Chapter 3 Perception and Job Attitudes 81

The second error in attribution processes is generally called the self-serving bias. There is a tendency, not
surprisingly, for individuals to attribute success on an event or project to their own actions while attributing
failure to others. Hence, we often hear sales representatives saying, “I made the sale,” but “They stole the sale
from me” rather than “I lost it.” These two biases in interpreting how we see the events around us help us
understand why employees looking at the same event often see substantially different things.

CONCEPT CHECK

1. What is attribution theory? Describe the attribution process.

2. What are the internal and external causes of attribution?

3.4 Attitudes and Behavior

4. How can a work environment characterized by positive work attitudes be created and maintained?

Closely related to the topic of perception and attribution—indeed, largely influenced by it—is the issue of
attitudes. An attitude can be defined as a predisposition to respond in a favorable or unfavorable way to
objects or persons in one’s environment.25 When we like or dislike something, we are, in effect, expressing our
attitude toward the person or object.

Three important aspects of this definition should be noted. First, an attitude is a hypothetical construct; that is,
although its consequences can be observed, the attitude itself cannot. Second, an attitude is a unidimensional
concept: An attitude toward a particular person or object ranges on a continuum from very favorable to very
unfavorable. We like something or we dislike something (or we are neutral). Something is pleasurable or
unpleasurable. In all cases, the attitude can be evaluated along a single evaluative continuum. And third,
attitudes are believed to be related to subsequent behavior. We will return to this point later in the discussion.

An attitude can be thought of as composed of three highly interrelated components: (1) a cognitive
component, dealing with the beliefs and ideas a person has about a person or object; (2) an affective
component (affect), dealing with a person’s feelings toward the person or object; and (3) an intentional
component, dealing with the behavioral intentions a person has with respect to the person or object.26

Now that we know what an attitude is, let us consider how attitudes are formed and how they influence
behavior. A general model of the relationship between attitudes and behavior is shown in Exhibit 3.8. As can
be seen, attitudes lead to behavioral intentions, which, in turn, lead to actual behavior. Following behavior, we
can often identify efforts by the individual to justify his behavior. Let us examine each of these components of
the model separately, beginning with the process of attitude formation.
82 Chapter 3 Perception and Job Attitudes

Exhibit 3.8 Relationship between Attitudes and Behavior (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license)

How Are Attitudes Formed?

There is considerable disagreement about this question. One view offered by psychologist Barry Staw and
others is the dispositional approach,27 which argues that attitudes represent relatively stable predispositions
to respond to people or situations around them. That is, attitudes are viewed almost as personality traits.
Thus, some people would have a tendency—a predisposition—to be happy on the job, almost regardless of the
nature of the work itself. Others may have an internal tendency to be unhappy, again almost regardless of the
actual nature of the work. Evidence in support of this approach can be found in a series of studies that found
that attitudes change very little among people before and after they make a job change. To the extent that
these findings are correct, managers may have little influence over improving job attitudes short of trying to
select and hire only those with appropriate dispositions.

A second approach to attitude formation is called the situational approach. This approach argues that
attitudes emerge as a result of the uniqueness of a given situation. They are situationally determined and can
vary in response to changing work conditions. Thus, as a result of experiences at work (a boring or
unrewarding job, a bad supervisor, etc.), people react by developing appropriate attitudes. Several variations
on this approach can be identified. Some researchers suggest that attitudes result largely from the nature of
the job experience itself. That is, an employee might reason: “I don’t get along well with my supervisor;
therefore, I become dissatisfied with my job.” To the extent that this accurately describes how attitudes are
formed, it also implies that attitudes can be changed relatively easily. For example, if employees are
dissatisfied with their job because of conflicts with supervisors, either changing supervisors or changing the
supervisors’ behavior may be viable means of improving employee job attitudes. In other words, if attitudes
are largely a function of the situation, then attitudes can be changed by altering the situation.

Other advocates of the situational approach suggest a somewhat more complicated process of attitude
formation—namely, the social-information-processing approach. This view, developed by Pfeffer and
Salancik, asserts that attitudes result from “socially constructed realities” as perceived by the individual (see
Exhibit 3.9).28 That is, the social context in which the individual is placed shapes his perceptions of the
situation and hence his attitudes.

