When attitudes and habits don’t correspond: Self-control depletion increases persuasion but not behavior
Abstract
Changing attitudes does not necessarily involve the same psychological processes as changing behavior, yet
social psychology is only just beginning to identify the different mechanisms involved. We contribute to this
understanding by showing that the moderators of attitude change are not necessarily the moderators of behavior
change. The results of three studies (Ns = 98, 104, 137) employing an ego depletion manipulation indicate that
although people are more likely to agree with a persuasive message when executive control is reduced they are
not more likely to change their behavior. Rather, under conditions of ego depletion, attitudes became less correlated with behaviors after persuasion. Moreover, in Study 3, we provide an explanation for this phenom-
enon: People are more likely to agree with a persuasive message when depleted but are also more likely to fall back on habits that may conflict with their new evaluations. A mini meta-analysis of the data indicated that ego-
depletion had a medium effect size on the difference between attitude change and behavior change, N = 339, d = −0.51, 95% CI [−0.72, −0.29]. Jointly, these studies suggest an integrative, resource-based explanation
to attitude-behavior discrepancies subsequent to persuasion.
Perceiving others as responsive lessens prejudice: The mediating roles of intellectual humility and attitude ambivalence
Guy Itzchakov , Harry T. Reis , Kimberly Rios
Responsiveness
Can perceived responsiveness, the extent to which an individual feels understood, validated, and cared for by
close others, reduce prejudiced attitudes? We hypothesized that perceived responsiveness by meaningful other
people would increase recipients’ intellectual humility and attitude ambivalence and that these changes would
reduce prejudice. Five studies (total N = 3362), four of which were preregistered, manipulated perceived
responsiveness by a specific person (Studies 1–3, 5) or measured the effects of perceived responsiveness by the
closest social network of the recipient (Study 4). All studies supported the hypotheses. Specifically, Studies 1 and
2 found that perceived responsiveness increased intellectual humility and attitude ambivalence and reduced
prejudice toward a group from a pre-determined list. Study 3 replicated these findings when participants freely
chose the social group. In Study 4, perceived responsiveness from individuals’ closest social networks predicted
the dependent variables a few days afterward, controlling for positive and negative affect and social desirability.
Finally, in Study 5, we added a condition of positive social interaction to rule out the possibility that the prior
findings were due to recalling an affectively positive experience. The effect of perceived responsiveness on
prejudice reduction (i.e., increased attitude favorability toward the social group) was not moderated by attitude
certainty (Study 2), anxious or avoidant attachment style (Study 2), or attitude morality (Study 3). This work
suggests that fostering perceived responsiveness can serve as a strategy for mitigating prejudice and promoting
more open-minded attitudes.
Keep reading
How do people perceive listeners?
Guy Itzchakov, Geoffrey Haddock and Sarah Smith
Listening
Listening is essential in shaping social interactions,
relationships and communication. While listening research
has generated significant insights on how speakers benefit
from good listening, one fundamental question has been
largely overlooked: how do people perceive listeners?
This gap is crucial for understanding how perceptions of
listeners impact relational dynamics. In three studies (two
preregistered; total N = 1509), we assessed the attributes
and behaviours associated with good and bad listeners, and
whether the favourability of these attributes and behaviours
impact downstream consequences. In Study 1, participants
identified an acquaintance they judged as a good or bad
listener. Good listeners were rated higher in positive listening
attributes and behaviours, which mediated their perceived
warmth, competence and values. Study 2 replicated this using
a reverse correlation technique: one sample generated faces
of a good or bad listener, which were then evaluated by a
second, naïve sample. Consistent with Study 1, good listener
faces were rated higher in positive listening attributes and
behaviours, mediating perceptions of warmth, competence,
humility and values. Study 3 extended Study 2 by showing
that the effects were not due to a general positivity bias,
demonstrating the significant interpersonal consequences of
being perceived as a good or bad listener.
Keep reading