Attitude: Role in Decision Making and Relationship to Emotion and Mood
Attitude is a stable, learned predisposition to respond favorably or unfavorably toward an object, person, or situation (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). How does attitude influence decision making?
Differences between Attitude, Emotion, and Mood
| Feature | Emotion | Mood | Attitude |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duration | Short (seconds to minutes) | Medium to long (hours to days) | Long-term (months to years) |
| Specificity | Event-driven | Generalized | Object- or concept-specific |
| Intensity | High | Low to moderate | Can vary but relatively stable |
| Function | Adaptive response to stimuli | Influences cognition and behavior over time | Guides decision-making and behavior based on learned evaluations |
This text is part of the series on decision governance. Decision Governance is concerned with how to improve the quality of decisions by changing the context, process, data, and tools (including AI) used to make decisions. Understanding decision governance empowers decision makers and decision stakeholders to improve how they make decisions with others. Start with “What is Decision Governance?” and find all texts on decision governance here.
Influence of Attitude on Decision Making
This section outlines mechanisms that have been proposed to explain the influence of attitude on decision making behavior. The diagram below visualizes the mechanisms through variables and labeled edges reflecting the rules used to describe each mechanism. Labels match section numbers below.
1. Attitude as a Cognitive Heuristic
Attitudes serve as cognitive heuristics, enabling individuals to make quick decisions with minimal cognitive effort (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Research indicates that attitudes guide selective attention, leading individuals to focus on information that aligns with their existing beliefs, while ignoring contradictory data (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Empirical studies show that decision-makers with strong pre-existing attitudes tend to exhibit confirmation bias, reinforcing their established preferences (Nickerson, 1998).
- Mechanism: Attitude → Selective Attention → Decision Bias
- Example: A CEO with a strong Attitude favoring automation selectively Attends to reports emphasizing efficiency gains, ignoring risks.
2. Attitude-Driven Selective Perception and Interpretation
Selective perception occurs when individuals interpret information in a manner consistent with their attitudes. Lord, Ross, and Lepper (1979) demonstrated that people exposed to mixed evidence on controversial topics interpret information in a way that supports their prior attitudes. This mechanism contributes to decision biases by reinforcing pre-existing viewpoints while dismissing contradictory perspectives.
- Mechanism: Attitude → Selective Attention → Biased Interpretation → Decision Preference
- Example: A policymaker with an anti-regulation Attitude interprets industry data in a way that supports deregulation.
3. Cognitive Dissonance and Attitude Consistency
Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) suggests that individuals experience psychological discomfort when their decisions contradict their attitudes. This discomfort triggers an emotional response, leading individuals to adjust either their attitudes or their decisions to restore consistency. Research by Harmon-Jones and Mills (1999) confirms that dissonance reduction strategies play a crucial role in shaping decision outcomes.
- Mechanism: Attitude → Decision → Inconsistency Detection → Emotion (Discomfort) → Attitude Reinforcement or Change
- Example: A manager with a Pro-Sustainability Attitude who signs a contract with a high-pollution supplier feels Emotional Discomfort, leading them to justify or reverse the decision.
4. Theory of Planned Behavior
Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior posits that attitudes influence behavioral intentions, which subsequently drive decision-making. Empirical studies demonstrate that attitude strength and alignment with social norms significantly predict whether an intention translates into action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010).
- Mechanism: Attitude → Behavioral Intention → Decision
- Example: A leader with a Positive Attitude toward employee well-being develops an Intention to implement a flexible work policy, which then drives their Decision.
5. Attitude Accessibility and Automatic Decision-Making
Attitude accessibility refers to the ease with which an attitude can be retrieved from memory (Fazio et al., 1986). More accessible attitudes lead to faster, less deliberative decisions. Research suggests that frequent exposure to attitude-reinforcing stimuli strengthens accessibility, making automatic decision-making more likely (Bargh et al., 1996).
- Mechanism: Attitude Strength → Attitude Accessibility → Automatic Decision
- Example: A customer with a Strong Positive Attitude toward a brand automatically purchases their products without comparing alternatives.
6. Emotional and Affective Influences of Attitude
Attitudes are often accompanied by emotional reactions, which influence risk perception and decision preferences. Zajonc (1980) argued that affective responses occur before cognitive evaluation, shaping decision tendencies in high-stakes or uncertain environments. Empirical evidence confirms that emotional reactions linked to attitudes influence financial, managerial, and consumer choices (Lerner et al., 2015).
- Mechanism: Attitude → Emotion → Risk Perception → Decision Preference
- Example: A business executive with a Negative Attitude toward cryptocurrencies experiences Fear, leading to risk-averse decisions against crypto investments.
7. Stability and Resistance to Change
Strongly held attitudes are resistant to change, even in the presence of new information. Research by Petty and Cacioppo (1986) on the Elaboration Likelihood Model suggests that individuals with deeply rooted attitudes engage in biased information processing, maintaining their original viewpoints. Empirical evidence supports that entrenched attitudes lead to decision inertia, slowing organizational adaptability (Mahoney & Sanchez, 2004).
- Mechanism: Strong Attitude → Selective Attention → Resistance to New Information → Decision Inertia
- Example: A CFO with a Strong Attitude against remote work resists data showing its benefits, maintaining outdated office policies (Decision Inertia).
Summary of Mechanisms Using Key Variables
| Mechanism | Mechanism (A → B → C) | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive Heuristic | Attitude → Selective Attention → Decision Bias | CEO favors automation, ignores risks |
| Selective Perception | Attitude → Selective Attention → Biased Interpretation → Decision Preference | Policymaker sees data supporting deregulation |
| Cognitive Dissonance | Attitude → Decision → Inconsistency Detection → Emotion → Attitude Reinforcement/Change | Manager justifies or reverses unsustainable contract |
| Planned Behavior | Attitude → Behavioral Intention → Decision | Leader with pro-wellness Attitude creates flexible work policy |
| Attitude Accessibility | Attitude Strength → Attitude Accessibility → Automatic Decision | Customer automatically chooses a familiar brand |
| Emotional Influence | Attitude → Emotion → Risk Perception → Decision Preference | Executive avoids crypto due to fear |
| Resistance to Change | Strong Attitude → Selective Attention → Resistance to New Information → Decision Inertia | CFO refuses remote work despite evidence |
Implications for Decision-Making
- Awareness of Biases: Decision-makers should recognize how attitudes shape attention, perception, and interpretation.
- Emotion Regulation: Understanding the emotional component of attitudes can help mitigate impulsive or overly cautious decisions.
- Managing Attitude Rigidity: Encouraging data-driven decision-making can help counteract resistance to change.
References
- Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
- Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Govender, R., & Pratto, F. (1996). The generality of the automatic attitude activation effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(2), 218-229.
- Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
- Fazio, R. H., Powell, M. C., & Williams, C. J. (1986). The role of attitude accessibility in the attitude-to-behavior process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 280-288.
- Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
- Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Psychology Press.
- Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (1999). Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology. American Psychological Association.
- Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 799-823.
- Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098-2109.
- Mahoney, J. T., & Sanchez, R. (2004). Organizational inertia and competitive dynamics: A model of competitive advantage persistence. Journal of Management Studies, 41(5), 935-961.
- Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220.
- Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205.
- Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
- Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151-175.