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.
Don't let the facts ruin a good story: The effect of vivid reviews on attitude ambivalence and its coping mechanisms
Guy Itzchakov, Moty Amar, Frenk Van Harreveld
Attitudes
Purchasing decisions are increasingly based on reviews by fellow consumers which often consist of positive and negative evaluations about the product (i.e. valence-
inconsistency). We tested how the vividness of these reviews affects individuals' attitude ambivalence towards the product and their strategies to cope with this ambivalence. We hypothesized that reading vivid and valence-inconsistent reviews would lead to increased awareness of opposing features of attitudes towards the
product (i.e. increased simultaneous accessibility) as compared to reading less vivid valence-inconsistent reviews. If this is indeed the case, individuals should feel
more conflicted towards the attitude object (i.e. increased subjective ambivalence) and should be motivated to reduce it by using ambivalence-coping strategies,
specifically (a) processing additional information that is congruent with their initial attitude and (b) delaying their decision. These hypotheses were mostly supported across five experiments. The experiments included manipulations of valence-inconsistent information between reviews and within a review including three pre-
registered studies (Ns = 247, 396, 701, 433, 313, respectively).
Keep reading
Listening to Understand: The Role of High-Quality Listening on Speakers’ Attitude Depolarization During Disagreements
Guy Itzchakov , Netta Weinstein , Mark Leary , Dvori Saluk, and Moty Amar
Listening
Disagreements can polarize attitudes when they evoke defensiveness from the conversation partners. When
a speaker talks, listeners often think about ways to counterargue. This process often fails to depolarize
attitudes and might even backfire (i.e., the Boomerang effect). However, what happens in disagreements if
one conversation partner genuinely listens to the other’s perspective? We hypothesized that when
conversation partners convey high-quality listening—characterized by attention, understanding, and
positive intentions—speakers will feel more socially comfortable and connected to them (i.e., positivity
resonance) and reflect on their attitudes in a less defensive manner (i.e., have self-insight). We further
hypothesized that this process reduces perceived polarization (perceived attitude change, perceived attitude
similarity with the listener) and actual polarization (reduced attitude extremity). Four experiments
manipulated poor, moderate, and high-quality listening using a video vignette (Study 1) and live interactions
(Studies 2–4). The results consistently supported the research hypotheses and a serial mediation model in
which listening influences depolarization through positivity resonance and nondefensive self-reflection.
Most of the effects of the listening manipulation on perceived and actual depolarization generalized across
indicators of attitude strength, specifically attitude certainty and attitude morality. These findings suggest
that high-quality listening can be a valuable tool for bridging attitudinal and ideological divides.
Keep reading