Effects of introspection on meta and structural attitude bases

Introspection is the process by which individuals question their attitudes; either questioning why they hold their attitudes (Why introspection), or how they feel about a particular attitude object (How introspection). Previous research has suggested that Why-introspection induces attitude change, and that Why and How introspection influence attitude-behaviour consistency,persuasion, and other effects. Generally, psychologists have assumed that affective and cognitive attitude bases are the mechanism by which introspection leads to these effects. Leading perspectives originating from these findings suggest that either Why introspection changes the content of cognitive attitude bases (the skewness hypothesis), or increases the salience of cognitive attitude bases (the dominance hypothesis); whereas How introspection may increase the salience of affective attitude bases (another part of the dominance hypothesis). However, direct evidence for these mechanisms is lacking, and the distinction between structural and meta bases has not been considered. Two studies investigated this gap in the existing literature. Both studies measured undergraduate students’ attitudes and attitude bases (both structural and meta, affective and cognitive) before and after engaging in an introspection manipulation (Why introspection / How introspection / control), and after reading a (affective / cognitive) persuasive passage about the attitude object. No evidence was found supporting either the skewness or dominance hypotheses. Furthermore, previous introspection effects were not replicated in the present data. Possible reasons for these null findings are proposed, and several unexpected effects are examined.

Redefining Attitude Importance: The Possible Existence of Associative and Subjective Types of Importance Under a Global Definition

Traditionally, importance has been measured using subjective measures. The present thesis explores the possibility of a second type of importance, designated as “associative importance”. A new measure, the IIAT, was designed to capture the strength of association between an object and the attribute of importance. This thesis then evaluated the validity of the IIAT via an intervention paradigm in 2 studies, and by using the measure to predict a memory outcome in 2 other studies. Subjective measures of importance were also included in these studies and correlations between subjective measures and IIAT results were examined. Across all 4 studies, subjective-objective correlations were weak to modest and non-significant. The intervention studies provided promising evidence that interventions do affect associative importance as measured by the IIAT. The prediction studies provided somewhat mixed, but encouraging evidence that the IIAT may be able to predict memory performance. Notably, subjective measures were not able to predict memory performance at all, whereas the IIAT was able to predict some memory indices. Overall, there is some evidence supporting the existence of an associative importance construct, and that the IIAT provides valid results that are nonetheless different from that of subjective measures of attitude importance.

Melancholy and the Early Modern University

Critics have observed that in early Stuart England, the broad, socially significant concept of melancholy was recoded as a specifically medical phenomenon—a disease rather than a fashion. This recoding made melancholy seem less a social attitude than a private ailment. However, I argue that at the Stuart universities, this recoded melancholy became a covert expression of the disillusionment, disappointment, and frustration produced by pressures there—the overcrowding and competition which left many men “disappointed” in preferment, alongside James I’s unprecedented royal involvement in the universities. My argument has implications for Jürgen Habermas’s account of the emergence of the public sphere, which he claims did not occur until the eighteenth-century. I argue that although the university was increasingly subordinated to the crown’s authority, a lingering sense of autonomy persisted there, a residue of the medieval university’s relative autonomy from the crown; politicized by the encroaching Stuart presence, an alienated community at the university formed a kind of public in private from authority within that authority’s midst. The audience for the printed book, a sphere apart from court or university, represented a forum in which the publicity at the universities could be consolidated, especially in seemingly “private” literary forms such as the treatise on melancholy. I argue that Robert Burton’s exaggerated performance of melancholy in The Anatomy of Melancholy, which gains him license to say almost anything, resembles the performed melancholy that the student-prince Hamlet uses to frustrate his uncle’s attempts to surveil him. After tracing melancholy’s evolving literary function through Hamlet, I go on to discuss James’s interventions into the universities. I conclude by considering two printed (and widely circulated) books by university men: the aforementioned The Anatomy of Melancholy by Burton, an Oxford cleric, and The Temple by George Herbert, who left a career as Cambridge’s public orator to become a country parson. I examine how each of these books uses the affective pattern of courtly-scholarly disappointment—transumed by Burton as melancholy, and by Herbert as holy affliction—to develop an empathic form of publicity among its readership which is in tacit opposition to the Stuart court.