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col29124/1.5

Chapter 3 Perception and Job Attitudes 83

Exhibit 3.9 A Social-Information-Processing View of Attitudes (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
license)

Here is how it works. Suppose a new employee joins a work group consisting of people who have worked
together for some time. The existing group already has opinions and feelings about the fairness of the
supervisor, the quality of the workplace, the adequacy of the compensation, and so forth. Upon arriving, the
new worker is fed socially acceptable cues from co-workers about acceptable attitudes toward various aspects
of the work and company. Thus, due in part to social forces, the new employee begins to form attitudes based
on externally provided bits of information from the group instead of objective attributes of the workplace. If
the social-information-processing perspective is correct, changing the attitudes of one person will be difficult
unless the individual is moved to a different group of coworkers or unless the attitudes of the current
coworkers are changed.

Which approach is correct? In point of fact, research indicates that both the dispositional and the social-
information-processing views have merit, and it is probably wise to recognize that socially constructed realities
and dispositions interact to form the basis for an individual’s attitudes at work. The implication of this
combined perspective for changing attitudes is that efforts should not assume that minor alterations in the
situation will have significant impacts on individual attitudes, but that systematic efforts focusing on groups
and interconnected social systems are likely required for successful changes in attitudes.

Behavioral Intentions and Actual Behavior

Regardless of how the attitudes are formed (either through the dispositional or social-information-processing
approach), the next problem we face is understanding how resulting behavioral intentions guide actual
behavior (return to Exhibit 3.8). Clearly, this relationship is not a perfect one. Despite one’s intentions, various
internal and external constraints often serve to modify an intended course of action. Hence, even though you
decide to join the union, you may be prevented from doing so for a variety of reasons. Similarly, a person may
have every intention of coming to work but may get the flu. Regardless of intent, other factors that also
determine actual behavior often enter the picture.
84 Chapter 3 Perception and Job Attitudes

Behavioral Justification
Finally, people often feel a need for behavioral justification to ensure that their behaviors are consistent with
their attitudes toward the event (see Exhibit 3.8). This tendency is called cognitive consistency.29 When
people find themselves acting in a fashion that is inconsistent with their attitudes—when they experience
cognitive dissonance—they experience tension and attempt to reduce this tension and return to a state of
cognitive consistency.

For example, a manager may hate his job but be required to work long hours. Hence, he is faced with a clear
discrepancy between an attitude (dislike of the job) and a behavior (working long hours) and will probably
experience cognitive dissonance. In order to become cognitively consistent, he can do one of two things. First,
he can change his behavior and work fewer hours. However, this may not be feasible. Alternatively, he can
change his attitude toward the job to a more positive one. He may, for example, convince himself that the job
is really not that bad and that working long hours may lead to rapid promotion. In doing so, he achieves a
state of cognitive consistency. Failure to do so will more than likely lead to increased stress and withdrawal
from the job situation.

CONCEPT CHECK

1. What is attitude, and how does it impact the work environment?

2. What is behavioral justification?

3.5 Work-Related Attitudes

5. How can managers and organizations develop a committed workforce?

When we apply the concept of attitudes to work settings, we have to specify which attitude we are concerned
with. Although a variety of work-related attitudes can be identified, the one receiving the most attention is job
satisfaction. As this is one of the most widely studied concepts in organizational behavior, we will examine it
here in some detail.

Job Involvement and Organizational Commitment

First, however, we should introduce two job attitudes that should also be recognized: job involvement and
organizational commitment. Job involvement refers to the extent to which a person is interested in and
committed to assigned tasks. This is not to say that the person is “happy” (or satisfied) with the job, only that
he feels a certain responsibility toward ensuring that the job itself is done correctly and with a high standard of
competence. Here the focus of the attitude is the job itself.30

Organizational commitment, on the other hand, represents the relative strength of an individual’s
identification with and involvement in an organization.31 Commitment can be characterized by three factors:
(1) a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization’s goals and values, (2) a willingness to exert
considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and (3) a strong desire to maintain membership in the
organization. When viewed this way, commitment represents something beyond mere passive loyalty to the
company. Instead, it involves an active relationship with the organization in which individuals are willing to

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col29124/1.5

Chapter 3 Perception and Job Attitudes 85

give something of themselves in order to help the company succeed and prosper. A careful reading of the
research on keys to the success of many Japanese firms will highlight the importance played by a committed
work force. Now we turn to the third work attitude of job satisfaction.

Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction may be defined as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of
one’s job or job experience.”32 It results from the perception that an employee’s job actually provides what he
values in the work situation.

Several characteristics of the concept of job satisfaction follow from this definition. First, satisfaction is an
emotional response to a job situation. It can be fully understood only by introspection. As with any attitude, we
cannot observe satisfaction; we must infer its existence and quality either from an employee’s behavior or
verbal statements.

Second, job satisfaction is perhaps best understood in terms of discrepancy. Several writers have pointed to
the concept of job satisfaction as being a result of how much a person wants or expects from the job
compared to how much he actually receives.33 People come to work with varying levels of job expectations.
These expectations may vary not only in quality (different people may value different things in a job), but also
in intensity. On the basis of work experiences, people receive outcomes (rewards) from the job. These include
not only extrinsic rewards, such as pay and promotion, but also a variety of intrinsic rewards, such as satisfying
coworker relations and meaningful work. To the extent that the outcomes received by an employee meet or
exceed expectations, we would expect the employee to be satisfied with the job and wish to remain. On those
occasions when outcomes actually surpass expectations, we would expect employees to reevaluate their
expectations and probably raise them to meet available outcomes. However, when outcomes do not meet
expectations, employees are dissatisfied and may prefer to seek alternative sources of satisfaction, either by
changing jobs or by placing greater value on other life activities, such as outside recreation.

Dimensions of Job Satisfaction. It has been argued that job satisfaction actually represents several related
attitudes. So, when we speak of satisfaction, we must specify “satisfaction with what?” Research has
suggested that five job dimensions represent the most salient characteristics of a job about which people have
affective responses. These five are:

1. Work itself. The extent to which tasks performed by employees are interesting and provide opportunities
for learning and for accepting responsibility.
2. Pay. The amount of pay received, the perceived equity of the pay, and the method of payment.
3. Promotional opportunities. The availability of realistic opportunities for advancement.
4. Supervision. The technical and managerial abilities of supervisors; the extent to which supervisors
demonstrate consideration for and interest in employees.
5. Coworkers. The extent to which coworkers are friendly, technically competent, and supportive.

Although other dimensions of job satisfaction have been identified, these five dimensions are used most often
when assessing various aspects of job attitudes in organizations.

Measurement of Job Satisfaction. Probably the most common attitude surveys in organizations today focus
on job satisfaction. Satisfaction is considered by many managers to be an important indicator of
organizational effectiveness, and therefore it is regularly monitored to assess employee feelings toward the
organization. By far the most common means of assessing satisfaction is the rating scale. Rating scales
represent direct verbal self-reports concerning employee feelings; they have been widely used in companies
86 Chapter 3 Perception and Job Attitudes

since the 1930s. Several job satisfaction scales exist. One of the most popular is the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire (MSQ). This instrument uses a Likert-response format to generate satisfaction scores on 26
scales, including satisfaction with compensation, promotion opportunities, coworkers, recognition, and so
forth. You can assess your scoring on a short version of this instrument in the assessment section of this
chapter.

The MSQ and similar rating scales have several advantages for evaluating levels of job satisfaction. First, they
are relatively short and simple and can be completed by large numbers of employees quickly. Second, because
of the generalized wording of the various terms, the instruments can be administered to a wide range of
employees in various jobs. It is not necessary to alter the questionnaire for each job classification. Finally,
extensive normative data (or norms) are available. These norms include summaries of the scores of thousands
of people who have completed the instruments. Hence, it is possible for employers in other organizations to
determine relative standings.

However, although rating scales have many virtues compared to other techniques, at least two drawbacks
must be recognized. First, as with any self-report inventory, it is assumed that respondents are both willing
and able to describe their feelings accurately. As noted by several researchers,34 people often consciously or
unconsciously distort information that they feel is damaging and enhance information that they feel is
beneficial. For example, it is possible that employees who think their supervisors may see the results of their
questionnaire may report overly favorable job attitudes.

