the assignment of meaning to people's behavior

Behaviorism In Psychology

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Behaviorism, also known as behavioral learning theory, is a theoretical perspective in psychology that emphasizes the role of learning and observable behaviors in understanding human and animal actions. Behaviorism is a theory of learning that states all behaviors are learned through conditioned interaction with the environment. Thus, behavior is simply a response to environmental stimuli. The behaviorist theory is only concerned with observable stimulus-response behaviors, as they can be studied in a systematic and observable manner. Some of the key figures of the behaviorist approach include B.F. Skinner, known for his work on operant conditioning, and John B. Watson, who established the psychological school of behaviorism.

Principles of Behaviorism

The behaviorist movement began in 1913 when John B. Watson wrote an article entitled Psychology as the behaviorist views it , which set out several underlying assumptions regarding methodology and behavioral analysis:

All behavior is learned from the environment:

One assumption of the learning approach is that all behaviors are learned from the environment. They can be learned through classical conditioning, learning by association, or through operant conditioning, learning by consequences.

Behaviorism emphasizes the role of environmental factors in influencing behavior to the near exclusion of innate or inherited factors. This amounts essentially to a focus on learning. Therefore, when born, our mind is “tabula rasa” (a blank slate).

Classical conditioning refers to learning by association, and involves the conditioning of innate bodily reflexes with new stimuli.

Pavlov’s Experiment

Ivan Pavlov showed that dogs could be classically conditioned to salivate at the sound of a bell if that sound was repeatedly presented while they were given food.

He first presented the dogs with the sound of a bell; they did not salivate so this was a neutral stimulus. Then he presented them with food, they salivated.

The food was an unconditioned stimulus and salivation was an unconditioned (innate) response.

Pavlov then repeatedly presented the dogs with the sound of the bell first and then the food (pairing) after a few repetitions, the dogs salivated when they heard the sound of the bell.

The bell had become the conditioned stimulus and salivation had become the conditioned response.

Examples of classical conditioning applied to real life include:

• taste aversion – using derivations of classical conditioning, it is possible to explain how people develop aversions to particular foods
• learned emotions – such as love for parents, were explained as paired associations with the stimulation they provide
• advertising – we readily associate attractive images with the products they are selling
• phobias – classical conditioning is seen as the mechanism by which – we acquire many of these irrational fears.

Skinner argued that learning is an active process and occurs through operant conditioning . When humans and animals act on and in their environmental consequences, follow these behaviors. 

If the consequences are pleasant, they repeat the behavior, but if the consequences are unpleasant, they do not.

Behavior is the result of stimulus-response:

Reductionism is the belief that human behavior can be explained by breaking it down into smaller component parts.

Reductionists say that the best way to understand why we behave as we do is to look closely at the very simplest parts that make up our systems, and use the simplest explanations to understand how they work.

Psychology should be seen as a science:

Theories need to be supported by empirical data obtained through careful and controlled observation and measurement of behavior. Watson (1913) stated:

“Psychology as a behaviorist views it is a purely objective experimental branch of natural science. Its theoretical goal is … prediction and control.” (p. 158).

The components of a theory should be as simple as possible. Behaviorists propose using operational definitions (defining variables in terms of observable, measurable events).

Behaviorism introduced scientific methods to psychology. Laboratory experiments were used with high control of extraneous variables.

These experiments were replicable, and the data obtained was objective (not influenced by an individual’s judgment or opinion) and measurable. This gave psychology more credibility.

Behaviorism is primarily concerned with observable behavior, as opposed to internal events like thinking and emotion:

The starting point for many behaviorists is a rejection of the introspection (the attempts to “get inside people’s heads”) of the majority of mainstream psychology.

While modern behaviorists often accept the existence of cognitions and emotions, they prefer not to study them as only observable (i.e., external) behavior can be objectively and scientifically measured.

Although theorists of this perspective accept that people have “minds”, they argue that it is never possible to objectively observe people’s thoughts, motives, and meanings – let alone their unconscious yearnings and desires.

Therefore, internal events, such as thinking, should be explained through behavioral terms (or eliminated altogether).

There is little difference between the learning that takes place in humans and that in other animals:

There’s no fundamental (qualitative) distinction between human and animal behavior. Therefore, research can be carried out on animals and humans.

The underlying assumption is that to some degree the laws of behavior are the same for all species and that therefore knowledge gained by studying rats, dogs, cats and other animals can be generalized to humans.

Consequently, rats and pigeons became the primary data source for behaviorists, as their environments could be easily controlled.

Types of Behaviorist Theory

Historically, the most significant distinction between versions of behaviorism is that between Watson’s original methodological behaviorism, and forms of behaviorism later inspired by his work, known collectively as neobehaviorism (e.g., radical behaviorism).

John B Watson: Methodological Behaviorism

As proposed by John B. Watson, methodological behaviorism is a school of thought in psychology that maintains that psychologists should study only observable, measurable behaviors and not internal mental processes.

According to Watson, since thoughts, feelings, and desires can’t be observed directly, they should not be part of psychological study.

Watson proposed that behaviors can be studied in a systematic and observable manner with no consideration of internal mental states.

He argued that all behaviors in animals or humans are learned, and the environment shapes behavior.

Watson’s article “Psychology as the behaviorist views it” is often referred to as the “behaviorist manifesto,” in which Watson (1913, p. 158) outlines the principles of all behaviorists:

“Psychology as the behaviorist views it is a purely objective experimental branch of natural science. Its theoretical goal is the prediction and control of behavior. Introspection forms no essential part of its methods, nor is the scientific value of its data dependent upon the readiness with which they lend themselves to interpretation in terms of consciousness.”

In his efforts to get a unitary scheme of animal response, the behaviorist recognizes no dividing line between man and brute.

Man’s behavior, with all of its refinement and complexity, forms only a part of the behaviorist’s total scheme of investigation.

This behavioral perspective laid the groundwork for further behavioral studies like B.F’s. Skinner who introduced the concept of operant conditioning.

Radical Behaviorism

Radical behaviorism was founded by B.F Skinner , who agreed with the assumption of methodological behaviorism that the goal of psychology should be to predict and control behavior.

Radical Behaviorism expands upon earlier forms of behaviorism by incorporating internal events such as thoughts, emotions, and feelings as part of the behavioral process.

Unlike methodological behaviorism, which asserts that only observable behaviors should be studied, radical behaviorism accepts that these internal events occur and influence behavior.

However, it maintains that they should be considered part of the environmental context and are subject to the same laws of learning and adaptation as overt behaviors.

Another important distinction between methodological and radical behaviorism concerns the extent to which environmental factors influence behavior. Watson’s (1913) methodological behaviorism asserts the mind is a tabula rasa (a blank slate) at birth.

In contrast, radical behaviorism accepts the view that organisms are born with innate behaviors and thus recognizes the role of genes and biological components in behavior.

Social Learning

Behaviorism has undergone many transformations since John Watson developed it in the early part of the twentieth century.

One more recent extension of this approach has been the development of social learning theory, which emphasizes the role of plans and expectations in people’s behavior.

Under social learning theory , people were no longer seen as passive victims of the environment, but rather they were seen as self-reflecting and thoughtful.

The theory is often called a bridge between behaviorist and cognitive learning theories because it encompasses attention, memory, and motivation.

Historical Timeline

• Pavlov (1897) published the results of an experiment on conditioning after originally studying digestion in dogs.
• Watson (1913) launches the behavioral school of psychology, publishing an article, Psychology as the behaviorist views it .
• Watson and Rayner (1920) conditioned an orphan called Albert B (aka Little Albert) to fear a white rat.
• Thorndike (1905) formalized the Law of Effect .
• Skinner (1938) wrote The Behavior of Organisms and introduced the concepts of operant conditioning and shaping.
• Clark Hull’s (1943) Principles of Behavior was published.
• B.F. Skinner (1948) published Walden Two , describing a utopian society founded upon behaviorist principles.
• Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior began in 1958.
• Chomsky (1959) published his criticism of Skinner’s behaviorism, “ Review of Verbal Behavior .”
• Bandura (1963) published a book called the Social Leaning Theory and Personality development which combines both cognitive and behavioral frameworks.
• B.F. Skinner (1971) published his book, Beyond Freedom and Dignity , where he argues that free will is an illusion.

Applications

Mental health.

Behaviorism theorized that abnormal behavior and mental illness stem from faulty learning processes rather than internal conflicts or unconscious forces, as psychoanalysis claimed.

Based on behaviorism, behavior therapy aims to replace maladaptive behaviors with more constructive ones through techniques like systematic desensitization, aversion therapy, and token economies. Systematic desensitization helps phobia patients gradually confront feared objects.

The behaviorist approach has been used in treating phobias. The individual with the phobia is taught relaxation techniques and then makes a hierarchy of fear from the least frightening to the most frightening features of the phobic object.

He then is presented with the stimuli in that order and learns to associate (classical conditioning) the stimuli with a relaxation response. This is counter-conditioning.

Aversion therapy associates unpleasant stimuli with unwanted habits to discourage them. Token economies reinforce desired actions by providing tokens redeemable for rewards.

