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.