A second problem with rating scales is the underlying assumption that questionnaire items mean the same
thing to all people. There may, in fact, not be a common interpretation across individuals. Even so, rating
scales have proved to be helpful in assessing satisfaction in various aspects of the job situation. Managers can
use the results to identify potential problem areas and to generate discussions and action plans of how to
correct aspects of jobs or the organization that are causing unacceptable levels of dissatisfaction.

C U S T O M E R S AT I S FA C T I O N A N D Q U A L I T Y

How Satisfied Are Employees?

If you’ve ever flown on Southwest Airlines, you can tell something is different just from the first
interaction with their employees. From the flight attendants, to the pilot’s announcements, and even to
their customer service representatives, they have a cheerful disposition, and contrary to popular belief,
this isn’t an act.

In 2017, Southwest Airlines announced that it would be sharing their $586 million in profits with its 54,000
employees, given them a bonus of approximately 13.2 percent on average. This doesn’t account for the
extra $351 million that they contributed to the employee’s 401(k) plans either. This is just one of the
many ways that Southwest has given back to their employees in a day and age when minimum wage for
even qualified candidates seems like a fight.

Southwest CEO Gary Kelly reflects that “Our people-first approach, which has guided our company since
it was founded, means our company does well, our people do really, really well. Our people work
incredibly hard and deserve to share in Southwest’s success.” With this attitude, it is no wonder the
employees on and off your flight are showing their satisfaction in their everyday attitudes. The year 2017
was the 43rd year that Southwest shared its profits with their people. While compensation ranks among

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col29124/1.5

Chapter 3 Perception and Job Attitudes 87

one of the most attributed traits of a company to help with employee satisfaction, it goes much deeper
than that to keep motivation high.

At Southwest, they rank employees first and customers second. They create a culture of fun and inclusive
core values that help to give their employees a sense of community and belonging. When their
employees are motivated and take pride in what they do, they are able to give their best to their
customers every day, which accounts for their highly ranked customer satisfaction results on surveys
each year.

Sources: Dahl, Darren, “Why do Southwest Employees Always Seem so Happy,” Forbes, July, 28, 2017,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/darrendahl/2017/07/28/why-do-southwest-airlines-employees-always-
seem-so-happy/#3cba8dbc59b0; Martin, Emmie, “A major airline says there's something it values more
than its customers, and there's a good reason why,” Business Insider, July 29, 2015,
https://www.businessinsider.com/southwest-airlines-puts-employees-first-2015-7; Ramdas, Shreesha,
“The Southwest Way to Employee Satisfaction: Flying High Like the High Flier,” Customer Think, May 12,
2018, (http://customerthink.com/the-southwest-way-to-employee-satisfaction-flying-high-like-the-high-
flier/.
Questions:
1. Oftentimes it is hard to stay at the top. What considerations should Southwest take to maintain their
employee satisfaction and keep improving?
2. Not all companies can share profits. What would you suggest to a new company that is just starting
off to help gain high employee satisfaction?

CONCEPT CHECK

1. How can organizations foster positive job involvement and instill positive attitudes in their
employees?
2. What are the dimensions of job satisfaction?
 to emphasize their material resources, whereas women are more likely to work at enhanc-
ing their appearance (Buss, 1988). For example, men often use conspicuous consumption
(the purchase of luxury goods, such as expensive cars) to signal their wealth and success
to potential mating partners (Sundie et al., 2011). In a similar vein, when compared with
men, women invest more time trying to enhance their attractiveness and they allocate
more of their income to goods and services intended to enhance their looks (Hill et al.,
2012). Furthermore, during economic downturns—when there presumably is a smaller
pool of financially stable males, making competition for them tougher—women boost
their spending on beauty products (Hill et al., 2012).
Another gender disparity consistent with evolutionary theory is that men show a ten-
dency to overestimate women’s sexual interest, whereas women tend to underestimate men’s
sexual interest (Perilloux, 2014; Perilloux, Easton, & Buss, 2012). These cognitive biases
seem to be designed to reduce the probability that men will overlook sexual opportunities,
while helping women to avoid being viewed as “promiscuous” (Neuberg & Schaller, 2015).