The implications of classical conditioning in the classroom are less important than those of  operant conditioning , but there is still a need for teachers to try to make sure that students associate positive emotional experiences with learning.

If a student associates negative emotional experiences with school, then this can obviously have bad results, such as creating a school phobia.

For example, if a student is bullied at school, they may learn to associate the school with fear. It could also explain why some students show a particular dislike of certain subjects that continue throughout their academic career. This could happen if a teacher humiliates or punishes a student in class.

Cue reactivity is the theory that people associate situations (e.g., meeting with friends)/ places (e.g., pub) with the rewarding effects of nicotine, and these cues can trigger a feeling of craving (Carter & Tiffany, 1999).

These factors become smoking-related cues. Prolonged use of nicotine creates an association between these factors and smoking based on classical conditioning.

Nicotine is the unconditioned stimulus (UCS), and the pleasure caused by the sudden increase in dopamine levels is the unconditioned response (UCR). Following this increase, the brain tries to lower the dopamine back to a normal level.

The stimuli that have become associated with nicotine were neutral stimuli (NS) before “learning” took place but they became conditioned stimuli (CS), with repeated pairings. They can produce the conditioned response (CR).

However, if the brain has not received nicotine, the levels of dopamine drop and the individual experiences withdrawal symptoms, therefore, is more likely to feel the need to smoke in the presence of the cues that have become associated with the use of nicotine.

Issues & Debates

Free will vs. determinism.

Strong determinism of the behavioral approach as all behavior is learned from our environment through classical and operant conditioning. We are the total sum of our previous conditioning.

Softer determinism of the social learning approach theory recognizes an element of choice as to whether we imitate a behavior or not.

Nature vs. Nurture

Behaviorism is very much on the nurture side of the debate as it argues that our behavior is learned from the environment.

The social learning theory is also on the nurture side because it argues that we learn behavior from role models in our environment.

The behaviorist approach proposes that apart from a few innate reflexes and the capacity for learning, all complex behavior is learned from the environment.

Holism vs. Reductionism

The behaviorist approach and social learning are reductionist ; they isolate parts of complex behaviors to study.

Behaviorists believe that all behavior, no matter how complex, can be broken down into the fundamental processes of conditioning.

Idiographic vs. Nomothetic

It is a nomothetic approach as it views all behavior governed by the same laws of conditioning.

However, it does account for individual differences and explains them in terms of differences in the history of conditioning.

Critical Evaluation

Behaviorism has experimental support: Pavlov showed that classical conditioning leads to learning by association. Watson and Rayner showed that phobias could be learned through classical conditioning in the “Little Albert” experiment.

An obvious advantage of behaviorism is its ability to define behavior clearly and measure behavior changes. According to the law of parsimony, the fewer assumptions a theory makes, the better and the more credible it is. Therefore, behaviorism looks for simple explanations of human behavior from a scientific standpoint.

Many of the experiments carried out were done on animals; we are different cognitively and physiologically. Humans have different social norms and moral values that mediate the effects of the environment.

Therefore people might behave differently from animals, so the laws and principles derived from these experiments, might apply more to animals than to humans.

Humanism rejects the nomothetic approach of behaviorism as they view humans as being unique and believe humans cannot be compared with animals (who aren’t susceptible to demand characteristics). This is known as an idiographic approach.

In addition, humanism (e.g., Carl Rogers) rejects the scientific method of using experiments to measure and control variables because it creates an artificial environment and has low ecological validity.

Humanistic psychology also assumes that humans have free will (personal agency) to make their own decisions in life and do not follow the deterministic laws of science . 

The behaviorist approach emphasis on single influences on behavior is a simplification of circumstances where behavior is influenced by many factors. When this is acknowledged, it becomes almost impossible to judge the action of any single one.

This over-simplified view of the world has led to the development of ‘pop behaviorism, the view that rewards and punishments can change almost anything. 

Therefore, behaviorism only provides a partial account of human behavior, that which can be objectively viewed. Essential factors like emotions, expectations, and higher-level motivation are not considered or explained. Accepting a behaviorist explanation could prevent further research from other perspectives that could uncover important factors.

For example, the psychodynamic approach (Freud) criticizes behaviorism as it does not consider the unconscious mind’s influence on behavior and instead focuses on externally observable behavior. Freud also rejects the idea that people are born a blank slate (tabula rasa) and states that people are born with instincts (e.g., eros and Thanatos).

Biological psychology states that all behavior has a physical/organic cause. They emphasize the role of nature over nurture. For example, chromosomes and hormones (testosterone) influence our behavior, too, in addition to the environment.

Behaviorism might be seen as underestimating the importance of inborn tendencies. It is clear from research on biological preparedness that the ease with which something is learned is partly due to its links with an organism’s potential survival.

Cognitive psychology states that mediational processes occur between stimulus and response, such as memory , thinking, problem-solving, etc.

Despite these criticisms, behaviorism has made significant contributions to psychology. These include insights into learning, language development, and moral and gender development, which have all been explained in terms of conditioning.

The contribution of behaviorism can be seen in some of its practical applications. Behavior therapy and behavior modification represent one of the major approaches to the treatment of abnormal behavior and are readily used in clinical psychology.

The behaviorist approach has been used in the treatment of phobias, and systematic desensitization .

Many textbooks depict behaviorism as dominating and defining psychology in the mid-20th century, before declining from the late 1950s with the “cognitive revolution.”

However, the empirical basis for claims about behaviorism’s prominence and decline has been limited. Wide-scope claims about behaviorism are often based on small, unrepresentative samples of historical data. This raises the question – to what extent was behaviorism actually dominant in American psychology?

To address this question, Braat et al. (2020) conducted a quantitative bibliometric analysis of 119,278 articles published in American psychology journals from 1920-1970.

They generated cocitation networks, mapping similarities between frequently cited authors, and co-occurrence networks of frequently used title terms, for each decade. This allowed them to examine the structure and development of psychology fields without relying on predefined behavioral/non-behavioral categories.

Key findings:

• In no decade did behaviorist authors belong to the most prominent citation clusters. Even a combined “behaviorist” cluster accounted for max. 28% of highly cited authors.
• The main focus was measuring personality/mental abilities – those clusters were consistently larger than behaviorist ones.
• Between 1920 and 1930, Watson was a prominent author, but behaviorism was a small (19%) slice of psychology. Larger clusters were mental testing and Gestalt psychology.
• From the 1930s, behaviorism split into two clusters, possibly reflecting “classical” vs. “neobehaviorist” approaches. However, the combined behaviorist cluster was still smaller than mental testing and Gestalt clusters.
• The influence of behaviorism did not dramatically decline after 1950. The behaviorist cluster was stable at 28% during the 1940s-60s, and its citation count quadrupled.
• Contrary to narratives, Skinner was not highly cited in the 1950s-60s – he did not dominate behaviorism after WWII.
• Analyses challenge assumptions that behaviorism was the single dominant force in mid-20th-century psychology. The story was more diverse.

However, behaviorist vocabulary became more prominent over time in title term analyses. This suggests behaviorists were influential in shaping psychological research agendas, if not fully dominating the field.

Overall, quantitative analyses provide a richer perspective on the development of behaviorism and 20th-century psychology. Claims that behaviorism “rose and fell” as psychology’s single dominant school appear too simplistic.

Psychology was more multifaceted, with behaviorism as one of several influential but not controlling approaches. The narrative requires reappraisal.

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development . New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Braat, M., Engelen, J., van Gemert, T., & Verhaegh, S. (2020). The rise and fall of behaviorism: The narrative and the numbers. History of Psychology, 23 (3), 252-280.

Carter, B. L., & Tiffany, S. T. (1999). Meta‐analysis of cue‐reactivity in addiction research.  Addiction ,  94 (3), 327-340.

Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of BF Skinner’s Verbal Behavior . Language, 35(1) , 26-58.

Holland, J. G. (1978). BEHAVIORISM: PART OF THE PROBLEM OR PART OF THE SOLUTION?  Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis ,  11 (1), 163-174.

Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior: An introduction to behavior theory . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Pavlov, I. P. (1897). The work of the digestive glands . London: Griffin.

Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis . New York: Appleton-Century.

Skinner, B. F. (1948). Walden two. New York: Macmillan.

Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity . New York: Knopf.

Thorndike, E. L. (1905). The elements of psychology . New York: A. G. Seiler.

Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it . Psychological Review, 20 , 158-178.

Watson, J. B. (1930). Behaviorism (revised edition). University of Chicago Press.

Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions . Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3 , 1, pp. 1–14.

What is the theory of behaviorism?

What is behaviorism with an example.

An example of behaviorism is using systematic desensitization in the treatment of phobias. The individual with the phobia is taught relaxation techniques and then makes a hierarchy of fear from the least frightening to the most frightening features of the phobic object.

How behaviorism is used in the classroom?

In the conventional learning situation, behaviorist pedagogy applies largely to issues of class and student management, rather than to learning content.

It is very relevant to shaping skill performance. For example, unwanted behaviors, such as tardiness and dominating class discussions, can be extinguished by being ignored by the teacher (rather than being reinforced by having attention drawn to them).

