Construct · 6 fields · 12 citations
One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.
● jingle · one name, six constructs Nearest construct by meaningperceived ease of usecompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to attitude is perceived ease of use.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
The same evaluative disposition split into three classes of response: affective, the feelings the object evokes; behavioural, actions and intentions toward it; cognitive, beliefs about it; all driven by one underlying attitude. Rosenberg and Hovland set the scheme out in 1960 in the opening chapter of the Yale volume on attitude organisation, with the diagram every textbook reproduces. Breckler tested it in 1984 with a live snake as the object and measures that did not all rely on verbal report, and found that three correlated factors fitted better than one. The difference from the unidimensional meaning is not what an attitude is but how many things you must measure to have one, and whether a person can hold a warm feeling and a cold belief about the same object at once.[3][4]
A person's positive or negative evaluation of performing a particular behaviour, not of the object the behaviour concerns. Fishbein and Ajzen fixed it in 1975 in the theory of reasoned action as the sum of beliefs that the act leads to certain outcomes, each weighted by the evaluation of that outcome, and set it beside the subjective norm as a determinant of intention; Ajzen's 1991 theory of planned behaviour added perceived behavioural control and left the attitude term unchanged. The attitude must be specified at the same level of action, target, context and time as the behaviour to be predicted, which is why attitudes toward objects predict behaviour so badly and attitudes toward acts predict it so well. Measurement is a semantic differential anchored on the act itself. Its downstream construct has its own page at /behavioral-intention.[5][6]
A user's evaluative affect about using a particular system, placed by Davis, Bagozzi and Warshaw in 1989 as the mediator between perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use on one side and behavioural intention on the other. The technology acceptance model is the theory of reasoned action with the beliefs fixed in advance and the subjective norm removed, so this is the reasoned-action construct with a narrower object. The 1989 data already showed the term was weak: usefulness had a direct effect on intention that bypassed attitude, and the authors offered a version of the model without it. Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis found in 2003 that attitude was not significant once performance expectancy and effort expectancy were in the equation, and UTAUT dropped it. The beliefs that displaced it have their own pages at /perceived-usefulness and /performance-expectancy.[7][8]
Two attitudes, deliberately kept apart. Attitude toward the ad is a predisposition to respond favourably or unfavourably to a particular advertising stimulus during a particular exposure; attitude toward the brand is the evaluative disposition with the product as its object. Mitchell and Olson showed in 1981 that liking for an ad shifted brand attitude even when the attribute beliefs it conveyed did not, which broke the assumption that beliefs were the only route. MacKenzie, Lutz and Belch tested four competing structural models in 1986 and found support for dual mediation, in which ad attitude affects brand attitude both directly and through brand cognitions. The difference from the social-psychology meaning is that here the attitude object is a stimulus that lasts thirty seconds, and the construct of interest is what it does to another attitude.[9][10]
The orientation of a body-fixed reference frame relative to an inertial or orbital frame: three degrees of freedom, written as pitch, roll and yaw angles, as a direction-cosine matrix, or as a unit quaternion, which avoids the singularity that Euler angles hit at ninety degrees of pitch. Attitude determination is the estimation of that orientation from star trackers, sun sensors, magnetometers and gyroscopes; attitude control is the use of reaction wheels, thrusters or magnetic torquers to drive it to a commanded value. Wertz's 1978 handbook fixed the vocabulary and Markley and Crassidis's 2014 text is the current standard. Nothing is evaluated, favoured or disfavoured. This is the older meaning of the word, bodily posture, applied to a vehicle; the psychological meaning grew from it as a metaphor and the two have never met since.[11][12]
Next
Combine items across the attitude scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct
Social psychology
a latent tendency expressed by evaluating a particular entity, from a person to a brand, with favour or disfavour.A psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favour or disfavour. Allport called attitude "probably the most distinctive and indispensable concept" in the field in 1935, and Eagly and Chaiken's 1993 definition is the one the field now uses: a latent disposition, inferred from evaluative responses, directed at an object that can be anything from a person to a policy to a brand of coffee. What sets it apart from the meanings that follow is its scope. The object is unrestricted, the tendency is not decomposed into parts, and nothing about any particular act follows from it.[1][2]