Effects of analyzing reasons on attitude–behavior consistency.

Wilson, Timothy D.; Dunn, Dana S.; Bybee, Jane; Hyman, Diane B.; Rotondo, John A.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.1.5

Cited by 118 publications

(117 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

108

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of such information as well as extended deliberation may also reduce the weight of attitudes in decision making and weaken the consistency between attitudes and behavior. In three studies with different attitude objects, Wilson, Dunn, Bybee, Hyman, and Rotondo (1984) found that thinking about reasons reduced the correlation between attitudes participants indicated in questionnaires and measures of behavior or indirect measures of liking. For example, in their Study 2, people viewed different vacation scenes and were asked to indicate their liking of the pictures.…”

Section: Affective and Cognitive Focus In Consumer Judgmentsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…They did not measure the individual differences in preferences for the alternatives. There are a few studies that manipulated the focus of participants and measured the attitude-behavior correlations (e.g., Wilson, et al, 1984). However, these studies used mostly self-reported SCARABIS, FLORACK, AND GOSEJOHANN Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar measures or, in one case, facial responses.…”

Section: H3mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

When consumers follow their feelings: The impact of affective or cognitive focus on the basis of consumers' choice

Scarabis¹,

Florack²,

Gosejohann³

2006

Psychol. Mark.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors assumed that automatic preferences based on lowerorder affective processes have a greater impact on choice when people focus on their affective response to choice options (affective focus) than when they try to find reasons for their preferences (cognitive focus). They further supposed that the impact of the focus during decision making is less important when the cognitive resources of consumers are constrained. In an experiment, participants had to choose between two options while the cognitive or affective focus and processing resources were manipulated. Measures of automatic preferences correlated with choice under an affective, but not under a cognitive, focus. In contrast to expectations, this effect of focus was not moderated by the manipulation of processing resources. Interestingly, the automatic measures contributed to the prediction of choice under an affective focus independently and apart from self-report measures.

show abstract

Section: Affective and Cognitive Focus In Consumer Judgmentsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: H3mentioning

confidence: 97%

When consumers follow their feelings: The impact of affective or cognitive focus on the basis of consumers' choice

Scarabis¹,

Florack²,

Gosejohann³

2006

Psychol. Mark.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other investigators have offered additional evidence of a tendency for cognitions to modify affective experiences. For example, recent evidence indicates that when people's behavioral predispositions toward some target person are based largely on affect (e.g., when they have just met a target), inducing them to think about that target can systematically alter their subsequent behavior toward him or her (e.g., Millar & Tesser, 1986;Wilson, Dunn, Bybee, Hyman, & Rotondo, 1984). Similarly, there is evidence that people "manage" their emotions by altering or juggling cognitions related to those emotions (e.g., Hochschild, 1983).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The cognitive–affective crossfire: When self-consistency confronts self-enhancement.

Swann

Griffin

Predmore

et al. 1987

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

511

396

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-consistency theory assumes that people want others to treat them in a predictable manner. Selfenhancement theory contends that people want others to treat them in a positive manner. We attempted to help reconcile the two theories by testing the hypothesis that people's cognitive responses conform to self-consistency theory and their affeetive responses conform to self-enhancement theory. We presented individuals who possessed either positive or negative self-concepts with either favorable or unfavorable social feedback. We then measured cognitive reactions to the feedback (e.g., perceived self-descriptiveness) and alfective reactions to the feedback (e.g., mood states). Cognitive responses were primarily driven by the consistency of the feedback and affeetive responses were controlled by how enhancing it was. We propose that conceptualizing cognition and affect as partially independent mental systems helps resolve some long-standing paradoxes regarding people's responses to selfrelevant social feedback.When we undertake to cure a patient, to free him from the symptoms of his malady, he confronts us with a vigorous, tenacious resistance that lasts during the whole time of the treatment. This is so peculiar a fact that we cannot expect much credence for it .... Just consider, this patient suffers from his symptoms and causes those about him to suffer with him.., and yet he struggles, in the very interests of the malady, against one who would help him. How improbable this assertion must sound! (Freud, 1921, p. 248) Improbable perhaps, yet Freud's assertion has fared well over the years. Self-consistency theorists, for example, contend that much like Freud's patients, people with negative self-concepts undermine opportunities to better themselves by engaging in cognitive and behavioral activities that perpetuate their selfviews. Yet, as Freud feared, such contentions have raised a fair number of eyebrows. Self-enhancement theorists, for example, have rejected self-consistency theory by arguing that in fact people with negative self-concepts are highly motivated to improve their self-views. This raises an important question: Does selfconsistency or self-enhancement theory offer a more compelling characterization ofhuman nature?

