Theories of Attitude Change: Self-Perception and Cognitive Dissonance Theories
Consider the following scenario of Julie:
As her New Year’s resolution, Julie decided it was finally time she got in shape. Years ago, she ran regularly, but more recently, work and family have dominated her time. Julie still thought running was her best option; she lived in Florida with its year-round good weather, and the only financial investment was a good pair of running shoes and the right clothes. Having finally made this decision, Julie was very excited. She bought new shoes, running shorts, and performance tops, making her commitment to running even stronger. She designed a realistic running regimen she was certain she could follow. Day 1 came and, dressed in her new gear, Julie started down her street; the plan was to run to the nearby park about one mile away. She did not want to push it on the first day; after all, it had been years since she had run. When she had run a little less than a block, she was gasping for air, forcing her to stop. Her lungs were on fire, she was dizzy and nauseous. What Julie failed to consider was her pack-a-day cigarette smoking habit that seemed to throw a wrench in her plan.
Conflicted, Julie knew something had to change. She fancied herself a runner who liked smoking cigarettes; unfortunately, running and smoking were incompatible. Would her desire for cigarettes convince her that getting in shape was not all that important? Or, would her desire to get in shape convince her that smoking was counterproductive to her goals?
Think about how different theories of attitude change explain Julie's dilemma.
Consider how different theories of attitude change address the likelihood of someone in Julie's dilemma changing her or his attitude or behavior.
Post a description of the theory of attitude change that best explains Julie’s dilemma. Per the theory, explain whether Julie would be more likely to change her attitude or her behavior. Please explain why.
Attitude Change Essay
Student's Name
College/University
Course
Professor's Name
Due Date
In the provided case scenario, Julie has made a new year resolution to get in shape and has made the right preparations for the commitment. Besides purchasing the right training materials, Julie also designed a good exercise plan. On the first day of exercising, Julie could hardly manage it as she was gasping for air, which forced her to quit. Unfortunately, Julie had failed to consider how her cigarette smoking habit would hinder her ability to implement the running regimen. In this context, different theories of attitude can be used to explain Julie's dilemma. This paper argues that self-perception and cognitive dissonance theories can justify Julie's decision to execute his new year's resolution of getting in shape or continuing her pack-a-day cigarette smoking habit.
Self-perception theory is anchored on two claims that can be applied to explain Julie's dilemma. First, the theory holds that individuals understand their perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs by recognizing their behavioral tendencies and the circumstances that justify them. In the case scenario, Julie knows that something needs to change for her to achieve the new year resolution of getting in shape and thus recognizes that continuing smoking justifies their inability to execute the exercise plan. Second, the model holds that if a person does not command an optimal understanding of their behavioral tendencies, they are inclined to act as an outsider who watches the action and conducts as well as attempts to make sense of it and derive their inner attributes (Mohebi & Bailey, 2020). In this way, Julie did not understand her smoking habit's impact on her ability to exercise regularly. Based on the second perspective, Julie was unaware of her internal states (i.e., the impact of cigarette smoking on her respiratory system and ability to exercise) and thus had to depend on external clues (inability to exercise) to understand that they needed to quit smoking in order to execute the training regimen (Mohebi & Bailey, 2020).
Nevertheless, the cognitive dissonance theory (CDT) best defines Julie's dilemma. CDT holds that cognitive conflict culminates in the individual feeling motivated to execute regulation, predominantly through a heightened need to change one's behaviors or opinions (Vaidis & Bran, 2019). The theory highlights that the presence of dissonance or inconsistency between behaviors or attitudes implies that something needs to be done to address the dissonance. Julie's dilemma can be best explained using CDT because she recognized that she liked smoking (first cognition) while smoking and running are incompatible (second cognition). These are conflicting cognitions, thus resulting in cognitive dissonance. Julie needs to adapt to the cognitive dissonance by changing her attitude or behavior, which includes quitting smoking (Yahya & Sukmayadi, 2020). Therefore, Julie will be more likely to change her behavior in order to address the dissonance between the first and second cognitions. She is likely to desire to get ...