The role of attitude objects in attitude functions

JOURNAL

OF EXPERIMENTAL

SOCIAL

PSYCHOLOGY

26, 124-148 (1990)

The Role of Attitude Objects in Attitude Functions SHARON SHAVITT University

of Illinois

at Urbana-Champaign

Received January 3, 1989 Previous approaches to attitude functions have examined personality and situational influences on the multiple functions that can be served by the same attitudes. The present analysis focuses on the role of attitude objects in attitude functions and proposes that attitudes toward some objects tend to serve a single function. Using newly developed measures of attitude functions, Study 1 established that objects that are primarily associated with a single attitude function (utilitarian, social identity, or self-esteem maintenance function) can be identified. In Study 2, such objects served as a basis for directly varying the functions of attitudes, by varying the types of objects that served as experimental stimuli. This study investigated whether attitudes toward objects that engage different functions respond to different types of persuasive appeals. Subjects read appeals (advertisements) containing function-relevant or function-irrelevant information about products assumed primarily to engage either a utilitarian or a social identity function. Function-relevant ads were more persuasive than function-irrelevant ads, consistent with the findings of previous functional approaches. Additional data identified a situational factor, the juxtaposition of appeals, that influenced the magnitude of these effects. D 1990 Academic PWS, 1~.

Decades of research on attitudes have form opinions quickly and spontaneously defend and slow to change those opinions. silience of attitudes suggests that attitudes the individual. The psychological functions

suggested that people often and that they are quick to This pervasiveness and reserve important functions for of attitudes have eluded em-

This paper is based on a doctoral dissertation submitted to Ohio State University. The research was supported by a Graduate Student Research Award and an Ohio State University Presidential Fellowship awarded to the author. The author was supported by NIMH Postdoctoral Fellowship MHl7146-04 at Indiana University during part of the preparation of this manuscript. Thanks are due Timothy C. Brock, Russell H. Fazio, Anthony G. Greenwald, Thomas M. Ostrom, Steven J. Sherman, and Mark Snyder for their valuable comments on previous drafts. I also thank Lisa Leitzell, Michael Martin, and Tina Thome for their assistance in data collection and coding. Finally, I am grateful to Thomas K. Srull for his sagacity and support. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Sharon Shavitt, Department of Advertising, University of Illinois, 119 Gregory Hall, 810 S. Wright Street, Urbana, IL 61801. 124 0022-1031190 $3.00 Copyright 0 1990 by Academic Press. Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ATTITUDE

FUNCTIONS

125

pirical scrutiny until recently, largely because they lacked operational definitions. This paper focuses on a heretofore neglected factor in attitude functions-the attitude object. It proposes that attitude objects influence attitude functions, derives new functional operations based on attitude objects, and illustrates the utility of this approach in predicting the persuasiveness of appeals. Functions

of Attitudes

Theories about the functions of attitudes were first proposed over 30 years ago (Smith, Bruner, & White, 1956; Katz, 1960; Katz & Stotland, 1959; Kelman, 1958, 1961). For the present research purposes, the attitude functions that were proposed are grouped into three conceptually distinct categories: utilitarian, social identity, and self-esteem maintenance. These categories, and their relationship to the originally proposed attitude functions, are reviewed below. Katz (1960) proposed that attitudes serve a knowledge function, helping to organize and structure one’s environment and provide consistency in one’s frame of reference. All attitudes probably serve this fundamental function to some extent (see Fazio, 1989). In addition, attitudes can serve to maximize rewards and minimize punishments obtained from objects in one’s environment (Katz’s utilitarian or instrumental function). Smith et al.‘s (1956) object-appraisal function resembles both the knowledge and utilitarian functions in its focus on how attitudes classify objects to make responses available that maximize one’s interests. This role of attitudes in maintaining rewards is referred to here as the utilitarian function. Attitudes can also aid in self-expression and social interaction. Smith et al. (1956) noted that attitudes mediate self-other relations and establish one’s identity (the social-adjustment function). Similarly, Katz (1960) suggested that attitudes symbolize and express one’s central values and self-concept (the value-expressive function). This role of attitudes is referred to here as the social identity function. This function can be thought of as a category of motives that includes both private identity and public identity goals. Important insights have been provided both by examining the distinction between public and private identity motives (e.g., Snyder & DeBono, 1985) and by considering these motives together as part of a broader symbolic category of attitudes (e.g., Abelson, 1982; Herek, 1987; Sears & McConahay, 1973). This paper focuses on this broader category of social identity (symbolic) attitudes. Finally, attitudes can play a variety of roles in maintaining self-esteem. Functional theorists, focusing on psychodynamic principles, suggested that attitudes can serve as defense mechanisms for coping with internal conflicts (Smith et al.‘s externalization function and Katz’s ego-defense function). These attitudes distance the self from threatening outgroups

126

SHARON

SHAVITT

by projecting one’s own unacceptable impulses onto them. Attitudes also serve to maintain self-esteem in other ways. For example, one’s attitudes toward the self affect self-esteem directly (in fact, they define selfesteem). Also, the choice of others to affiliate with or distance oneself from depends in part on whether they provide a basis for self-enhancing social comparison (Tesser & Campbell, 1983). In sum, attitudes may affect self-esteem through a variety of social and ego-defensive processes that are together referred to here as the self-esteem maintenance function. Which Factors Injkence the Functions of Attitudes? The functions outlined above, although not necessarily comprising an exhaustive list, represent the major motivational categories that were proposed by functional theorists. Which of these functions an attitude would serve was thought to depend on personality and environmental factors (Kiesler, Collins, & Miller, 1969). The same attitude could presumably serve different functions for different people, or different functions in different situations. Tests of functional hypotheses, therefore, typically operationalized attitude functions by assessing or manipulating the different functions of a single attitude. These studies employed a variety of attitude objects and topics (e.g., blacks, racial policies, science education, and various consumer products), stipulating the ways in which personality or situational factors would influence the functions of attitudes toward them. But research did not explicitly consider the role of the attitude objects themselves. However, attitude objects may differ in the attitude functions that are associated with them. Some objects may be primarily associated with a single function and may rarely be associated with others. Understanding the relation between attitude objects and functions could provide new conceptual and operational approaches to functional theory. A consideration of previous functional approaches will illustrate (see Shavitt, 1989, for a review). Individual

Difference

Approaches

Many studies used personality measures to identify the functions that one’s attitudes are likely to serve. Most focused on one of the key hypotheses of functional theory: The conditions necessary for attitude change depend upon the function that the attitude serves. For example, early studies used individuals’ level of ego defensiveness to predict the relative effectiveness of different types of appeals in changing prejudiced attitudes toward blacks (e.g., Katz, Sarnoff, & McClintock, 1956; McClintock, 1958; Stotland, Katz, & Patchen, 1959). More recently, studies by Snyder and DeBono (1985; DeBono, 1987; DeBono & Harnish, 1988) employed a measure of self-monitoring (Sny-