Who founded behaviorism?

John B. Watson founded behaviorism. Watson proposed that psychology should abandon its focus on mental processes, which he believed were impossible to observe and measure objectively, and focus solely on observable behaviors.

His ideas, published in a famous article “ Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It ” in 1913, marked the formal start of behaviorism as a major school of psychological thought.

Is behavior analysis the same as behaviorism?

No, behavior analysis and behaviorism are not the same. Behaviorism is a broader philosophical approach to psychology emphasizing observable behaviors over internal events like thoughts and emotions.

Behavior analysis , specifically applied behavior analysis (ABA), is a scientific discipline and set of methods derived from behaviorist principles, used to understand and change specific behaviors, often employed in therapeutic contexts, such as with autism treatment.

Related Articles

Soft Determinism In Psychology

Branches of Psychology

Social Action Theory (Weber): Definition & Examples

Adult Attachment , Personality , Psychology , Relationships

Attachment Styles and How They Affect Adult Relationships

Personality , Psychology

Big Five Personality Traits: The 5-Factor Model of Personality

Learning Theories , Psychology , Social Science

Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Affective Science
• Biological Foundations of Psychology
• Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
• Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational/School Psychology
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems of Psychology
• Individual Differences
• Methods and Approaches in Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational and Institutional Psychology

Personality

• Psychology and Other Disciplines
• Social Psychology
• Sports Psychology
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Organizational behavior.

• Neal M. Ashkanasy Neal M. Ashkanasy University of Queensland
•  and  Alana D. Dorris Alana D. Dorris University of Queensland
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.23
• Published online: 29 March 2017

Organizational behavior (OB) is a discipline that includes principles from psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Its focus is on understanding how people behave in organizational work environments. Broadly speaking, OB covers three main levels of analysis: micro (individuals), meso (groups), and macro (the organization). Topics at the micro level include managing the diverse workforce; effects of individual differences in attitudes; job satisfaction and engagement, including their implications for performance and management; personality, including the effects of different cultures; perception and its effects on decision-making; employee values; emotions, including emotional intelligence, emotional labor, and the effects of positive and negative affect on decision-making and creativity (including common biases and errors in decision-making); and motivation, including the effects of rewards and goal-setting and implications for management. Topics at the meso level of analysis include group decision-making; managing work teams for optimum performance (including maximizing team performance and communication); managing team conflict (including the effects of task and relationship conflict on team effectiveness); team climate and group emotional tone; power, organizational politics, and ethical decision-making; and leadership, including leadership development and leadership effectiveness. At the organizational level, topics include organizational design and its effect on organizational performance; affective events theory and the physical environment; organizational culture and climate; and organizational change.

• organizational psychology
• organizational sociology
• organizational anthropology

Introduction

Organizational behavior (OB) is the study of how people behave in organizational work environments. More specifically, Robbins, Judge, Millett, and Boyle ( 2014 , p. 8) describe it as “[a] field of study that investigates the impact that individual groups and structure have on behavior within organizations, for the purposes of applying such knowledge towards improving an organization’s effectiveness.” The OB field looks at the specific context of the work environment in terms of human attitudes, cognition, and behavior, and it embodies contributions from psychology, social psychology, sociology, and anthropology. The field is also rapidly evolving because of the demands of today’s fast-paced world, where technology has given rise to work-from-home employees, globalization, and an ageing workforce. Thus, while managers and OB researchers seek to help employees find a work-life balance, improve ethical behavior (Ardichivili, Mitchell, & Jondle, 2009 ), customer service, and people skills (see, e.g., Brady & Cronin, 2001 ), they must simultaneously deal with issues such as workforce diversity, work-life balance, and cultural differences.

The most widely accepted model of OB consists of three interrelated levels: (1) micro (the individual level), (2) meso (the group level), and (3) macro (the organizational level). The behavioral sciences that make up the OB field contribute an element to each of these levels. In particular, OB deals with the interactions that take place among the three levels and, in turn, addresses how to improve performance of the organization as a whole.

In order to study OB and apply it to the workplace, it is first necessary to understand its end goal. In particular, if the goal is organizational effectiveness, then these questions arise: What can be done to make an organization more effective? And what determines organizational effectiveness? To answer these questions, dependent variables that include attitudes and behaviors such as productivity, job satisfaction, job performance, turnover intentions, withdrawal, motivation, and workplace deviance are introduced. Moreover, each level—micro, meso, and macro—has implications for guiding managers in their efforts to create a healthier work climate to enable increased organizational performance that includes higher sales, profits, and return on investment (ROE).

The Micro (Individual) Level of Analysis

The micro or individual level of analysis has its roots in social and organizational psychology. In this article, six central topics are identified and discussed: (1) diversity; (2) attitudes and job satisfaction; (3) personality and values; (4) emotions and moods; (5) perception and individual decision-making; and (6) motivation.

An obvious but oft-forgotten element at the individual level of OB is the diverse workforce. It is easy to recognize how different each employee is in terms of personal characteristics like age, skin color, nationality, ethnicity, and gender. Other, less biological characteristics include tenure, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity. In the Australian context, while the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act of 1992 helped to increase participation of people with disabilities working in organizations, discrimination and exclusion still continue to inhibit equality (Feather & Boeckmann, 2007 ). In Western societies like Australia and the United States, however, antidiscrimination legislation is now addressing issues associated with an ageing workforce.

In terms of gender, there continues to be significant discrimination against female employees. Males have traditionally had much higher participation in the workforce, with only a significant increase in the female workforce beginning in the mid-1980s. Additionally, according to Ostroff and Atwater’s ( 2003 ) study of engineering managers, female managers earn a significantly lower salary than their male counterparts, especially when they are supervising mostly other females.

Job Satisfaction and Job Engagement

Job satisfaction is an attitudinal variable that comes about when an employee evaluates all the components of her or his job, which include affective, cognitive, and behavioral aspects (Weiss, 2002 ). Increased job satisfaction is associated with increased job performance, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), and reduced turnover intentions (Wilkin, 2012 ). Moreover, traditional workers nowadays are frequently replaced by contingent workers in order to reduce costs and work in a nonsystematic manner. According to Wilkin’s ( 2012 ) findings, however, contingent workers as a group are less satisfied with their jobs than permanent employees are.

Job engagement concerns the degree of involvement that an employee experiences on the job (Kahn, 1990 ). It describes the degree to which an employee identifies with their job and considers their performance in that job important; it also determines that employee’s level of participation within their workplace. Britt, Dickinson, Greene-Shortridge, and McKibbin ( 2007 ) describe the two extremes of job satisfaction and employee engagement: a feeling of responsibility and commitment to superior job performance versus a feeling of disengagement leading to the employee wanting to withdraw or disconnect from work. The first scenario is also related to organizational commitment, the level of identification an employee has with an organization and its goals. Employees with high organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and employee engagement tend to perceive that their organization values their contribution and contributes to their wellbeing.

Personality represents a person’s enduring traits. The key here is the concept of enduring . The most widely adopted model of personality is the so-called Big Five (Costa & McCrae, 1992 ): extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness. Employees high in conscientiousness tend to have higher levels of job knowledge, probably because they invest more into learning about their role. Those higher in emotional stability tend to have higher levels of job satisfaction and lower levels of stress, most likely because of their positive and opportunistic outlooks. Agreeableness, similarly, is associated with being better liked and may lead to higher employee performance and decreased levels of deviant behavior.

Although the personality traits in the Big Five have been shown to relate to organizational behavior, organizational performance, career success (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 2006 ), and other personality traits are also relevant to the field. Examples include positive self-evaluation, self-monitoring (the degree to which an individual is aware of comparisons with others), Machiavellianism (the degree to which a person is practical, maintains emotional distance, and believes the end will justify the means), narcissism (having a grandiose sense of self-importance and entitlement), risk-taking, proactive personality, and type A personality. In particular, those who like themselves and are grounded in their belief that they are capable human beings are more likely to perform better because they have fewer self-doubts that may impede goal achievements. Individuals high in Machiavellianism may need a certain environment in order to succeed, such as a job that requires negotiation skills and offers significant rewards, although their inclination to engage in political behavior can sometimes limit their potential. Employees who are high on narcissism may wreak organizational havoc by manipulating subordinates and harming the overall business because of their over-inflated perceptions of self. Higher levels of self-monitoring often lead to better performance but they may cause lower commitment to the organization. Risk-taking can be positive or negative; it may be great for someone who thrives on rapid decision-making, but it may prove stressful for someone who likes to weigh pros and cons carefully before making decisions. Type A individuals may achieve high performance but may risk doing so in a way that causes stress and conflict. Proactive personality, on the other hand, is usually associated with positive organizational performance.

