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.
The Unintentional Nonconformist: Habits Promote Resistance to Social influence
Asaf Mazar, Guy Itzchakov, Alicea Lieberman, and Wendy Wood
Attitudes
This research tests a novel source of resistance to social influence—the automatic repetition of habit. In three experiments,
participants with strong habits failed to align their behavior with others. Specifically, participants with strong habits to drink
water in a dining hall or snack while working did not mimic others’ drinking or eating, whereas those with weak habits
conformed. Similarly, participants with strong habits did not shift expectations that they would act in line with descriptive
norms, whereas those with weak habits reported more normative behavioral expectations. This habit resistance was not
due to a failure to perceive influence: Both strong and weak habit participants’ recalled others’ behavior accurately, and it
was readily accessible. Furthermore, strong habit participants shifted their normative beliefs but not behavior in line with
descriptive norms. Thus, habits create behavioral resistance despite people’s recognition and acceptance of social influence.
Keep reading
Can high quality listening predict lower speakers' prejudiced attitudes?
Guy Itzchakov, Netta Weinstein, Nicole Legate, Moty Amar
Listening
Theorizing from humanistic and motivational literature suggests attitude change may occur because high-quality listening facilitates the insight needed to explore and integrate potentially threatening information relevant to the self. By extension, self-insight may enable attitude change as a result of conversations about prejudice. We tested whether high-quality listening would predict attitudes related to speakers' prejudices and whether self-insight would mediate this effect. Study 1 (preregistered) examined scripted conversations characterized by high, regular, and poor listening quality. In Study 2, we manipulated high versus regular listening quality in the laboratory as speakers talked about their prejudiced attitudes. Finally, Study 3 (preregistered) used a more robust measure of prejudiced attitudes to testing whether perceived social acceptance could be an alternative explanation to Study 2 findings. Across these studies, the exploratory (pilot study and Study 2) and confirmatory (Studies 1 & 3) findings were in line with expectations that high, versus regular and poor, quality listening facilitated lower prejudiced attitudes because it increased self-insight. A meta-analysis of the studies (N = 952) showed that the average effect sizes for high-quality listening (vs. comparison conditions) on self-insight, openness to change and prejudiced attitudes were, ds = 1.19, 0.46, 0.32 95%CIs [0.73, 1.51], [0.29, 0.63] [0.12, 0.53], respectively. These results suggest that when having conversations about prejudice, high-quality listening modestly shapes prejudice following conversations about it, and underscores the importance of self-insight and openness to change in this process.
Keep reading