ATTITUDE

FUNCTIONS

127

der, 1974) to identify the private versus public identity functions that individuals’ attitudes were likely to serve. This research produced consistent results about the persuasiveness of different types of appeals for high versus low self-monitoring individuals. However, in one set of studies (Snyder & DeBono, 1983, there was suggestive evidence that the differences between attitude objects could also be important in predicting the persuasiveness of appeals. Among the products studied, strong results were obtained for whiskey, a product whose brands would appear to have some relevance to a variety of functions, including social identity. However, nonsignificant results were obtained for coffee and cigarettes, products whose brands (particularly coffee) may have fewer implications for social approval. Situational Approaches

Perhaps the most often-cited studies on situational factors in attitude functions are those that tested Kelman’s (1958, 1961) model of comphante, identification, and internalization processes. Although this model was not strictly a theory of attitudes, but of social influence more broadly defined, it did focus on the motives underlying acceptance of social influence. Kelman induced the motivational conditions he proposed for these processes by manipulating aspects of the communications (or communicators) to which subjects were exposed. He found that attitude change toward racial segregation (Kelman, 1958) and science education (Kelman, 1961) served different functions in different communication situations. Toward an Object-Based Approach

Previous functional approaches were based on the assumption that different functions could be associated with attitudes toward the same object: Utilitarian, social identity, and self-esteem goals could all underlie attitudes toward science education, racial policies, and many consumer products. However, not all attitude objects are necessarily multifunctional. Some may be more limited in their functions, and this may have important conceptual and operational implications. The role of attitude objects has been overlooked to date in functional theory and research. Yet, the purposes that an object serves may substantially influence the functions of attitudes toward those objects. The purposes served by an object can stem from a number of factors: Attributes of the object itself, including its physical features (e.g., its taste, its size), and other characteristics (e.g., its flammability, its cost), as well as cultural or societal definitions of the object (e.g., “glamorous,” “fashionable”), should contribute to the purposes an object can serve. Some objects seem to serve primarily a single type of purpose. For example, coffee serves primarily utilitarian purposes of providing pleas-

128

SHARON SHAVI’M

ant taste and increased alertness. It typically does not serve, say, social identity purposes of self-expression. Other objects serve multiple purposes. For example, a car serves both the utilitarian purpose of providing transportation and the social identity purpose of communicating status. Thus, attitudes toward coffee would likely derive from its utilitarian purposes and should serve the utilitarian function of guiding purchase and consumption of coffee so as to maximize its rewards. But coffee attitudes would be unlikely to serve a social identity function. Meanwhile, attitudes toward a car may derive from either its utilitarian or social identity purposes or both. Some caveats should be noted in the proposed relation between attitude objects and attitude functions. First, the purposes served by an object, and the functions served by attitudes toward it, are not predetermined or immutable. They can change as attributes of the object are modified or as societal definitions change over time. Second, because societal definitions contribute to the purposes an object can serve, those purposes may sometimes differ between populations. For example, some groups may define coffee in terms of religious values, while other groups may define certain coffees as symbols of sophistication (consider a “yuppie’s” view of cappuccino). Despite these limitations, it may be possible to identify objects that are likely to be primarily associated with a single attitude function at a particular time and in an undifferentiated population. Identification of such objects would underscore the important role of attitude objects in attitude functions. Identifying such objects would also have operational utility: By presenting subjects with different types of single-function objects to respond to, the functions of their attitudes could be varied experimentally. Study 1 was conducted to investigate whether-for some objectsattitudes would predominantly serve a single function, and whether such objects could be identified. Of course, the identification of single-function objects would not imply that a majority of objects would fit this criterion, simply that a subset of objects do, and that members of this subset represent an important category of objects that influence the functions of attitudes. STUDY 1: A SEARCH FOR SINGLE-FUNCTION

ATTITUDE OBJECTS

Subjects’ open-ended descriptions of their attitudes were used to assess the functions of attitudes toward objects expected to engage a single function (see Herek, 1987, for a similar open-ended approach). An important additional goal was the development of a valid and reliable coding method for measuring attitude functions that could be applied across a variety of objects. Utilitarian, social identity, and self-esteem maintenance functional categories were examined here for the following reasons: (1) They represent the major conceptual distinctions among the

ATTITUDE

FUNCTIONS

129

many functions that have been proposed (see Introduction). (2) Evidence was needed regarding major distinctions between functions before applying this approach to subtler functional differences. (3) Clearly differentiable coding categories could be more readily developed for these functions. Criteria for selection of objects. Objects were selected with the expectation that they would engage predominantly one attitude function. Although several of the objects may engage more than one function, it was expected that their predominant function would be as indicated here, particularly for the population from which the subjects were drawn (college students). The criteria used to select these objects are outlined below. 1. Objects were expected to engage a utilitarian attitude function to the extent that they were intrinsically associated with rewards and punishments, and with behavior routines that maximize their rewards. For example, an air conditioner could be considered utilitarian because there are rewards (e.g., comfort) and punishments (e.g., high energy bills) intrinsically associated with it, as well as behavior routines relevant to those outcomes. Based on these criteria, the utilitarian objects chosen were (1) air conditioners, (2) coffee, (3) the flu, and (4) final examinations. 2. Objects were expected to engage a social identity attitude function to the extent that they were commonly considered as symbols of identity and values, or to represent social classifications or reference groups. They were also expected to be linked to public behavior routines, in which one’s attitudes toward the objects are displayed or discussed. For example, a nation’s flag is a social identity object because it symbolizes national values and represents a social (i.e., national) classification with which people may identify. Also, a flag is associated with public behavior routines designed to communicate one’s attitude toward it. Based on these criteria, the social identity objects chosen were (1) the American flag, (2) a wedding ring, (3) the Republican party, and (4) an Ohio State Buckeyes sweatshirt. 3. Finally, objects that represent aspects of one’s self-concept should be directly associated with self-esteem and, thus, were expected to engage a self-esteem maintenance function. The major components of the self-concept may differ among persons, but some aspects were thought to be central for most individuals (e.g., appearance, personality, and intelligence). In addition, objects that people tend to distance themselves from psychologically (e.g., outgroups) were expected to engage a selfesteem maintenance function through social comparison or ego-defensive processes. The self-esteem maintenance objects chosen were (1) subject’s appearance, (2) subject’s personality, (3) the bottom 5% of subject’s high school graduating class, and (4) homosexuals.