Employee Values

Personal value systems are behind each employee’s attitudes and personality. Each employee enters an organization with an already established set of beliefs about what should be and what should not be. Today, researchers realize that personality and values are linked to organizations and organizational behavior. Years ago, only personality’s relation to organizations was of concern, but now managers are more interested in an employee’s flexibility to adapt to organizational change and to remain high in organizational commitment. Holland’s ( 1973 ) theory of personality-job fit describes six personality types (realistic, investigative, social, conventional, enterprising, and artistic) and theorizes that job satisfaction and turnover are determined by how well a person matches her or his personality to a job. In addition to person-job (P-J) fit, researchers have also argued for person-organization (P-O) fit, whereby employees desire to be a part of and are selected by an organization that matches their values. The Big Five would suggest, for example, that extraverted employees would desire to be in team environments; agreeable people would align well with supportive organizational cultures rather than more aggressive ones; and people high on openness would fit better in organizations that emphasize creativity and innovation (Anderson, Spataro, & Flynn, 2008 ).

Individual Differences, Affect, and Emotion

Personality predisposes people to have certain moods (feelings that tend to be less intense but longer lasting than emotions) and emotions (intense feelings directed at someone or something). In particular, personalities with extraversion and emotional stability partially determine an individual predisposition to experience emotion more or less intensely.

Affect is also related as describing the positive and negative feelings that people experience (Ashkanasy, 2003 ). Moreover, emotions, mood, and affect interrelate; a bad mood, for instance, can lead individuals to experience a negative emotion. Emotions are action-oriented while moods tend to be more cognitive. This is because emotions are caused by a specific event that might only last a few seconds, while moods are general and can last for hours or even days. One of the sources of emotions is personality. Dispositional or trait affects correlate, on the one hand, with personality and are what make an individual more likely to respond to a situation in a predictable way (Watson & Tellegen, 1985 ). Moreover, like personality, affective traits have proven to be stable over time and across settings (Diener, Larsen, Levine, & Emmons, 1985 ; Watson, 1988 ; Watson & Tellegen, 1985 ; Watson & Walker, 1996 ). State affect, on the other hand, is similar to mood and represents how an individual feels in the moment.

The Role of Affect in Organizational Behavior

For many years, affect and emotions were ignored in the field of OB despite being fundamental factors underlying employee behavior (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995 ). OB researchers traditionally focused on solely decreasing the effects of strong negative emotions that were seen to impede individual, group, and organizational level productivity. More recent theories of OB focus, however, on affect, which is seen to have positive, as well as negative, effects on behavior, described by Barsade, Brief, and Spataro ( 2003 , p. 3) as the “affective revolution.” In particular, scholars now understand that emotions can be measured objectively and be observed through nonverbal displays such as facial expression and gestures, verbal displays, fMRI, and hormone levels (Ashkanasy, 2003 ; Rashotte, 2002 ).

Fritz, Sonnentag, Spector, and McInroe ( 2010 ) focus on the importance of stress recovery in affective experiences. In fact, an individual employee’s affective state is critical to OB, and today more attention is being focused on discrete affective states. Emotions like fear and sadness may be related to counterproductive work behaviors (Judge et al., 2006 ). Stress recovery is another factor that is essential for more positive moods leading to positive organizational outcomes. In a study, Fritz et al. ( 2010 ) looked at levels of psychological detachment of employees on weekends away from the workplace and how it was associated with higher wellbeing and affect.

Emotional Intelligence and Emotional Labor

Ashkanasy and Daus ( 2002 ) suggest that emotional intelligence is distinct but positively related to other types of intelligence like IQ. It is defined by Mayer and Salovey ( 1997 ) as the ability to perceive, assimilate, understand, and manage emotion in the self and others. As such, it is an individual difference and develops over a lifetime, but it can be improved with training. Boyatzis and McKee ( 2005 ) describe emotional intelligence further as a form of adaptive resilience, insofar as employees high in emotional intelligence tend to engage in positive coping mechanisms and take a generally positive outlook toward challenging work situations.

Emotional labor occurs when an employee expresses her or his emotions in a way that is consistent with an organization’s display rules, and usually means that the employee engages in either surface or deep acting (Hochschild, 1983 ). This is because the emotions an employee is expressing as part of their role at work may be different from the emotions they are actually feeling (Ozcelik, 2013 ). Emotional labor has implications for an employee’s mental and physical health and wellbeing. Moreover, because of the discrepancy between felt emotions (how an employee actually feels) and displayed emotions or surface acting (what the organization requires the employee to emotionally display), surface acting has been linked to negative organizational outcomes such as heightened emotional exhaustion and reduced commitment (Erickson & Wharton, 1997 ; Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002 ; Grandey, 2003 ; Groth, Hennig-Thurau, & Walsh, 2009 ).

Affect and Organizational Decision-Making

Ashkanasy and Ashton-James ( 2008 ) make the case that the moods and emotions managers experience in response to positive or negative workplace situations affect outcomes and behavior not only at the individual level, but also in terms of strategic decision-making processes at the organizational level. These authors focus on affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996 ), which holds that organizational events trigger affective responses in organizational members, which in turn affect organizational attitudes, cognition, and behavior.

Perceptions and Behavior

Like personality, emotions, moods, and attitudes, perceptions also influence employees’ behaviors in the workplace. Perception is the way in which people organize and interpret sensory cues in order to give meaning to their surroundings. It can be influenced by time, work setting, social setting, other contextual factors such as time of day, time of year, temperature, a target’s clothing or appearance, as well as personal trait dispositions, attitudes, and value systems. In fact, a person’s behavior is based on her or his perception of reality—not necessarily the same as actual reality. Perception greatly influences individual decision-making because individuals base their behaviors on their perceptions of reality. In this regard, attribution theory (Martinko, 1995 ) outlines how individuals judge others and is our attempt to conclude whether a person’s behavior is internally or externally caused.

Decision-Making and the Role of Perception

Decision-making occurs as a reaction to a problem when the individual perceives there to be discrepancy between the current state of affairs and the state s/he desires. As such, decisions are the choices individuals make from a set of alternative courses of action. Each individual interprets information in her or his own way and decides which information is relevant to weigh pros and cons of each decision and its alternatives to come to her or his perception of the best outcome. In other words, each of our unique perceptual processes influences the final outcome (Janis & Mann, 1977 ).

Common Biases in Decision-Making

Although there is no perfect model for approaching decision-making, there are nonetheless many biases that individuals can make themselves aware of in order to maximize their outcomes. First, overconfidence bias is an inclination to overestimate the correctness of a decision. Those most likely to commit this error tend to be people with weak intellectual and interpersonal abilities. Anchoring bias occurs when individuals focus on the first information they receive, failing to adjust for information received subsequently. Marketers tend to use anchors in order to make impressions on clients quickly and project their brand names. Confirmation bias occurs when individuals only use facts that support their decisions while discounting all contrary views. Lastly, availability bias occurs when individuals base their judgments on information readily available. For example, a manager might rate an employee on a performance appraisal based on behavior in the past few days, rather than the past six months or year.

Errors in Decision-Making

Other errors in decision-making include hindsight bias and escalation of commitment . Hindsight bias is a tendency to believe, incorrectly, after an outcome of an event has already happened, that the decision-maker would have accurately predicted that same outcome. Furthermore, this bias, despite its prevalence, is especially insidious because it inhibits the ability to learn from the past and take responsibility for mistakes. Escalation of commitment is an inclination to continue with a chosen course of action instead of listening to negative feedback regarding that choice. When individuals feel responsible for their actions and those consequences, they escalate commitment probably because they have invested so much into making that particular decision. One solution to escalating commitment is to seek a source of clear, less distorted feedback (Staw, 1981 ).

The last but certainly not least important individual level topic is motivation. Like each of the topics discussed so far, a worker’s motivation is also influenced by individual differences and situational context. Motivation can be defined as the processes that explain a person’s intensity, direction, and persistence toward reaching a goal. Work motivation has often been viewed as the set of energetic forces that determine the form, direction, intensity, and duration of behavior (Latham & Pinder, 2005 ). Motivation can be further described as the persistence toward a goal. In fact many non-academics would probably describe it as the extent to which a person wants and tries to do well at a particular task (Mitchell, 1982 ).

Early theories of motivation began with Maslow’s ( 1943 ) hierarchy of needs theory, which holds that each person has five needs in hierarchical order: physiological, safety, social, esteem, and self-actualization. These constitute the “lower-order” needs, while social and esteem needs are “higher-order” needs. Self-esteem for instance underlies motivation from the time of childhood. Another early theory is McGregor’s ( 1960 ) X-Y theory of motivation: Theory X is the concept whereby individuals must be pushed to work; and theory Y is positive, embodying the assumption that employees naturally like work and responsibility and can exercise self-direction.

Herzberg subsequently proposed the “two-factor theory” that attitude toward work can determine whether an employee succeeds or fails. Herzberg ( 1966 ) relates intrinsic factors, like advancement in a job, recognition, praise, and responsibility to increased job satisfaction, while extrinsic factors like the organizational climate, relationship with supervisor, and salary relate to job dissatisfaction. In other words, the hygiene factors are associated with the work context while the motivators are associated with the intrinsic factors associated with job motivation.