12.4
Key learning Goals
12.4 Attitudes: mAking sociAl Judgments
• analyze the structure of attitudes and
the link between attitudes and behavior. What are attitudes? Attitudes are positive or negative evaluations of objects of
• Distinguish between explicit and im- thought. “Objects of thought” may include social issues (capital punishment or gun
plicit attitudes, and explain how implicit
attitudes are measured. control, for example); groups (liberals, farmers); institutions (the Lutheran church, the
• summarize how source, message, and Supreme Court); consumer products (yogurt, computers); and people (the president,
receiver factors influence the process
of persuasion.
your next-door neighbor).
• clarify various theories of attitude
formation and change.
components and Dimensions of attitudes
Attitudes can include up to three components (Briñol & Petty, 2012). The cognitive com-
ponent of an attitude is made up of the beliefs people hold about the object of an atti-
tude. The affective component consists of the emotional feelings stimulated by an object
of thought. The behavioral component consists of predispositions to act in certain ways
toward an attitude object. Figure 12.5 provides concrete examples of how someone’s
attitude about gun control might be divided into its components.

Figure 12.5
The possible components of attitudes.
Attitudes can include cognitive, affective, and “Gun owners end up
behavioral components, as illustrated here for a Cognitive
shooting themselves
hypothetical person’s attitude about gun control. component
more often than they
(beliefs, ideas)
shoot thieves.”

Affective
Attitude
component “Guns make me sick.”
on gun
(emotions,
control
feelings)
© Timothy A. Clary/AFP/Getty Images

Behavioral
“I vote for gun-control
component
advocates whenever
(predispositions
possible.”
to act)

432 Chapter 12

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 Attitudes also vary along several crucial dimensions. These include their strength, ▶ Reality CheCk
accessibility, and ambivalence (Maio, Olson, & Cheung, 2013). Definitions of attitude
strength differ. However, strong attitudes are generally viewed as ones that are firmly held Misconception
(resistant to change), that are durable over time, and that have a powerful impact on People’s attitudes are excellent predictors
of their behavior.
behavior (Petty, Wheeler, & Tormala, 2013). The accessibility of an attitude refers to how
often one thinks about it and how quickly it comes to mind. Highly accessible attitudes
reality
are quickly and readily available (Fabrigar, MacDonald, & Wegener, 2005). Ambivalent
Decades of research have shown that
attitudes are conflicted evaluations that include both positive and negative feelings about attitudes are undependable predictors
an object of thought. When ambivalence is high, an attitude tends to be more pliable in of behavior. For a variety of reasons, the
the face of persuasion (Fabrigar & Wegener, 2010). correlation between attitudes and behavior
is surprisingly modest. Thus, a favorable
How well do attitudes predict actual behavior? Research on attitudes has yielded
attitude about a specific product or candi-
a surprising answer to this question. Studies have repeatedly shown that attitudes are date does not necessarily translate into a
mediocre predictors of people’s behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005). When Wallace and purchase or vote.
colleagues (2005) reviewed 797 attitude-behavior studies, they found that the average
correlation between attitudes and behavior was .41. That correlation is high enough to
conclude that attitudes are a meaningful predictor of actual behavior, but they do not
predict behavior nearly as well as most people assume.
Why aren’t attitude-behavior relations more consistent? One consideration is that
people fail to factor in the influence of attitude strength (Fabrigar & Wegener, 2010).
Although strong attitudes predict behavior reasonably well (Ajzen, 2012), many attitudes
are not strongly held and are only weak predictors of behavior. Inconsistent relations
between attitudes and behavior are also seen because behavior depends on situational
constraints (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2000, 2005). Your subjective perceptions of how people
expect you to behave are especially important. For instance, you may be strongly opposed
to marijuana use. However, you may not say anything when friends start passing a joint
around at a party because you don’t want to turn the party into an argument. In another
situation, though, governed by different norms, such as a class discussion, you may speak
out forcefully against marijuana use.