130

SHARON

SHAVITT

Method Subjects. Subjects were 127 introductory psychology students at Ohio State University, who participated as part of a course requirement. Materials. Each subject responded to questions about three randomly assigned attitude objects, one object in each function category. The order of responding to these objects was counterbalanced in a Latin-square design. Subjects first read a cover sheet that gave the thought-listing instructions: You will be asked to describe your attitudes towards some objects on special forms that contain boxes in which to write your description. . Please list in the boxes what your feelings are about the attitude object, and why you feel the way you do. That is, write down all of your thoughts and feelings that are relevant to your attitude, and try to describe the reasons for your feelings. Subjects described their attitudes on standard thought-listing forms (Cacioppo & Petty, 1981) on which six boxes were printed. They also received instructions to rate the favorability of each of their thoughts to the attitude object along a favorability scale with values of -3, -1, 0, +I, and +3. Another form assessed how important subjects felt each of their listed thoughts was to their attitude. The form described a 5-point scale for this importance rating and instructed subjects to rate each of their first three thoughts and to write explanations for these ratings. Attitudes toward each object were assessed on a single ‘I-point scale (endpoints were labeled very negative/very positive). Finally, a structured measure was employed as a check on the functions assumed to be engaged by the objects. On this measure, subjects rated directly the contributions of three function-relevant factors to their attitudes: “my values and my friends’ beliefs” (social identity), “my past experiences with object/group” (utilitarian),’ and “my self-esteem: how confident I feel about myself” (self-esteem maintenance). The extent of each factor’s contribution to one’s attitude toward each object was rated separately on a S-point scale. Procedure. Subjects participated in groups of approximately 30. They were informed that all their responses would be anonymous. Subjects began by describing their attitude toward the first assigned object for 4 min. after which they rated the favorability of each thought. The same procedure was followed for the second and third objects. Next. subjects returned to their first set of listed thoughts and rated those thoughts for their importance to the attitude. They then did this for the second and third sets of thoughts. Finally, subjects completed the attitude items and the direct, structured measure of attitude functions, and were debriefed and dismissed.

Results

Direct Assessment of Attitude Functions Subjects’ ratings on the direct measure of attitude functions yielded a pattern consistent with a priori assumptions about the objects (see Table I). Objects assumed to engage primarily a utilitarian function elicited the highest ratings for the contribution of the “past experiences” ’ The wording of the utilitarian item was based on the reasoning that past experiences with the object would be salient to the extent that they involved rewards or punishments. A subsequent version of this measure (see Study 2). which included wording that was more specific to the utilitarian function, yielded ratings consistent with the present item.

ATTITUDE

131

FUNCTIONS

TABLE 1 MEANS ON DIRECT RATINGS OF ATTITUDE FUNCTIONS AS A FUNCTION AND RATED FACTOR

OF

TYPE OF OBJECT

Rated factor

Type of object Utilitarian* Social identity Self-esteem maintenance*

“My values and “My self-esteem: “My past experiences with my friends’ How confident I beliefs” feel about myself” object/group” (Social identity)* (Self-esteem maintenancy)* (Utilitarian)* 4.32”,” 3.27”‘.’ 3.59”~’

2.07h,” 3.4F 3.88’.’

2 .40’,” 3.0@’ 4.05b’z

Note. All means are based on N = 125 (two observations were deleted from withinsubject analyses due to missing data). Ratings were made on a 5-point scale, where 5 indicates that the factor “contributes a great deal to my attitude” and 1 indicates that the factor “does not contribute at all to my attitude.” Duncan pairwise comparisons were conducted for all pairwise combinations of means for each row and for each column. Means sharing the same a, b, or c superscript in a particular row or the same x, y, or z superscript in a column were not significantly different at p < .05. * Analysis of a simple main effect of other variable was significant for this condition at p < .05. For example, the main effect of type of factor being rated on the ratings an object received was significant at the level of utilitarian objects and of self-esteem maintenance objects.

factor, both as compared to the other factors rated and as compared to other objects rated on the same factor. The same is true of the selfesteem factor for objects assumed to engage a self-esteem maintenance function. Finally, objects assumed to engage primarily a social identity function elicited the highest ratings for the values and friends’ beliefs factor as compared to the other factors rated. These ratings were submitted to an analysis of variance with type of object (utilitarian vs social identity vs self-esteem maintenance) and rated factor (past experience vs values vs self-esteem) as within-subject variables and counterbalance order of objects as a between-subjects variable. This analysis yielded significant main effects for type of object (F(2, 244) = 45.20; p < .Ol) and rated factor (F(2, 244) = 19.01; p < .Ol), as well as a significant Object x Factor interaction (F(4, 488) = 60.32; p < .Ol). The main effect for object indicated that all factors, overall, were rated as making a stronger contribution to attitudes toward selfesteem maintenance objects than to attitudes toward other objects. The main effect for factor indicated that, over all objects combined, the factor rated as making the strongest contribution to attitude was own past experience (utilitarian factor). The significant Object x Factor interaction is the key result, suggesting that the factor rated as making the strongest contribution to one’s attitude depended upon the attitude function as-

132

SHARON SHAVIT-I-

sumed to be engaged by the object. A series of simple main effects analyses were conducted for attitude object and rated factor, nearly all of which yielded significant effects. And Duncan pairwise tests were significant for several of the key comparisons (see Table 1). The ratings for each attitude object individually were also supportive for most of the objects (see Shavitt, 1985, for details). Thus, these results provided initial evidence that the identification of primarily single-function objects was generally successful. Subjects apparently were describing attitudes toward objects that predominantly served the particular function they were expected to serve.’ Functional Content Rejected in Attitude Descriptions Coding manual development. Prior to reviewing subjects’ attitude descriptions, a manual for coding them was developed from theory-based expectations about the content likely to reflect particular functions. Three major categories of function-relevant themes were used in classifying thoughts. The utilitarian category included themes about (1) features or attributes of the attitude object and (2) references to rewards/punishments associated with the object. The social identity category included thoughts about (1) others’ attitudes toward the object (2) what the attitude communicates to others, and (3) one’s own values. Finally, the self-esteem maintenance category included (1) implications of the attitude for self-regard and (2) concerns about self-evaluation, as well as such ego-defensive themes as (3) distortions of information about the object and (4) statements that distance the self from the object (including favorable comparison of self to the object). See Appendix for a fuller description of the coding manual.’ There was also a category for thoughts conveying multiple functions. Judges were instructed to specify two functions when classifying a thought into this multiple category. Finally, there was a category for thoughts that contained no function-relevant content (e.g., “I don’t like

’ To insure that subjects’ ratings on this measure were not in some way affected by the preceding task of describing one’s attitudes, a comparison group of 53 subjects were asked simply to rate the extent to which each of the three function-relevant factors contributed to their overall attitude toward each of three objects (assigned from the same 12 objects). Comparison subjects’ ratings were identical to the pattern of means in the main experiment, and analyses of variance yielded a similar set of significant effects. 3 Although public and private identity functions are aggregated here under the social identity category, the coding manual provides separate classifications for these motives and, thus, can be employed to examine public and private identity functions separately. The classification public identity includes thoughts that focus on what the attitude communicates to others or on rules for attitude expression. The classification private identity includes thoughts that focus on the values represented by the attitude object or on approval or disapproval of the object.