Contemporary Theories of Motivation

Although traditional theories of motivation still appear in OB textbooks, there is unfortunately little empirical data to support their validity. More contemporary theories of motivation, with more acceptable research validity, include self-determination theory , which holds that people prefer to have control over their actions. If a task an individual enjoyed now feels like a chore, then this will undermine motivation. Higher self-determined motivation (or intrinsically determined motivation) is correlated with increased wellbeing, job satisfaction, commitment, and decreased burnout and turnover intent. In this regard, Fernet, Gagne, and Austin ( 2010 ) found that work motivation relates to reactions to interpersonal relationships at work and organizational burnout. Thus, by supporting work self-determination, managers can help facilitate adaptive employee organizational behaviors while decreasing turnover intention (Richer, Blanchard, & Vallerand, 2002 ).

Core self-evaluation (CSE) theory is a relatively new concept that relates to self-confidence in general, such that people with higher CSE tend to be more committed to goals (Bono & Colbert, 2005 ). These core self-evaluations also extend to interpersonal relationships, as well as employee creativity. Employees with higher CSE are more likely to trust coworkers, which may also contribute to increased motivation for goal attainment (Johnson, Kristof-Brown, van Vianen, de Pater, & Klein, 2003 ). In general, employees with positive CSE tend to be more intrinsically motivated, thus additionally playing a role in increasing employee creativity (Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2005 ). Finally, according to research by Amabile ( 1996 ), intrinsic motivation or self-determined goal attainment is critical in facilitating employee creativity.

Goal-Setting and Conservation of Resources

While self-determination theory and CSE focus on the reward system behind motivation and employee work behaviors, Locke and Latham’s ( 1990 ) goal-setting theory specifically addresses the impact that goal specificity, challenge, and feedback has on motivation and performance. These authors posit that our performance is increased when specific and difficult goals are set, rather than ambiguous and general goals. Goal-setting seems to be an important motivational tool, but it is important that the employee has had a chance to take part in the goal-setting process so they are more likely to attain their goals and perform highly.

Related to goal-setting is Hobfoll’s ( 1989 ) conservation of resources (COR) theory, which holds that people have a basic motivation to obtain, maintain, and protect what they value (i.e., their resources). Additionally there is a global application of goal-setting theory for each of the motivation theories. Not enough research has been conducted regarding the value of goal-setting in global contexts, however, and because of this, goal-setting is not recommended without consideration of cultural and work-related differences (Konopaske & Ivancevich, 2004 ).

Self-Efficacy and Motivation

Other motivational theories include self-efficacy theory, and reinforcement, equity, and expectancy theories. Self-efficacy or social cognitive or learning theory is an individual’s belief that s/he can perform a task (Bandura, 1977 ). This theory complements goal-setting theory in that self-efficacy is higher when a manager assigns a difficult task because employees attribute the manager’s behavior to him or her thinking that the employee is capable; the employee in turn feels more confident and capable.

Reinforcement theory (Skinner, 1938 ) counters goal-setting theory insofar as it is a behaviorist approach rather than cognitive and is based in the notion that reinforcement conditions behavior, or in other words focuses on external causes rather than the value an individual attributes to goals. Furthermore, this theory instead emphasizes the behavior itself rather than what precedes the behavior. Additionally, managers may use operant conditioning, a part of behaviorism, to reinforce people to act in a desired way.

Social-learning theory (Bandura, 1977 ) extends operant conditioning and also acknowledges the influence of observational learning and perception, and the fact that people can learn and retain information by paying attention, observing, and modeling the desired behavior.

Equity theory (Adams, 1963 ) looks at how employees compare themselves to others and how that affects their motivation and in turn their organizational behaviors. Employees who perceive inequity for instance, will either change how much effort they are putting in (their inputs), change or distort their perceptions (either of self or others in relation to work), change their outcomes, turnover, or choose a different referent (acknowledge performance in relation to another employee but find someone else they can be better than).

Last but not least, Vroom’s ( 1964 ) expectancy theory holds that individuals are motivated by the extent to which they can see that their effort is likely to result in valued outcomes. This theory has received strong support in empirical research (see Van Erde & Thierry, 1996 , for meta-analytic results). Like each of the preceding theories, expectancy theory has important implications that managers should consider. For instance, managers should communicate with employees to determine their preferences to know what rewards to offer subordinates to elicit motivation. Managers can also make sure to identify and communicate clearly the level of performance they desire from an employee, as well as to establish attainable goals with the employee and to be very clear and precise about how and when performance will be rewarded (Konopaske & Ivancevich, 2004 ).

The Meso (Group) Level of Analysis

The second level of OB research also emerges from social and organizational psychology and relates to groups or teams. Topics covered so far include individual differences: diversity, personality and emotions, values and attitudes, motivation, and decision-making. Thus, in this section, attention turns to how individuals come together to form groups and teams, and begins laying the foundation for understanding the dynamics of group and team behavior. Topics at this level also include communication, leadership, power and politics, and conflict.

A group consists of two or more individuals who come together to achieve a similar goal. Groups can be formal or informal. A formal group on the one hand is assigned by the organization’s management and is a component of the organization’s structure. An informal group on the other hand is not determined by the organization and often forms in response to a need for social contact. Teams are formal groups that come together to meet a specific group goal.

Although groups are thought to go through five stages of development (Tuckman, 1965 : forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning) and to transition to effectiveness at the halfway mark (Gersick, 1988 ), group effectiveness is in fact far more complex. For example, two types of conformity to group norms are possible: compliance (just going along with the group’s norms but not accepting them) and personal acceptance (when group members’ individual beliefs match group norms). Behavior in groups then falls into required behavior usually defined by the formal group and emergent behavior that grows out of interactions among group members (Champoux, 2011 ).

Group Decision-Making

Although many of the decisions made in organizations occur in groups and teams, such decisions are not necessarily optimal. Groups may have more complex knowledge and increased perspectives than individuals but may suffer from conformity pressures or domination by one or two members. Group decision-making has the potential to be affected by groupthink or group shift. In groupthink , group pressures to conform to the group norms deter the group from thinking of alternative courses of action (Janis & Mann, 1977 ). In the past, researchers attempted to explain the effects of group discussion on decision-making through the following approaches: group decision rules, interpersonal comparisons, and informational influence. Myers and Lamm ( 1976 ), however, present a conceptual schema comprised of interpersonal comparisons and informational influence approaches that focus on attitude development in a more social context. They found that their research is consistent with the group polarization hypothesis: The initial majority predicts the consensus outcome 90% of the time. The term group polarization was founded in Serge Moscovici and his colleagues’ literature (e.g., Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969 ). Polarization refers to an increase in the extremity of the average response of the subject population.

In other words, the Myer and Lamm ( 1976 ) schema is based on the idea that four elements feed into one another: social motivation, cognitive foundation, attitude change, and action commitment. Social motivation (comparing self with others in order to be perceived favorably) feeds into cognitive foundation , which in turn feeds into attitude change and action commitment . Managers of organizations can help reduce the negative phenomena and increase the likelihood of functional groups by encouraging brainstorming or openly looking at alternatives in the process of decision-making such as the nominal group technique (which involves restricting interpersonal communication in order to encourage free thinking and proceeding to a decision in a formal and systematic fashion such as voting).

Elements of Team Performance

OB researchers typically focus on team performance and especially the factors that make teams most effective. Researchers (e.g., see De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001 ) have organized the critical components of effective teams into three main categories: context, composition, and process. Context refers to the team’s physical and psychological environment, and in particular the factors that enable a climate of trust. Composition refers to the means whereby the abilities of each individual member can best be most effectively marshaled. Process is maximized when members have a common goal or are able to reflect and adjust the team plan (for reflexivity, see West, 1996 ).

Communication

In order to build high-performing work teams, communication is critical, especially if team conflict is to be minimized. Communication serves four main functions: control, motivation, emotional expression, and information (Scott & Mitchell, 1976 ). The communication process involves the transfer of meaning from a sender to a receiver through formal channels established by an organization and informal channels, created spontaneously and emerging out of individual choice. Communication can flow downward from managers to subordinates, upward from subordinates to managers, or between members of the same group. Meaning can be transferred from one person to another orally, through writing, or nonverbally through facial expressions and body movement. In fact, body movement and body language may complicate verbal communication and add ambiguity to the situation as does physical distance between team members.

High-performance teams tend to have some of the following characteristics: interpersonal trust, psychological and physical safety, openness to challenges and ideas, an ability to listen to other points of view, and an ability to share knowledge readily to reduce task ambiguity (Castka, Bamber, Sharp, & Belohoubek, 2001 ). Although the development of communication competence is essential for a work team to become high-performing, that communication competence is also influenced by gender, personality, ability, and emotional intelligence of the members. Ironically, it is the self-reliant team members who are often able to develop this communication competence. Although capable of working autonomously, self-reliant team members know when to ask for support from others and act interdependently.

Emotions also play a part in communicating a message or attitude to other team members. Emotional contagion, for instance, is a fascinating effect of emotions on nonverbal communication, and it is the subconscious process of sharing another person’s emotions by mimicking that team member’s nonverbal behavior (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1993 ). Importantly, positive communication, expressions, and support of team members distinguished high-performing teams from low-performing ones (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008 ).

