Attitudes and Behavior

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.

Based on G. W. Allport, “Attitudes,” in C. Murchison, ed., Handbook of Social Psychology (Worcester:

Clark University Press, 1935).

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.

Jain, Triandis, and Weick op. cit.

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 (Figure). 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.
Relationship between Attitudes and Behavior

(Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license)

A diagram illustrates the relationship between attitudes and behavior.

How Are Attitudes Formed?

There is considerable disagreement about this question. One view offered by psychologist Barry Staw
and others is the dispositional approach,

B. M. Staw and J. Ross, “Stability in the Midst of Change: A Dispositional Approach to Job Attitudes,”
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1985, 70, pp. 469–480.

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 (Figure)).

G. Salancik and J. Pfeffer, “A Social Information Processing Approach to Job Attitudes and Task Design,”
Administrative Science Quarterly, 1978, 23, pp. 224–253.

That is, the social context in which the individual is placed shapes his perceptions of the situation and
hence his attitudes.

A Social-Information-Processing View of Attitudes

(Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license)

An illustration shows the steps in the social-information-processing view with the help of examples.

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 (Figure)). 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.

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 (Figure)). This tendency is called cognitive consistency.

L. Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1957).

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.

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

What is behavioral justification?

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

An attitude can be defined as a predisposition to respond in a favorable or unfavorable way to objects or

persons in one’s environment. There are two theories concerning the manner in which attitudes are
formed. The first, called the dispositional approach, asserts that attitudes are fairly stable tendencies to
respond to events in certain ways, much like personality traits. Thus, some people may be happy on
almost any job regardless of the nature of the job. The second, called the situational approach, asserts
that attitudes result largely from the particular situation in which the individual finds himself. Thus,
some jobs may lead to more favorable attitudes than others. The social-information-processing
approach to attitudes is a situational model that suggests that attitudes are strongly influenced by the
opinions and assessments of coworkers. Cognitive consistency is a tendency to think and act in a
predictable manner. Cognitive dissonance occurs when our actions and our attitudes are in conflict. This
dissonance will motivate us to attempt to return to a state of cognitive consistency, where attitudes and
behaviors are congruent.