implicit attitudes: looking Beneath the Surface

In recent years, theorists have begun to make a distinction between explicit and implicit
attitudes (Blair, Dasgupta, & Glaser, 2015). Explicit attitudes are attitudes that one
holds consciously and can readily describe. For the most part, these overt attitudes are
what social psychologists have always studied until fairly recently. Implicit attitudes are
covert attitudes that are expressed in subtle automatic responses over which one has
little conscious control. It was only in the mid-1990s that social psychologists started
digging beneath the surface to explore the meaning and importance of implicit attitudes.
Implicit attitudes were discovered in research on prejudice, and their role in various types
of prejudice continues to be the main focus of current inquiry.
Why are implicit attitudes a central issue in the study of prejudice? Because in modern
societies most people have been taught that prejudicial attitudes are inappropriate, but
negative stereotypes about certain groups are still widely disseminated. Although most
people want to be unbiased, research has shown that these negative ideas can seep into
one’s subconscious mind and contaminate one’s reactions to others. Thus, many people ex-
press explicit attitudes that condemn prejudice but unknowingly harbor implicit attitudes
that reflect subtle forms of prejudice (Devine & Sharp, 2009; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2008).
How are implicit attitudes measured? A number of techniques have been developed,
but the most widely used is the Implicit Association Test (IAT) (Greenwald, McGhee,
& Schwartz, 1998). This computer-administered test measures how quickly people as-
sociate carefully chosen pairs of concepts. Let’s consider how the IAT would be used
to assess implicit prejudice against blacks. A series of words and pictures is presented
on-screen, and subjects are urged to respond to these stimuli as quickly and as accu-
rately as possible. In the first series of trials, respondents are instructed to press a specific

SoCial Behavior 433

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Figure 12.6 White Black Black White
Measuring implicit attitudes. The IAT assesses or or or or
implicit prejudice against blacks by tracking how bad? good? bad? good?
quickly subjects respond to images of black and
white people paired with positive or negative
words. If participants are prejudiced against

Face photo: © George Nazmi Bebawi/Shutterstock.com

African Americans, they will react more quickly
to the pairings in the condition on the right. The
IAT has been used to measure implicit attitudes
toward a variety of groups.

key with their left hand if the stimulus is a black person or a positive word and to press
another key with their right hand if the stimulus is a white person or a negative word
(see Figure 12.6). In the second series of trials, the instructions are changed and par-
ticipants are told to press the left-hand key if the stimulus is a black person or a negative
word and to press the right-hand key if the stimulus is a white person or positive word.
The various types of stimuli are presented in quick succession, and the computer records
precise reaction times. Research shows that reaction times are quicker when liked faces
are paired with positive words and disliked faces with negative words. So, if respondents
have negative implicit attitudes about African Americans, the second series of trials will
yield shorter average reaction times. And if this is so, the size of the difference between
average reaction times in the two series provides an index of the strength of participants’
implicit racism.
Since 1998, millions of people have responded to a web-based version of the IAT
(Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2007). Although surveys of people’s explicit attitudes sug-
gest that prejudice has declined considerably, the IAT results show that more than 80%
of respondents, both young and old, show negative implicit attitudes about the elderly.
And about three-quarters of white respondents exhibit implicit prejudice against blacks.
The findings also indicate that implicit prejudice against gays, the disabled, and the
obese is common.
Do IAT scores based on tiny differences in reaction times predict prejudicial behavior in
the real world? Yes, IAT scores are predictive of subtle but potentially important differences
in behavior (Greenwald et al., 2009; Greenwald, Banaji, & Nosek, 2015). For instance, white
participants’ degree of implicit racial prejudice predicts how far they choose to sit from a
black partner whom they expect to work with on a task (Amodio & Devine, 2006). Higher
implicit racism scores in white subjects are also associated with decreased smiling, reduced
eye contact, and shorter speaking time in interracial interactions (Devos, 2008). Implicit
prejudice also predicts discrimination in hiring, negative attitudes about immigration, and
aggression in response to provocation (Fiske & Tablante, 2015). Beyond the realm of preju-
dice, implicit attitudes about math predict interest and performance in math, and implicit
attitudes about political candidates predict voting behavior (Blair et al., 2015).

Trying to change attitudes: Factors in Persuasion

Every day you’re bombarded by efforts to alter your attitudes. In light of this reality, let’s
examine some of the factors that determine whether persuasion works. The process
of persuasion includes four basic elements: the source, receiver, message, and channel
(see Figure 12.7). The source is the person who sends a communication, and the re-
ceiver is the person to whom the message is sent. Thus, if you watch a presidential news

434 Chapter 12

Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.