Team Conflict

Because of member interdependence, teams are inclined to more conflict than individual workers. In particular, diversity in individual differences leads to conflict (Thomas, 1992 ; Wall & Callister, 1995 ; see also Cohen & Bailey, 1997 ). Jehn ( 1997 ) identifies three types of conflict: task, relationship, and process. Process conflict concerns how task accomplishment should proceed and who is responsible for what; task conflict focuses on the actual content and goals of the work (Robbins et al., 2014 ); and relationship conflict is based on differences in interpersonal relationships. While conflict, and especially task conflict, does have some positive benefits such as greater innovation (Tjosvold, 1997 ), it can also lead to lowered team performance and decreased job satisfaction, or even turnover. De Dreu and Van Vianen ( 2001 ) found that team conflict can result in one of three responses: (1) collaborating with others to find an acceptable solution; (2) contending and pushing one member’s perspective on others; or (3) avoiding and ignoring the problem.

Team Effectiveness and Relationship Conflict

Team effectiveness can suffer in particular from relationship conflict, which may threaten team members’ personal identities and self-esteem (Pelled, 1995 ). In this regard, Murnighan and Conlon ( 1991 ) studied members of British string quartets and found that the most successful teams avoided relationship conflict while collaborating to resolve task conflicts. This may be because relationship conflict distracts team members from the task, reducing team performance and functioning. As noted earlier, positive affect is associated with collaboration, cooperation, and problem resolution, while negative affect tends to be associated with competitive behaviors, especially during conflict (Rhoades, Arnold, & Jay, 2001 ).

Team Climate and Emotionality

Emotional climate is now recognized as important to team processes (Ashkanasy & Härtel, 2014 ), and team climate in general has important implications for how individuals behave individually and collectively to effect organizational outcomes. This idea is consistent with Druskat and Wolff’s ( 2001 ) notion that team emotional-intelligence climate can help a team manage both types of conflict (task and relationship). In Jehn’s ( 1997 ) study, she found that emotion was most often negative during team conflict, and this had a negative effect on performance and satisfaction regardless of the type of conflict team members were experiencing. High emotionality, as Jehn calls it, causes team members to lose sight of the work task and focus instead on the negative affect. Jehn noted, however, that absence of group conflict might also may block innovative ideas and stifle creativity (Jehn, 1997 ).

Power and Politics

Power and organizational politics can trigger employee conflict, thus affecting employee wellbeing, job satisfaction, and performance, in turn affecting team and organizational productivity (Vigoda, 2000 ). Because power is a function of dependency, it can often lead to unethical behavior and thus become a source of conflict. Types of power include formal and personal power. Formal power embodies coercive, reward, and legitimate power. Coercive power depends on fear. Reward power is the opposite and occurs when an individual complies because s/he receives positive benefits from acting in accordance with the person in power. In formal groups and organizations, the most easily accessed form of power is legitimate because this form comes to be from one’s position in the organizational hierarchy (Raven, 1993 ). Power tactics represent the means by which those in a position of power translate their power base (formal or personal) into specific actions.

The nine influence tactics that managers use according to Yukl and Tracey ( 1992 ) are (1) rational persuasion, (2) inspirational appeal, (3) consultation, (4) ingratiation, (5) exchange, (6) personal appeal, (7) coalition, (8) legitimating, and (9) pressure. Of these tactics, inspirational appeal, consultation, and rational persuasion were among the strategies most effective in influencing task commitment. In this study, there was also a correlation found between a manager’s rational persuasion and a subordinate rating her effectively. Perhaps this is because persuasion requires some level of expertise, although more research is needed to verify which methods are most successful. Moreover, resource dependence theory dominates much theorizing about power and organizational politics. In fact, it is one of the central themes of Pfeffer and Salancik’s ( 1973 ) treatise on the external control of organizations. First, the theory emphasizes the importance of the organizational environment in understanding the context of how decisions of power are made (see also Pfeffer & Leblebici, 1973 ). Resource dependence theory is based on the premise that some organizations have more power than others, occasioned by specifics regarding their interdependence. Pfeffer and Salancik further propose that external interdependence and internal organizational processes are related and that this relationship is mediated by power.

Organizational Politics

Political skill is the ability to use power tactics to influence others to enhance an individual’s personal objectives. In addition, a politically skilled person is able to influence another person without being detected (one reason why he or she is effective). Persons exerting political skill leave a sense of trust and sincerity with the people they interact with. An individual possessing a high level of political skill must understand the organizational culture they are exerting influence within in order to make an impression on his or her target. While some researchers suggest political behavior is a critical way to understand behavior that occurs in organizations, others simply see it as a necessary evil of work life (Champoux, 2011 ). Political behavior focuses on using power to reach a result and can be viewed as unofficial and unsanctioned behavior (Mintzberg, 1985 ). Unlike other organizational processes, political behavior involves both power and influence (Mayes & Allen, 1977 ). Moreover, because political behavior involves the use of power to influence others, it can often result in conflict.

Organizational Politics, Power, and Ethics

In concluding this section on power and politics, it is also appropriate to address the dark side, where organizational members who are persuasive and powerful enough might become prone to abuse standards of equity and justice and thereby engage in unethical behavior. An employee who takes advantage of her position of power may use deception, lying, or intimidation to advance her own interests (Champoux, 2011 ). When exploring interpersonal injustice, it is important to consider the intent of the perpetrator, as well as the effect of the perpetrator’s treatment from the victim’s point of view. Umphress, Simmons, Folger, Ren, and Bobocel ( 2013 ) found in this regard that not only does injustice perceived by the self or coworkers influence attitudes and behavior within organizations, but injustice also influences observer reactions both inside and outside of the organization.

Leadership plays an integrative part in understanding group behavior, because the leader is engaged in directing individuals toward attitudes and behaviors, hopefully also in the direction of those group members’ goals. Although there is no set of universal leadership traits, extraversion from the Big Five personality framework has been shown in meta-analytic studies to be positively correlated with transformational, while neuroticism appears to be negatively correlated (Bono & Judge, 2004 ). There are also various perspectives to leadership, including the competency perspective, which addresses the personality traits of leaders; the behavioral perspective, which addresses leader behaviors, specifically task versus people-oriented leadership; and the contingency perspective, which is based on the idea that leadership involves an interaction of personal traits and situational factors. Fiedler’s ( 1967 ) contingency, for example, suggests that leader effectiveness depends on the person’s natural fit to the situation and the leader’s score on a “least preferred coworker” scale.

More recently identified styles of leadership include transformational leadership (Bass, Avolio, & Atwater, 1996 ), charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1988 ), and authentic leadership (Luthans & Avolio, 2003 ). In a nutshell, transformational leaders inspire followers to act based on the good of the organization; charismatic leaders project a vision and convey a new set of values; and authentic leaders convey trust and genuine sentiment.

Leader-member exchange theory (LMX; see Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995 ) assumes that leadership emerges from exchange relationships between a leader and her or his followers. More recently, Tse, Troth, and Ashkanasy ( 2015 ) expanded on LMX to include social processes (e.g., emotional intelligence, emotional labor, and discrete emotions), arguing that affect plays a large part in the leader-member relationship.

Leadership Development

An emerging new topic in leadership concerns leadership development, which embodies the readiness of leadership aspirants to change (Hannah & Avolio, 2010 ). In this regard, the learning literature suggests that intrinsic motivation is necessary in order to engage in development (see Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000 ), but also that the individual needs to be goal-oriented and have developmental efficacy or self-confidence that s/he can successfully perform in leadership contexts.

Ashkanasy, Dasborough, and Ascough ( 2009 ) argue further that developing the affective side of leaders is important. In this case, because emotions are so pervasive within organizations, it is important that leaders learn how to manage them in order to improve team performance and interactions with employees that affect attitudes and behavior at almost every organizational level.

Abusive Leadership

Leaders, or those in positions of power, are particularly more likely to run into ethical issues, and only more recently have organizational behavior researchers considered the ethical implications of leadership. As Gallagher, Mazur, and Ashkanasy ( 2015 ) describe, since 2009 , organizations have been under increasing pressure to cut costs or “do more with less,” and this sometimes can lead to abusive supervision, whereby employee job demands exceed employee resources, and supervisors engage in bullying, undermining, victimization, or personal attacks on subordinates (Tepper, 2000 ).

Supervisors who are very high or low in emotional intelligence may be more likely to experience stress associated with a very demanding high-performance organizational culture. These supervisors may be more likely to try to meet the high demands and pressures through manipulative behaviors (Kilduff, Chiaburu, & Menges, 2010 ). This has serious implications for employee wellbeing and the organization as a whole. Abusive supervision detracts from the ability for those under attack to perform effectively, and targets often come to doubt their own ability to perform (Tepper, 2000 ).

The Macro (Organizational) Level of Analysis

The final level of OB derives from research traditions across three disciplines: organizational psychology, organizational sociology, and organizational anthropology. Moreover, just as teams and groups are more than the sum of their individual team members, organizations are also more than the sum of the teams or groups residing within them. As such, structure, climate, and culture play key roles in shaping and being shaped by employee attitudes and behaviors, and they ultimately determine organizational performance and productivity.