ATTITUDE

133

FUNCTIONS

coffee” conveys nothing about the attitude’s function). There were very few such thoughts, and they are not discussed further. Coding procedure. Two judges practiced using the coding manual by independently coding the first 31 subjects’ attitude descriptions. After discussion, they independently coded the remaining 96 subjects’ thoughts. They were permitted to consult subjects’ responses on the importance rating forms (see Materials), but were instructed not to allow responses on those forms to introduce new interpretations not already suggested in the thoughts. The two judges agreed with each other on 74% of their classifications performed on the 96 subjects’ thoughts (chance is 26%). This percentage of agreement is a conservative figure because overlaps were counted as disagreements. For example, if judge 1 coded a thought into the multiple category, specifying utilitarian and social identity themes, and judge 2 coded the thought as utilitarian, this counted as a disagreement. (With a relaxed criterion, in which such overlaps were counted as half-agreements, the percentage of agreement rose to 81%.) The thoughts that elicited disagreements were found to be distributed among all of the objects. A third judge coded these thoughts, after being trained on the first 31 subjects’ thoughts. Results of coding. Only the results based on the 96 subjects’ thoughts are reported here. As Table 2 shows, objects assumed primarily to engage a certain attitude function elicited thoughts that were typically coded into the corresponding function category, particularly for utilitarian and social identity objects. The numbers of thoughts classified into each of the three major function categories were submitted to a three-way analysis of variance with type of object and coding category as within-subject factors and counterbalance order of objects as a between-subjects factor. This analysis yielded significant main effects for type of object (F(2, TABLE MEAN

NUMBER

OF THOUGHTS

CLASSIFIED

2

INTO EACH OF OBJECT

CATEGORY

AS A FUNCTION

OF TYPE

Coding category Type of object Utilitarian* Social identity* Self-esteem maintenance*

Utilitarian* 3.20”,” 0.73”.’ 0.83”.’

Social identity* 0. 17hJ 2.38’,’ 1.31h,z

Self-esteem maintenance* 0.29”,’ 0.04,” I .32’.’

Note. All means are based on N = 96. Means sharing the same a, b, and c superscript in a particular row or the same x, y, or z superscript in a column are not significantly different at p < .OS. * Analysis of simple main effect of other factor was significant for this condition at p < .05.

134

SHARON

SHAVITT

186) = 7.54; p < .Ol) and coding category (F(2, 186) = 53.71; p < .Ol), as well as significant interactions between object and order (F(4, 186) = 8.39; p < .Ol) and between type of object and coding category (F(4, 372) = 112.79; p < .Ol). The main effect for object indicated that more thoughts about utilitarian objects were coded into the three function categories than were thoughts about other objects. The main effect for coding category indicated that, over all types of objects combined, more thoughts were coded into the utilitarian category than into the other two categories. The Object x Category interaction, the key result here, indicated that the types of thoughts subjects listed in describing their attitudes toward an object depended on the attitude function assumed to be engaged by that object. Further support for this conclusion was provided by analyses of variance for the simple main effects of object and of coding category, all of which yielded significant effects. And Duncan pairwise tests yielded significant results on almost all of the key comparisons (see Table 2). In addition, the classifications of thoughts for each attitude object individually also yielded supportive and statistically significant results for most of the objects. Finally, the results for thoughts that reflected multiple functions were significant and consistent with the results for single-function thoughts. The functional themes that emerged in these multiple thoughts tended to involve those functions engaged by the object rather than other functions. Discussion

This study sought to demonstrate that attitudes toward some objects tend to serve primarily a single attitude function. For most of the objects employed here, a predominant function emerged in the coding of attitude descriptions, and this function was consistent with a priori assumptions about the object. These assumptions, based on functional criteria proposed here, were further supported by subjects’ direct ratings of their attitude functions. Overall, then, these results suggest that the identification of primarily single-function objects was generally successful. While descriptions of attitudes toward utilitarian objects (e.g., coffee) were typically classified in terms of the object’s features (e.g., taste, caffeine content), attitude descriptions for social identity objects (e.g., a wedding ring) were usually classified in terms of concepts symbolized or communicated by the object (e.g., symbol of love, communicates a commitment). Mixed results were obtained for self-esteem maintenance objects: Attitude descriptions for two of these objects (own appearance, own personality) were often coded in terms of implications for self-esteem (e.g., feelings of confidence or inadequacy). However, the objects expected to engage ego-defensive motives (homosexuals, bottom 5% of

ATTITUDEFUNCTIONS

135

one’s high school class) elicited a high proportion of social identity thoughts. This may reflect the socially mediated aspects of self-esteem (see Introduction). It may also suggest that clear, compelling evidence for ego-defensive processes is difficult to obtain with this type of objective coding scheme (see Herek, 1987). Development of the coding scheme was also an important goal of this study. The results supported its construct validity as a measure of attitude functions. Validation was based on the association of thought codings with objects assumed to engage particular functions. At the level of object categories, for individual objects, and for single- and multiple-function thoughts, the coding scheme successfully distinguished between descriptions of attitudes toward objects assumed to engage different functions. Two additional aspects of this coding scheme support its utility as a measure of attitude functions. First, it focuses on general content categories, as opposed to object-specific coding rules. Thus, it can be used to identify attitude functions for a broad range of objects. Second, the coding of attitude descriptions apparently can be accomplished with reasonable intercoder reliability. In this study, the coders agreed with each other on 74% of their classifications. Also, preliminary results applying the coding scheme to other settings and objects are encouraging regarding both its reliability and generalizability (Shavitt, Han, Kim, & Tillman, 1988). In sum, these results point to a category of objects that plays an important role in attitude functions. For these objects, attitudes appear to serve primarily a single function. Using functional criteria, a variety of such objects were successfully identified. This had operational utility, as well, providing initial validation for a coding scheme that assesses the functions of attitudes. STUDY 2: THE ROLE OF SINGLE-FUNCTION PERSUASION

OBJECTS

IN

How does this category of attitude objects affect important functional processes? Study 2 was conducted to address one of the key predictions of functional theory: The conditions necessary for attitude change vary according to the functions of the attitude. Previous approaches used personality and situational factors to demonstrate that attitudes that serve different functions respond to different types of persuasive appeals (e.g., Snyder & DeBono, 1985). If certain attitude objects are reliably associated with a particular attitude function, then it should be possible to demonstrate the same implications for persuasion by using these objects to vary the functions of attitudes. That is, appeals about objects that predominantly engage a utilitarian function should be more persuasive if they describe the object’s features and outcomes than if they focus on what the object communicates to others. And the opposite should be

