mental set or preparedness. Today, social psychologists use the
term attitude to refer to the individual’s evaluation of virtually all
aspects of their social world.
Attitudes are defined as enduring systems of affective
component, behavioural component and cognitive component. It
is called ABC model of attitude. Affective component is the
feeling part, behavioural component is the motivation for doing
some actions or behaviour and cognitive component is the belief
part of the attitude.
Attitude serve five important functions—instrumental or
heuristic function, knowledge or schematic function, self-esteem
function or value expressive function, ego-defensive function and
impression motivation or management function.
There is interconnectedness between attitude and behaviour.
Generally, we behave according to our existing attitude. So, it
can be said that attitude determines our behaviour. The
behaviour of the person can be predicted if we know his attitude,
although sometimes there is discrepancy between what people
do and what their attitudes are. Social psychologists have
identified four variables that tend to affect the relationship
between the attitudes and behaviour—activation of attitude,
characteristics of attitude, correspondence between attitude and
behaviour, and situational constraints.
How do attitudes guide behaviour? Attitudes guide our
behaviour through two mechanisms, which operate under
somewhat different and contrasting conditions. One mechanism
operated through what is called reasoned action model, which
states that when a person has time to engage in careful
reasoned actions, he tries to weigh each alternative available,
and then, decides how he should go ahead. But in the situation
which is hectic and emergent in nature, such deliberate and
reasoned thought processes fail to occur and the person has no
time to think over the alternatives. Here, our behaviour is
governed by what is called attitude-to-behaviour process model.
There are several factors that influence the formation and
maintenance of attitudes. Such important factors are genetic
factors, classical conditioning learning, instrumental conditioning
learning, observational learning, social comparison and several
other miscellaneous factors.
Social psychologists have studied attitude changes through
persuasion. There are four primary elements to persuasion—the
communicator, the message, how the message is
communicated, and the audience. In other words, who says what
by what means to whom is important for persuasion, and
therefore, for attitude change. There are certain characteristics of
the communicator such as credibility, attractiveness and
likeableness, power and similarity with audiences, which
enhance persuasiveness, and therefore, favour attitude change
in the direction advocated. Various characteristics of the
message content also influence attitude change. In some
situations, rational and reasonable message becomes more
effective in bringing changes in the attitude, whereas in some
situations, emotional appeal of the message becomes more
effective in doing so. Likewise, discrepant message is more
instrumental in bringing attitude change, though the relationship
between discrepancy and attitude change is a function of
discrepancy and perceived expertise of the communicator. For
making the message more persuasive, one-sided and two-sided
communications are presented time to time. In general, if the
audience is to be exposed to opposing views, two-sided
communication is more effective. Likewise, information presented
first (primacy effect) becomes more effective in persuasion than
the same information presented later on (recency effect). How
the message is said or the channel of communication is also an
important factor in making a message more effective. Actively
received appeal versus passively received appeal has been
studied by the social psychologists. In general, actively received
appeal is found to be more persuasive and effective in bringing
attitude change than passively received appeal. Likewise,
information or communication given under face-to-face influence
is more persuasive and effective than the information given
through various mass media. Factors related to the audience
also influence persuasion. In general, intelligence, self-esteem,
personality, age, truthfulness of the audience are directly related
to the persuasion of the communication. Role playing done by
audience has also direct bearing on the persuasive nature of
communication.
Social psychologists have propounded several theories for
explaining attitude organisation and change. Important cognitive
consistency theories are Heider P-O-X model, Newcomb’s A-B-X
model, Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory and Osgood and
Tannenbaum’s congruity theory. Besides, social learning theories
of attitude change that include classical conditioning model and
operant conditioning model have also been considered
important. Apart from these, Kelman’s three process theory and
Assimilation-contrast theory are relevant for the explanation of
attitude change.
Under certain conditions, attitude change and persuasion
becomes difficult. Social psychologists have proposed that under
the condition of reactance, forewarning, selective avoidance,
making counterargument actively and inoculation against
counterattitudinal views, attitude change becomes difficult
because persuasion does not work well.
There are some dimensions of attitude, which are considered
important for the measurement of attitude. Such important
dimensions are direction (feeling for or against the attitude
objects), degree (amount of favourableness or
unfavourableness), intensity (strength of feeling of being for or
against), centrality (that is, supported by beliefs, highly valued
and having sufficient motives for some actions), salience
(prominence) and consistency (integration of attitudes).
Social attitudes can be assessed through both indirect and
direct measures. In indirect measures, the person is not aware of
the fact that his attitudes are being assessed. Important indirect
measures are physiological techniques, projective techniques
and the bogus pipeline technique. Direct measures are those
where the person is aware that his attitudes are being assessed.
This includes various questionnaire and attitude scales.
Important attitude scales are Thurstone scale, Likert scale,
Bogardus scale, Guttman scale, scale discrimination technique
and semantic differential scale. Of these various scales, Likert
scale followed by Thurstone scale is very popular among the
investigators.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Present a brief historical background of the study of attitude.
2. Define ABC model of attitude. Also, discuss the various functions of attitude.
3. Discuss the factors that influence attitude-behaviour consistency.
4. How do attitude guide behaviour? Cite experimental evidences in favour of your
answer.
5. Discuss the implication of the reasoned action model.
6. Discuss the factors that influence formation and maintenance of social attitude.
Cite experimental evidences in support of your answer.
7. Explain the concept of persuasion. Briefly explain the relevance of different
elements of persuasion for attitude change.
8. Discuss the characteristics of the communicator that influence attitude change.
9. Discuss the various characteristics of the message that has implication for
attitude change.
10. Discuss the impact of different channels of communication upon attitude
change.
11. What are the characteristics of audience that influence persuasion and attitude
change?
12. Examine critically Heider’s P-O-X model of attitude change.
13. Make a comparative study of P-O-X model and A-B-X model of attitude change.
14. Examine critically Festinger’s dissonance theory of attitude change.
15. Define cognitive dissonance. What are the conditions under which cognitive
dissonance can arise?
16. Make a comparative study of balance theory and cognitive dissonance theory.
17. Examine critically congruity theory of attitude change.
18. How do social learning theories explain attitude change? Do they provide
satisfactory explanation?
19. Examine critically Kelman’s three process theory of change.
20. How does assimilation-contrast theory explain attitude change? What
improvement can you suggest over the explanation provided by the theory?
21. Make a comparative study of Thurstone scale and Likert scale of attitude
measurement.
22. Discuss the various indirect measures of attitudes. Are they satisfactory?
23. Write short notes on the following:
(i) Dimensions of attitude
(ii) Guttman scale of attitude measurement
(iii) Reasoned action model
(iv) Concept of cognitive dissonance
(v) Congruity theory
(vi) Attitude-to-behaviour process model