show abstract

“…To the extent that the reasons generated during self-reflection mismatch one's actual reasons, predictions and choices based on the generated reasons will be disadvantageous or inaccurate. 94,98 There are situations, however, when self-reflection shows some benefit. Specifically, one paper has demonstrated that when self-reflection is about traits (not abilities, preferences or behaviors), is written down, and is explanatory rather than descriptive, it can result in slightly less-though still statistically significant-positive bias.…”

Section: A J P Ementioning

confidence: 99%

“…95 Similarly, Wilson and colleagues found than participants who reflected on their attitudes before reporting them showed lower attitude-behavior correspondence than participants who did not reflect. 98 Not only can self-reflection sometimes lead to sub-optimal choices, it can also hamper people's ability to predict their own behavior. This occurs because peoples' primary reasons for their preferences and behaviors are often either implicit or not easily verbalized.…”

Section: A J P Ementioning

confidence: 99%

The Social Psychology of Biased Self-Assessment

Karpen

2018

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the accreditation standards of most health-related disciplines emphasize the importance of selfawareness and accurate self-assessment, decades of social psychological research suggests that these standards will be difficult to attain. Indeed, a host of sub-conscious cognitive processes conspire to ensure that self-assessments are unjustifiably charitable. The review describes said cognitive processes, discusses the most common manifestations of biased self-assessment, and offers guidance on interventions. The review's overarching theme; however, is that because self-enhancement is so deeply engrained, it will be impossible to eradicate at a global level. The most effective interventions may be those that help students to function in spite of imperfect self-knowledge.Keywords: self, self-awareness, self-assessment, self-knowledge, bias, psychology Unbiased self-knowledge seems critical for professionals who routinely make life and health altering decisions.1-5 Indeed, Standard 4.1 of the Standards 2016 and Domain 4 of CAPE addresses it directly: The graduate is able to examine and reflect on personal, knowledge, skills, abilities, beliefs, biases, motivation, and emotions that could enhance or limit personal growth. Several lines of research in clinical education, however, suggest that both students' and clinicians' self-knowledge is often biased. 6-14The goal of this manuscript is to demonstrate that completely unbiased self-knowledge is neither attainable nor desirable, because bias is deeply engrained, and because the mechanisms that cause bias occur below awareness. 15 Consequently, the manuscript also argues that interventions that help students Consequences of Biased Self-AssessmentBefore entertaining solutions to a problem, one should assess its extent; hence, the manuscript reviews common situations in with peoples' estimates of their character, abilities, or future prospects are more optimistic than reality warrants. The manifestations include, the better than average effect, low correlations between ability estimates and actual performance, and One of the most common manifestations of biased self-knowledge is low correlations between ability estimates and actual performance. For example, only seven out of twenty papers in a meta-analysis of practicing physicians' self-assessment accuracy reported a moderate positive correlation between physicians' self-assessment and their performance; the remaining papers reported either non-significant or negative correlations. Like knowledge of one's abilities, knowledge of one's traits is imperfect. 21 The Big Five personality inventory-an instrument that classifies respondents in terms of openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism-only correlates with related behaviors at 0.34 when the behaviors are performed in a lab 22 and 0.27 when the behaviors are performed outside of a lab. 23 In one of the most thorough investigations of the relationship between self-reports and behavior, researchers asked participants to wear an...

show abstract

Effects of analyzing reasons on attitude–behavior consistency.

Cited by 118 publications

References 27 publications

When consumers follow their feelings: The impact of affective or cognitive focus on the basis of consumers' choice

When consumers follow their feelings: The impact of affective or cognitive focus on the basis of consumers' choice

The cognitive–affective crossfire: When self-consistency confronts self-enhancement.

The Social Psychology of Biased Self-Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About