136

SHARON SHAVITT

true for appeals about objects that predominantly engage a social identity function. Thus, to the extent that one can identify the functions engaged by an object, this approach would provide important insights for a priori prediction of the persuasiveness of appeals. The predictions were tested in the context of attitudes toward consumer products, with two attitude functions-utilitarian and social identity-as the focus. The utilitarian products were air conditioners and coffee (as in Study 1). The social identity products were greeting cards and perfume. Greeting cards were assumed to mediate self-other relations by conveying information about the sender’s tastes and sentiments. Perfume was assumed to symbolize aspects of the wearer’s identity and reference groups (e.g., career women). Both products are associated with public behaviors (sending, wearing) that convey one’s attitudes toward the products and what they symbolize. Method Subjects. Fifty-six female subjects were recruited through newspaper advertisements and notices on campus. They were paid for their participation. Materials. Each subject read and responded to four pairs of ads about the four products. Each pair of ads consisted of messages about two fictitious brands of a product, one brand advertised with a utilitarian appeal and one with a social identity appeal. The order of the four products subjects read about was counterbalanced in a pairwise balanced Latin-square design. The order of appeals within each pair of ads was varied so that the utilitarian appeal came first for half of the products and second for the other half. Each ad consisted of a short headline and approximately 120 words of text. No pictorial material was used. Utilitarian ads featured such arguments as, “The delicious, hearty flavor and aroma of Sterling Blend coffee come from a blend of the freshest coffee beans” and, “The fresh, floral scent of Cadeau perfume comes from a balanced blend of oils and essences.” Social identity ads included such arguments as, “The coffee you drink says something about the type of person you are. It can reveal your rare. discriminating taste” and “Astoria [perfume] is the sophisticated scent that tells people you’re not one of the crowd.” Several of the arguments used in both the function-relevant and function-irrelevant ads were patterned after actual ads for these products.4 An instruction sheet asked subjects to list “the thoughts and feelings that went through your mind as you read the last advertisement,” on a thought-listing sheet containing six blank boxes. Subjects rated the favorability of their thoughts to the brand along the same scale used in Study 1. Subjects also responded to three preference measures, each consisting of a 9-point scale, anchored by “definitely prefer [Brand A]” and “definitely prefer [Brand B].” The first preference measure assessed attitudes toward the brands, instructing subjects

4 It was important to determine whether function-relevant and function-irrelevant ads differed on important dimensions other than their functional relevance, such as their comprehensibility, familiarity of arguments, or readability. To assess the comparability of the ads on these dimensions, 10 judges who were blind to the hypotheses each evaluated a randomly ordered set of the eight ads. For each ad, they rated (1) how well written the ad was and (2) how often they had seen such a set of arguments for purchasing any product. Judges were instructed to make these ratings independently of the products advertised. Their ratings were nearly identical for the function-relevant and function-irrelevant appeals.

ATTITUDE

137

FUNCTIONS

to indicate which of the two brands of a product they liked better. The second measure assessed purchase intention, asking subjects to rate which of the two brands they would prefer to buy if they were planning to buy the product. The third measure assessed attitudes toward the ads, instructing subjects to rate which of the two ads they liked better. Finally, subjects completed a structured attitude function measure similar to the one in Study 1. On it, subjects rated the contribution of two function-relevant factors to their attitude toward each product: “my identity and my values: how my attitude expresses me” (social identity) and, “my past experiences with the product: how satisfied I am with the product” (utilitarian). Procedure. Subjects participated in groups of three to eight. They were told that this “consumer study” was being conducted together with an advertising firm to test possible magazine ads for some new brands and that they would evaluate both the ads and the brands. Subjects were informed that they would read pairs of ads for brands of a product and then indicate which of the two brands they preferred. They were instructed not to consider the possible price of an item in making this rating. Subjects began by reading the ad for the first brand of the first product and then the ad for the second brand for the first product. Then, they listed their thoughts for 3 min to the second ad, after which they rated the favorability of their thoughts to that brand. (Subjects did not list thoughts toward the first ad they read in each pair.) Next, subjects filled out the three preference measures. In this way, they read and responded to each of the four pairs of ads in turn. Finally, subjects completed the structured measure of attitude functions and then were debriefed, paid, and dismissed.

Direct Assessment of Attitude

Results Functions

Subjects’ ratings on this measure yielded a pattern consistent with assumptions about the functions engaged by each product (see Table 3). For each factor rated two average ratings were calculated for each subject: her average rating of the utilitarian products on that factor and her

TABLE MEANS ON DIRECT RATINGS

3

OF ATTITUDE FUNCTIONS RATED FACTOR

AS A FUNCTION

OF PRODUCT AND

Rated factor

Product Air conditioner* Coffee*

Greeting cards* Perfume

“My past experiences with the product” (Utilitarian)

“My identity and my values” (Social identity)

4.25 4.27 3.24 3.76

2.33 2.58 4.35 4.09

Note. All means based on N = 55 (1 observation was deleted from analyses due to missing data). Ratings were made on a S-point scale, where 5 indicates that the factor “contributes a great deal to my attitude” and 1 indicates that the factor “does not contribute at all to my attitude.” * Main effect of rated factor was significant for this product at p < .Ol.

138

SHARON

SHAVITT

average rating of the social identity products on that factor. These average ratings were submitted to an analysis of variance with type of product (utilitarian vs social identity) and rated factor (past experiences vs identity) as within-subject variables and counterbalance order of products and of appeals as between-subjects variables. This analysis yielded significant main effects for type of product (F(1, 47) = 32.49; p < .Ol) and for factor (F(1, 47) = 12.90; p < .Ol), and a significant Product x Factor interaction (F(l) 47) = 77.19; p < .Ol). The main effect for product indicated that social identity products, overall, elicited higher ratings than did utilitarian products. The main effect for factor indicated that the past experience factor, overall, yielded higher ratings than the social identity factor. The key finding is the significant Product x Factor interaction, indicating that the factor rated as making the stronger contribution to one’s attitude toward a product depended upon the attitude function assumed to be predominantly engaged by the product. The ratings for each product individually were also supportive. As Table 3 shows, only perfume ratings did not yield a significant main effect of rated factor (F( 1,47) = 1.97). These results suggest that perfume engaged multiple functions, as evidenced by its high ratings on both factors. Favorability

of Listed Thoughts

Subjects had listed their thoughts to the second ad within each pair of ads for a product. Thus, half of the subjects listed thoughts to one set of four ads, and half to the remaining four ads. A favorability index was calculated for each thought list by averaging the favorability scores a subject assigned to her thoughts. As Table 4 shows, the favorability of thoughts was strongly affected by the relevance of the ad to the attitude function engaged by the product: Utilitarian appeals elicited favorable thoughts when touting utilitarian products, but unfavorable thoughts TABLE FAVORABILITY

OF THOUGHTS

AS A FUNCTION

4 OF PRODUCT

Type Product

TYPE

OF APPEAL

of appeal

Utilitarian

Air conditioner* Coffee* Greeting cards* Perfume Note. Maximum and minimum mean is based on N = 28. * Main effect of type of appeal

AND

Social

1.42 1.61 -0.83 -0.14 values

for this

was significant

identity - 1.22 - 0.20 1.55 0.31

favorability

index

for this product

are

+ 3 to - 3. Each

at p < .Ol.

ATTITUDE

FUNCTIONS

139

when touting social identity products. The reverse was true for social identity appeals. Favorability indices were submitted to an analysis of variance with type of product and type of appeal as within-subject variables and counterbalance order of products and of appeals as between-subjects variables. (Because the order of appeals represents which ad of the pair of ads was accompanied by thought listing, order of appeals was a stimulus replication factor in the analyses of listed thoughts.) The counterbalancing factors did not interact significantly with any of the other factors. However, the Product x Appeal interaction was significant (F( 1, 48) = 84.79; p < .Ol), indicating that the effect of appeal type on favorability of responses depended upon the functional relevance of the appeal to the product advertised. At the level of individual products, type of appeal had a significant effect on the favorability of thoughts toward air conditioner, coffee, and greeting card ads.5 Preference Measures The three preference measures, which assessed attitudes toward the brands, purchase intentions, and attitudes toward the ads, were highly intercorrelated for each of the four products rated. Average intercorrelations across products, calculated via z-prime transformations, ranged from .83 to .93. The preference ratings were recoded so that numbers above the nopreference baseline of 5 would indicate a preference for the brand supported with a utilitarian appeal and numbers below 5 a preference for the brand supported with a social identity appeal. Table 5 shows the mean difference from the baseline for each of these measures. As expected, brands supported with function-relevant appeals were preferred over brands supported with function-irrelevant appeals. For air conditioners and coffee, the brands in the utilitarian ads were preferred (indicated by positive numbers). For greeting cards and perfume, the brands in the social identity ads were preferred (indicated by negative numbers). Function-relevant appeals elicited more favorable attitudes toward the brands they supported, a preference for purchase of those brands, and a greater liking for the appeals themselves. 5 The perfume thoughts also yielded some support for this hypothesis. Since subjects’ function ratings for perfume suggested that this product did not engage primarily a social identity function, a subsample of subjects who had rated the social identity factor as contributing strongly to their perfume attitudes were selected for further analysis. The mean favorability of these 41 subjects’ thoughts was .90 for the social identity perfume appeal and - .33 for the utilitarian appeal. This main effect for type of appeal was significant (F(1, 33) = 6.11; p < .02). No other effects were significant. Thus, for those subjects for whom perfume strongly engaged a social identity function, the function-relevant ad was more persuasive than the function-irrelevant ad.

140

SHARON

SHAVITT

TABLE MEAN

DIFFERENCE

FROM THE NO-PREFERENCE A FUNCTION

5

BASELINE

FOR EACH

PREFERENCE

MEASURE

AS

OF PRODUCT

Preference measures Product Air conditioner Coffee Greeting cards Perfume

Attitude toward brands 2.57 1.37 -2.32 -0.77

Purchase intention

Attitude toward ads

Average preference

2.80 1.23 -2.36 -0.79

2.77 0.99 -2.21 -0.71

2.71 1.20 -2.30 -0.76

Note. Each value represents mean difference from no-preference baseline of 5. Numbers greater than zero indicate a preference in the direction of brand supported with utilitarian appeal. Negative numbers indicate a preference for brand supported with social identity appeal. Each mean difference is based on N = 56.

A series of steps were taken in analyzing these data: First, for each subject, the mean of her three preference ratings were calculated (on a scale of 1 to 9) for each of the four products. Then, two indices were calculated: a utilitarian index (the average of the mean preference ratings for air conditioner and coffee) and a social identity index (the average of the mean preference ratings for greeting cards and perfume). These indices were submitted to an analysis of variance with type of product as a within-subject factor and counterbalance order of products and of appeals as between-subjects factors. Since higher numbers on the preference measures indicate greater preference for brands supported with a utilitarian appeal, a significant effect of function relevance of appeals is represented as a main effect of type of product (high preference ratings should be associated with utilitarian products and low ratings with social identity products). This main effect was highly significant (F(1, 48) = 120.11; p < .Ol). No other effects were significant.

This study sought to provide further evidence that attitudes toward some objects predominantly serve a single attitude function and to demonstrate the implications for persuasion. As in Study 1, the identification of objects that predominantly engage a particular function appeared to have been successful. Direct ratings of attitude functions indicated that the primary functions engaged by the products were consistent with a priori assumptions. The one exception was perfume, for which attitudes were apparently based both on utilitarian features (e.g., its scent, the forms it comes in) and on implications for one’s social identity. Perhaps it is not surprising that perfume attitudes would be based partly on the outcomes associated with perfume. Perfume is intrinsically associated

ATTITUDE

FUNCTIONS

141

with a variety of rewards and punishments (e.g., pleasant scent, high cost). Thus, it seems to have been a poor fit to the criteria outlined earlier for predominantly social identity objects. Overall, however, the selection of primarily single-function objects appeared effective. The results also pointed to the operational utility of this approach: By varying the types of objects that served as experimental stimuli, the functions of attitudes were successfully varied. Using this object-based approach, the present study yielded persuasion findings consistent with those of previous approaches. Ads relevant to the functions engaged by objects elicited more favorable thoughts, a preference for the brands they promoted, and even a preference for the ads themselves. One might argue that these preferences were not due to the function relevance of the ads but perhaps to some other dimension on which the ads differed. For example, the writing quality or familiarity of the arguments may have been greater for the function-relevant ads. Ratings by pretest judges had suggested that the ads did not differ on these dimensions (see Note 4). However, although the arguments were judged to be equally familiar as arguments for any product, it is possible that the pairings of products with arguments were differentially familiar. Consumers may be unaccustomed to utilitarian arguments for greeting cards or social identity arguments for air conditioners. Still, the implications for the persuasiveness of those arguments is not altogether obvious. For example, an influential viewpoint in the advertising industry focuses on communicating a “unique selling proposition,” an argument or claim that has not already been made for a product (Reeves, 1961). A functional analysis would not focus on the familiarily or uniqueness of arguments, but on their relevance to the motives underlying the attitudes. Effects of Ad Pairing It is possible that the effects observed here were heightened by the fact that function-relevant and function-irrelevant ads for a product were juxtaposed during attitude formation. This sequence of ads may have made the functions engaged by the products more salient, heightening the persuasiveness of function-relevant appeals. Data from another experiment, in which these appeals were not juxtaposed, supported this. After listing thoughts for each of the first four ads in turn, subjects read the second ad of each pair and completed the preference items. As in Study 2, function-relevant appeals were significantly more persuasive than function-irrelevant appeals. However, these effects were not as strong as in Study 2, particularly for listed thought favorability, which was assessed after subjects had read only one ad in each pair. Although the overall Appeal Type x Product Type interaction was significant, for individual products the effect of appeal type was significant only for air

142

SHARON

SHAVI’M

conditioner thoughts. For perfume thoughts the pattern of means ran counter to expectations, but not significantly. Analyses directly comparing this experiment with Study 2 indicated that the juxtaposition of appeals in Study 2 magnified the role of function relevance in persuasion, increasing the effect size for appeal type on thought favorability and reducing the variance associated with thought favorability. Thus, the juxtaposition of appeals apparently did strengthen the persuasive effect of function-relevant messages. Contributions to the Psychology of Persuasion It might be argued that the insights offered by the functional approach are not unique contributions to understanding persuasion. The finding that function-relevant appeals are particularly persuasive could be viewed in terms of Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) contention that effective appeals must address the salient beliefs underlying an audience’s attitudes. However, as Chaiken and Stangor (1987) noted, the functional approach to persuasion focuses on a different set of issues. It does not seek to identify the specific salient beliefs underlying a target audience’s attitudes toward a particular object. Rather, it is concerned with theory-based categories of beliefs (utilitarian, social identity, etc.), the motivational underpinnings of these belief categories, and the conditions that elicit those motives. The goal is to predict the types of beliefs that underlie an attitude by focusing on the motives served by the attitude. GENERAL

DISCUSSION

The results of these studies identified a category of attitude objects that has an important influence on attitude functions. Previous functional approaches focused on the different functions that can be associated with attitudes toward the same object. The present analysis proposed that attitudes toward some objects tend to serve a single function. Using newly developed measures of attitude functions, Study 1 indicated that objects that are primarily associated with a single attitude function can be identified. Study 2 demonstrated that single-function attitude objects have implications for the persuasiveness of appeals. Consistent with the findings of previous approaches (e.g., Snyder & DeBono, 1985), ads relevant to the function predominantly engaged by an object elicited more favorable responses than function-irrelevant ads on a variety of measures. The present findings expand the scope of functional theory. They suggest that functional predictions (e.g., regarding persuasion) apply to factors beyond the personality and situational variables examined in previous research. Even for attitudes toward objects that appear unlikely to engage different functions for different people or in different situations, functional predictions still apply.

ATTITUDE

FUNCTIONS

143

The results also illustrate the utility of an object-based functional analysis in predicting a priori the persuasiveness of appeals. An appeal should be persuasive to the extent that it cogently addresses the functions engaged by the attitude object. Consistent with previous research, the present findings suggest types of appeals relevant to utilitarian and to social identity functions: Appeals dealing with features of the attitude object and with rewards intrinsically associated with it appear persuasive for utilitarian attitudes. Appeals focusing on the object’s symbolic value and social outcomes associated with it appear persuasive for social identity attitudes. Operational Contributions to the Study of Attitude Functions Functional theories were often criticized because they did not provide methods for measuring or manipulating attitude functions (Insko, 1967; Kiesler et al., 1969). Recent research has developed functional operations that focus on personality or situational variations (see Shavitt, 1989, for a review). The present studies contribute new, object-based methods for operationalizing attitude functions. This research provided evidence that attitude functions can be directly varied by varying the types of objects that serve as experimental stimuli. Selection of the objects used in these studies was guided by a set of functional criteria, which were supported by subjects’ direct ratings of their attitude functions. Furthermore, through analysis of subjects’ attitude descriptions for objects engaging different functions, Study 1 yielded a coding scheme for measuring attitude functions. This study and subsequent research have supported the reliability and construct validity of the coding scheme as a measure that can be applied to a variety of attitude objects and settings (Shavitt et al., 1988). These findings have implications for self-report assessment of attitude functions. One might argue that subjects’ attitude descriptions in Study 1 or their direct ratings throughout were simply rationalizations for their opinions and did not reflect the actual functions served by their attitudes. However, subjects in the persuasion study also responded according to functional predictions, even though the key measures did not involve self-reports of functions. This convergence between studies involving both self-reports and functional outcomes (attitudes, intentions, etc.) suggests that people can provide accurate reports of the functions served by their attitudes.6 ’ It should be noted that the direct. structured ratings performed reasonably well in measuring attitude functions. Although the information provided by this measure is not as rich as that provided by listed thoughts, it is useful in providing convergence for more detailed assessment of attitude functions. Further, it may serve as a sole measure when more detailed assessment is not feasible.

144

SHARON

SHAVE-I-

One possible limitation of the object-based methods proposed here, compared to situational and personality approaches, is that they do not attempt to induce an actual motivational state. In studies employing situational or personality methods, subjects’ attitudinal responses are observed while they strive for a goal made salient either by the situation or by their personality. Object-based methods might be considered a parallel, but somewhat “colder,” approach that does not focus on inducing goal states. Instead, it relies on subjects’ previously learned associations between goals and particular objects. Interactive

Effects on Attitude

Functions

Previous research established that personality and situational factors influence the functions of attitudes. These studies focused on the different functions associated with attitudes toward the same object and employed objects that are likely to engage multiple functions. Would personality and situational factors have the same impact on the functions of attitudes toward single-function objects? One might expect that, for single-function objects, the impact of these factors would be smaller. Personality or situational effects on functions may be mediated by whether the object tends to engage the corresponding functions. That is, situations, personalities, and objects may interact in their effects on attitude functions (Shavitt, 1989). Research by Snyder and DeBono (1985), reviewed earlier, provided suggestive evidence for such an interaction. They found that ads targeting the function associated with one’s self-monitoring level were significantly more persuasive than other ads. This effect was strong when the product was whiskey (a product that seems likely to engage a variety of functions), but was nonsignificant when the product was coffee or cigarettes. This is consistent with the present results suggesting that coffee is a primarily single-function product. Additional research has also yielded preliminary evidence for an interaction of self-monitoring and object categories (Shavitt et al., 1988). The present persuasion data suggested a similar interaction between situational and object factors. Recall that a variation in message exposure context (i.e., whether or not appeals were juxtaposed) had a greater effect on responses to an apparently multiple-function object (perfume) than on responses to other objects (see Discussion, Study 2). That is, the predominant attitude function engaged by perfume appeared to differ with situational variations, but this was not the case for the other, primarily single-function objects. An interactional perspective highlights the complementarity and utility of personality, situational, and object-based operations of attitude functions. Although each operational approach, individually, may be more

ATTITUDE

informative information

145

FUNCTIONS

in some circumstances, interactively on the antecedents and consequences

they provide unique of attitude functions.

APPENDIX Coding Scheme for Attitude Functions

Utilitarian Thoughts Focus on features or attributes

of attitude

object

“Like, it blows cold air and you can set the temperature you like.” (Air conditioner) “It’s helpful-provides caffeine for alertness.” (Coffee) Refer to past experiences punishments

with

object

that

involve

rewards

or

“Any time I ever had the flu I felt miserable.” “Air conditioners bother me; they always screw up my sinuses. If there is one thing I hate is having a cold in the middle of summer.” Refer to rewards/punishments

associated with object

“Dislike, air conditioners are expensive to run in houses.” “Like this object because it makes me feel comfortable in the summer’s heat.” (Air conditioner) Discuss appropriate fulfilled by object)

behavior toward object (as a way to satisfy needs

“Dislike, because have to study at least eight hours per subject per exam.” (Final exams) “Not necessary to run all summer long-fresh air is a nice switch.” (Air conditioner) Social Identity Thoughts Public Identity Thoughts Focus on social characteristics (social group or values) of others who do or do not hold the attitude (or social characteristics of a message’s source) “Republicans seem to be pretty comfortable financially and usually they seem to set themselves above others.” (Republican party) “To me, a person who wears an Ohio State Buckeye sweatshirt represents the type of person who involves theirself in juvenile behavior.” Focus on what the attitude

communicates

“A wedding ring is sometimes

to others

shown off to show monev.”

146

SHARON

SHAWM

“It would be something I could wear at home so that everyone would know that I’m attending OSU.” (Ohio State Buckeyes sweatshirt) Deals with rules for attitude

expression

“Sometimes people are ashamed to say they’re a Democrat and they’ll say they’re Republican to go along with the crowd or be with most others.” (Republican party) “Dislike people that abuse flag by leaving it in rain or out after dark.” (American flag) Private

Identity

Thoughts

Focus on abstract concepts or values represented by attitude object “It represents a solemn and sacred vow between two people who love each other.” (Wedding ring) “It symbolizes all our lives here. We should live by what it stands for.” (American flag) Statements

of approval

or disapproval

“I feel that too much money is being spent on nuclear arms. I agree that we have to be prepared for war, but where do we draw the line?” (Republican party) “Some people say a wedding ring is a reminder of the marriage but if you need a reminder you shouldn’t be married.” Concern with consistency

with other attitudes

“Approve of their beliefs: I feel feelings and attitudes in politics.” “Support-Current administration anti-abortion), so I’m supportive of Self-Esteem Basking

Maintenance

or values

as if they best represent my (Republican party) supports my beliefs (church, them also.” (Republican party)

Thoughts

in reflected glory

“I like it even better now that they beat Michigan and are going to the Rose Bowl.” (Ohio State Buckeyes sweatshirt) Focus on implications

of attitude for self-regard,

self-esteem

“I should accept myself the way I am, but I always wish I looked different.” (Your appearance) “Very important. Makes you feel better to look good. Satisfied.” (Your appearance)

ATTITUDE

Reflects “downward” sifiable here

147

FUNCTIONS

social comparison:

expressions of pity are clas-

“Pity-At our high school reunion they’ll be pumping my gas.” (Bottom 5% of your high school graduating class) “Pity-They are misunderstood. I don’t understand them either. Pity their families.” (Homosexuals) Evaluative

reference to own achievements

and abilities

“Intelligent-l am an above average student and have a very good insight on many things. I am somewhat of a perfectionist.” (Your personality) “Creative-I feel good about this because I am always doing new things, creating new things with my music.” (Your personality) Distancing

of self from dislikable

group

“Do not know very much about them since I was in the upper middle of my graduating class.” (Bottom 5% of your high school graduating class) “Do not associate with them.” (Bottom 5% of your high school graduating class) Reflects favorable (Defensive)

self-regard

while ignoring

actual

attitude

object

“Friendly, outgoing (yet at times shy), tasteful, have alot of character. I unfortunately get too jealous at times.” (Your appearance) “Attractive-l feel my ‘attractiveness’ is not only external but alot comes from within. I feel I’m caring, loving, sharing.” (Your appearance) Involves distortions object. (Defensive)

of information

about, or properties

of, attitude

“Most likely be poor and have some kind of criminal background.” (Bottom 5% of your high school graduating class) “Menace to society-They can cause severe problems for many people especially when confronted when very young.” (Homosexuals) REFERENCES Abelson, R. P. (1982). Three modes of attitude-behavior consistency. In M. P. Zanna, E. T. Higgins, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Consistency in social behavior: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 2. pp. 131-146). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1981). Social-psychological procedures for cognitive response assessment: The thought listing technique. In T. Merluzzi, C. Glass, & M. Genest (Eds.), Cognitive nssessment (pp. 309-342). New York: Guilford.

SHARON SHAVITT

148

Chaiken, S., & Stangor, C. (1987). Attitudes Psychology,

and attitude change. Annual

Review

of

38, 575-630.

DeBono, K. (1987). Investigating the social-adjustive and value-expressive functions of attitudes: Implications for persuasion processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

52(2),

279-287.

DeBono, K., & Hamish, R. (1988). Source expertise, source attractiveness, and the processing of persuasive information: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology,

55(4),

541-546.

Fazio, R. H. (1989). On the power and functionality of attitudes: The role of attitude accessibility. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 153-179). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Herek, G. M. (1987). Can functions be measured? A new perspective on the functional approach to attitudes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 285-303. Insko, C. A. (1967). Theories of attitude change. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly,

24, 163-204.

Katz, D., Samoff, I., & McChntock, Relations,

C. (1956). Ego-defense and attitude change. Human

9, 27-46.

Katz, D., & Stotland, E. (1959). A preliminary statement to a theory of attitude structure and change. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science (Vol. 3. pp. 423475). New York: McGraw-Hill. Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51-60. Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarter/y, 25, 57-78. Kiesler, C. A., Collins, B. E., & Miller, N. (1969). Attitude change: A critical ana/ysis of theoretical approaches. New York: Wiley. McClintock, C. (1958). Personality syndromes and attitude change. Journal of Personality, 26, 479-493.

Reeves, R. (1961). Reality in advertising. New York: Knopf. Sears, D. O., & McConahay, J. (1973). The new urban Blacks and the Watts riot. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Shavitt, S. (1985). Functional imperative theory of attitude formation and expression. Unpublished dissertation, Ohio State University. Shavitt, S. (1989). Operationalizing functional theories of attitude. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 31 l337). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Shavitt, S., Han, S. P., Kim, Y. C., & Tillman. C. (1988). Attitude objects and seF monitoring interactively affect attitude functions. Presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago. Smith, M. B., Bruner, J. S., & White, R. W. (1956). Opinions and personality. New York: Wiley. Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology,

30, 526-537.

Snyder. M., & DeBono, K. G. (1985). Appeals to image and claims about quality: Understanding the psychology of advertising. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

49, 586-597.

Stotland, E., Katz, D., & Patchen, M. (1959). The reduction of prejudice through the arousal of self-insight. Journal of Personality, 27, 507-531. Tesser, A., & Campbell, J. (1983). Self-definition and self-evaluation maintenance. In J. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self(Vol. 2. pp. I-31). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.