Organizational Structure

Organizational structure is a sociological phenomenon that determines the way tasks are formally divided and coordinated within an organization. In this regard, jobs are often grouped by the similarity of functions performed, the product or service produced, or the geographical location. Often, the number of forms of departmentalization will depend on the size of the organization, with larger organizations having more forms of departmentalization than others. Organizations are also organized by the chain of command or the hierarchy of authority that determines the span of control, or how many employees a manager can efficiently and effectively lead. With efforts to reduce costs since the global financial crisis of 2009 , organizations have tended to adopt a wider, flatter span of control, where more employees report to one supervisor.

Organizational structure also concerns the level of centralization or decentralization, the degree to which decision-making is focused at a single point within an organization. Formalization is also the degree to which jobs are organized in an organization. These levels are determined by the organization and also vary greatly across the world. For example, Finnish organizations tend to be more decentralized than their Australian counterparts and, as a consequence, are more innovative (Leiponen & Helfat, 2011 ).

Mintzberg ( 1979 ) was the first to set out a taxonomy of organizational structure. Within his model, the most common organizational design is the simple structure characterized by a low level of departmentalization, a wide span of control, and centralized authority. Other organizational types emerge in larger organizations, which tend to be bureaucratic and more routinized. Rules are formalized, tasks are grouped into departments, authority is centralized, and the chain of command involves narrow spans of control and decision-making. An alternative is the matrix structure, often found in hospitals, universities, and government agencies. This form of organization combines functional and product departmentalization where employees answer to two bosses: functional department managers and product managers.

New design options include the virtual organization and the boundaryless organization , an organization that has no chain of command and limitless spans of control. Structures differ based on whether the organization seeks to use an innovation strategy, imitation strategy, or cost-minimization strategy (Galunic & Eisenhardt, 1994 ). Organizational structure can have a significant effect on employee attitudes and behavior. Evidence generally shows that work specialization leads to higher employee productivity but also lower job satisfaction (Porter & Lawler, 1965 ). Gagné and Deci emphasize that autonomous work motivation (i.e., intrinsic motivation and integrated extrinsic motivation) is promoted in work climates that are interesting, challenging, and allow choice. Parker, Wall, and Jackson ( 1997 ) specifically relate job enlargement to autonomous motivation. Job enlargement was first discussed by management theorists like Lawler and Hall ( 1970 ), who believed that jobs should be enlarged to improve the intrinsic motivation of workers. Today, most of the job-design literature is built around the issue of work specialization (job enlargement and enrichment). In Parker, Wall, and Jackson’s study, they observed that horizontally enlarging jobs through team-based assembly cells led to greater understanding and acceptance of the company’s vision and more engagement in new work roles. (In sum, by structuring work to allow more autonomy among employees and identification among individual work groups, employees stand to gain more internal autonomous motivation leading to improved work outcomes (van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000 ).

The Physical Environment of Work

Ashkanasy, Ayoko, and Jehn ( 2014 ) extend the topic of organizational structure to discuss, from a psychological perspective, how the physical work environment shapes employee attitudes, behaviors, and organizational outcomes. Elsbach ( 2003 ) pointed out that the space within which employees conduct their work is critical to employees’ levels of performance and productivity. In their study, Ashkanasy and his colleagues looked at the underlying processes influencing how the physical environment determines employee attitudes and behaviors, in turn affecting productivity levels. They base their model on affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996 ), which holds that particular “affective” events in the work environment are likely to be the immediate cause of employee behavior and performance in organizations (see also Ashkanasy & Humphrey, 2011 ). Specifically, Ashkanasy and colleagues ( 2014 ) looked at how this theory holds in extremely crowded open-plan office designs and how employees in these offices are more likely to experience negative affect, conflict, and territoriality, negatively impacting attitudes, behaviors, and work performance.

• Organizational Climate and Culture

Although organizational structure and the physical environment are important determinants of employee attitudes and behaviors, organizational culture and climate lie at the heart of organizational interactions (Ashkanasy & Jackson, 2001 ). Organizational culture derives from an anthropological research tradition, while organizational climate is based on organizational psychology.

A central presumption of culture is that, as Smircich ( 1983 ) noted, organizational behavior is not a function of what goes on inside individual employees’ heads, but between employees, as evidenced in daily organizational communication and language. As such, organizational culture allows one organization to distinguish itself from another, while conveying a sense of identity for its members.

Organizational Climate and its Relation to Organizational Culture

Organizational culture creates organizational climate or employees’ shared perceptions about their organization and work environment. Organizational climate has been found to facilitate and/or inhibit displays of certain behaviors in one study (Smith-Crowe, Burke, & Landis, 2003 ), and overall, organizational climate is often viewed as a surface-level indicator of the functioning of the employee/organizational environment relationship (Ryan, Horvath, Ployhart, Schmitt, & Slade, 2000 ). For instance, a more restrictive climate may inhibit individual decision-making in contrast to a more supportive climate in which the organization may intervene at the individual level and in which the ability/job performance relationship is supported (James, Demaree, Mulaik, & Ladd, 1992 ). In a study focused on safety climate, Smith-Crowe and colleagues found that organizational climate is essential in determining whether training will transfer to employee performance, and this is most likely because organizational climate moderates the knowledge/performance relationship. Gibbs and Cooper ( 2010 ) also found that a supportive organizational climate is positively related to employee performance. They specifically looked at PsyCap, the higher-order construct of psychological capital first proposed by Luthans and Youssef ( 2004 ).

Organizational Change

The final topic covered in this article is organizational change. Organizational culture and climate can both be negatively impacted by organizational change and, in turn, negatively affect employee wellbeing, attitudes, and performance, reflecting onto organizational performance. Often, there is great resistance to change, and the success rate of organizational change initiatives averages at less than 30% (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015 ). In order to overcome this resistance, it is important that managers plan ahead for changes and emphasize education and communication about them. As organizations becoming increasingly globalized, change has become the norm, and this will continue into the future.

Additionally, as organizations become increasingly globalized, organizational changes often involve mergers that have important organizational implications. In this regard, Kavanagh and Ashkanasy ( 2006 ) found that, for a merger to be successful, there needs to be alignment between the individual values and organizational cultures of merging partners. Managers during a merger situation need to be especially cognizant of how this organizational change affects the company’s original organizational culture.

Organizational development (OD), a collection of planned change interventions, may be the way to improve organizational performance and increase employee wellbeing. OD focuses on employees respecting one another, trust and support, equal power, confrontation of problems, and participation of everyone affected by the organizational change (Lines, 2004 ). Moreover, when an organization already has an established climate and culture that support change and innovation, an organization may have less trouble adapting to the change.

Organizational change research encompasses almost all aspects of organizational behavior. Individuals and employees are motivated to achieve success and be perceived as successful. In this regard, each of the individual differences—personality, affect, past experiences, values, and perceptions—plays into whether individuals can transcend obstacles and deal with the barriers encountered along the journey toward achievement. Teams are similarly motivated to be successful in a collective sense and to prove that they contribute to the organization as a whole. In addition to individual differences, team members deal with bringing all those individual differences together, which can wreak havoc on team communication and cause further obstacles in terms of power differences and conflicts in regard to decision-making processes. Last, at the organizational level of organizational behavior, it is important to account for all of these micro- and meso-level differences, and to address the complexity of economic pressures, increasing globalization, and global and transnational organizations to the mix. This is at the top level of sophistication because, as emphasized before, just as groups equal much more than the sum of individual members, organizations are much more than the sum of their teams. The organizational structure, the formal organization, the organizational culture, and climate and organizational rules all impact whether an organization can perform effectively. Organizational behavior, through its complex study of human behavior at its very conception, offers much-needed practical implications for managers in understanding people at work.

• Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 67 , 422–436.
• Al-Haddad, S. , & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: A model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management , 28 , 234–262.
• Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• Anderson, C. , Spataro, S. E. , & Flynn, F. J. (2008). Personality and organizational culture as determinants of influence. Journal of Applied Psychology , 93 , 702–710.
• Ardichivili, A. , Mitchell, J. A. , & Jondle, D. (2009). Characteristics of ethical business cultures. Journal of Business Ethics , 85 , 445–451.
• Ashforth, B. E. , & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human Relations , 48 , 97–125.
• Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). Emotions in organizations: A multilevel perspective. In F. Danserau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Research in multilevel issues (Vol. 2, pp. 9–54). Oxford: Elsevier.
• Ashkanasy, N. M. , & Ashton-James, C. E. (2008). Affective events theory: A strategic perspective. In W. J. Zerbe , C. E. J. Härtel , & N. M. Ashkanasy (Eds.), Research on emotion in organizations (Vol. 4, pp. 1–34). Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Group Pub.
• Ashkanasy, N. M. , Ayoko, O. B. , & Jehn, K. A. (2014). Understanding the physical environment of work and employee behavior: An affective events perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 35 , 1169–1184.
• Ashkanasy, N. M. , & Dasborough, M. T. (2003). Emotional awareness and emotional intelligence in leadership teaching. Journal of Education in Business , 79 , 18–22.
• Ashkanasy, N. M. , Dasborough, M. T. , & Ascough, K. W. (2009). Developing leaders: Teaching about emotional intelligence and training in emotional skills. In S. J. Armstrong & C. V. Fukami (Eds.), The Sage handbook of management learning, education and development (pp. 161–185). London: SAGE.
• Ashkanasy, N. M & Daus, C. S. (2002). Emotion in the workplace: The new challenge for managers. Academy of Management Executive , 16 , 76–86.
• Ashkanasy, N. M. , & Härtel, C. E. J. (2014). Emotional Climate and culture: The good, the bad, and the ugly. In B. Schneider & K. Barbera (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 136–152). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Ashkanasy, N. M. , & Humphrey, R. H. (2011). Current research on emotion in organizations. Emotion Review , 3 , 214–224.
• Ashkanasy, N. M. , & Jackson, C. R. A. (2001). Organizational culture and climate. In N. Anderson , D. S. Ones , H. K. Sinangil , & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational psychology (pp. 398–415). London: SAGE.
• Bakker, A. B. , & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 29 , 147–154.
• Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . Alexandria, VA: Prentice Hall.
• Barsade, S. G. , Brief, A. P. , & Spataro, S. E. (2003). The affective revolution in organizational behavior: The emergence of a paradigm. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 3–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Bass, B. M. , Avolio, B. J. , & Atwater, L. E. (1996). The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. Applied Psychology: An International Review , 45 , 5–34.
• Bono, J. E. , & Colbert, A. E. (2005). Understanding responses to multi‐source feedback: The role of core self‐evaluations. Personnel Psychology , 58 , 171–203.
• Bono, J. E. , & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 89 , 901–910.
• Boyatzis, R. E. , & McKee, A. (2005). Resonant leadership: Renewing yourself and connecting with others through mindfulness, hope, and compassion . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Brady, M. K. , & Cronin, J. J., Jr. (2001). Customer orientation: Effects on customer service perceptions and outcome behaviors. Journal of Service Research , 3 , 241–251.
• Britt, T. W. , Dickinson, J. M. , Greene-Shortridge, T. M. , & McKibbin, E. S. (2007). Self-engagement at work. In D. L. Nelson & C. L Cooper (Eds). Positive Organizational Behavior (pp. 143–158). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Brotheridge, C. , & Grandey, A. (2002). Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two perspectives of “people work.” Journal of Vocational Behavior , 60 , 17–39.
• Castka, P. , Bamber, C. J. , Sharp, J. M. , & Belohoubek, P. (2001). Factors affecting successful implementation of high performance teams. Team Performance Management: An International Journal , 7 (7/8), 123–134.
• Champoux, J. E. (2011). Organizational behavior: Integrating individuals, groups and organizations (4th ed.). Florence: Routledge.
• Cohen, S. G. , & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work? Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management , 23 , 239–290.
• Conger, J. A. , & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). Charismatic leadership. The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Costa, P. T., Jr. , & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) manual . Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
• De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 22 , 309–3278.
• Diener, E. , Larsen, R. J. , Levine, S. , Emmons, R. (1985). Intensity and frequency: Dimensions underlying positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 28 , 1253–1265.
• Druskat, V. U. , & Wolff, S. B. (2001). Building the emotional intelligence of groups. Harvard Business Review , 79 , 81–90.
• Elsbach, K. D. (2003). Relating physical environment to self-categorizations: Identity threat and affirmation in a non-territorial office space. Administrative Science Quarterly , 48 , 622–654.
• Erickson, R. J. , & Wharton, A. S. (1997). Inauthenticity and depression: Assessing the consequences of interactive service work. Work and Occupations , 24 , 188–213.
• Feather, N. T. , & Boeckmann, R. J. (2007). Beliefs about gender discrimination in the workplace in the context of affirmative action: Effects of gender and ambivalent attitudes in an Australian sample. Sex Roles , 57 , 31–42.
• Fernet, C. , Gagne, M. , & Austin, S. (2010). When does quality of relationships with coworkers predict burnout over time? The moderating role of work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 31 , 1163–1180.
• Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effective ness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Fritz, C. , Sonnentag, S. , Spector, P. E. , & McInroe, J. (2010). The weekend matters: Relationships between stress recovery and affective experiences. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 31 , 1137–1162.
• Galunic, D. C. , & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1994). Renewing the strategy-structure-performance paradigm. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 16, pp. 215–255). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Gallagher, E. C. , Mazur, A. K. , & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2015). Rallying the troops or beating the horses? How project-related demands can lead to either high performance or abusive supervision. Project Management Journal , 46 (3), 10–24.
• Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal , 31 , 9–41.
• Gibbs, P. C. , & Cooper, C. L. (2010). Fostering a positive organizational culture and climate in an economic downturn. In N. M. Ashkanasy , C. P. M. Wilderom , & M. F. Peterson , The handbook of organizational culture and climate (2d ed., pp. 119–137). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Graen, G. B. , & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Development of LMX theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level, multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly , 6 , 219–247.
• Grandey, A. (2003). When the show must go on: Surface and deep acting as predictors of emotional exhaustion and service delivery. Academy of Management Journal , 46 , 86–96.
• Groth, M. , Hennig-Thurau, T. , & Walsh, G. (2009). Customer reactions to emotional labor: The roles of employee acting strategies and customer detection accuracy. Academy of Management Journal , 52 , 958–974.
• Hannah, S. T. , & Avolio, B. J. (2010). Ready or not: How do we accelerate the developmental readiness of leaders? Journal of Organizational Behavior , 31 , 1181–1187.
• Hatfield, E. , Cacioppo, J. T. , & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Emotional contagion: Current directions. Psychological Science , 2 , 96–99.
• Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man . Cleveland, OH: World Publishing.
• Hidi, S. , & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research , 70 , 151–179.
• Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist , 44 , 513–524.
• Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling . Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Holland, J. (1973). Making vocational choices: Q theory of careers . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Janis, I. L. , & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment . New York: Free Press.
• James, L. R. , Demaree, R. G. , Mulaik, S. A. , & Ladd, R. T. (1992). Validity generalization in the context of situational models. Journal of Applied Psychology , 77 , 3–14.
• Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly , 42 , 538–566.
• Johnson, E. C. , Kristof-Brown, A. L , van Vianen, A. E. M. , de Pater, I. E. , & Klein, M. R. (2003). Expatriate social ties: Personality antecedents and consequences for adjustment. International Journal of Selection and Assessment , 11 , 277–288.
• Judge, T. A. , Bono, J. E. , Erez, A. , & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology , 90 , 257–268.
• Judge, T. A. , Higgins, C. A. , Thoresen, C. J. , & Barrick, M. R. (2006). The Big Five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology , 52 , 621–652.
• Judge, T. A. , Ilies, R. , & Scott, B. A. (2006). Work-family conflict and emotions: Effects at work and home. Personnel Psychology , 59 , 779–814.
• Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal , 33 , 692–724.
• Kavanagh, M. H. , & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2006). The impact of leadership and change management strategy on organizational culture and individual acceptance of change during a merger. British Journal of Management , 17 , S81–S103.
• Kilduff, M. , Chiaburu, D. S. , & Menges, J. I. (2010). Strategic use of emotional intelligence in organizational settings: Exploring the dark side. Research in Organizational Behavior , 30 , 129–152.
• Konopaske, R. , & Ivancevich, J. M. (2004). Global management and organizational behavior: Text, readings, cases, and exercises . New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Latham, G. P. , & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology , 56 , 485–516.
• Lawler, E. E. , & Hall, D. T. (1970). Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied psychology , 54 , 305–312.
• Leiponen, A. , & Helfat, C. E. (2011). Location, decentralization, and knowledge sources for innovation. Organization Science , 22 , 641–658.
• Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance, organizational commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of Change Management , 4 (3), 193–215.
• Locke, E. A. , & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Luthans, F. , & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron , J. E. Dutton , & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 241–261). San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler.
• Luthans, F. , & Youssef, C. M. (2004). Human, social, and now positive psychological capital management. Organizational Dynamics , 33 , 143–160.
• Martinko, M. J. (1995). The nature and function of attribution theory within the organizational sciences. In. M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Advances in attribution theory: An organizational perspective (pp. 7–14). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.
• Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review , 50 , 370–396.
• Mayer, J. D. , & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3–31). New York: Basic Books.
• Mayes, B. T. , & Allen, R. W. (1977). Toward a definition of organizational politics. Academy of Management Journal , 2 , 635–644.
• McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise . New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Mintzberg, H. (1985). The organization as a political arena. Journal of Management Studies , 22 , 133–154.
• Mitchell, T. R. (1982). Motivation: New directions for theory, research, and practice. Academy of Management Review , 7 , 80–88.
• Moscovici, S. , & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 12 , 125–135.
• Murnighan, J. K. , & Conlon, D. E. (1991). The dynamics of intense workgroups: A study of British string quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly , 36 , 165–186.
• Myers, D. G. , & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin , 83 , 602–627.
• Ozcelik, H. (2013). An empirical analysis of surface acting in intra-organizational relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 34 , 291–309.
• Ostroff, C. , & Atwater, L. E. (2003). Does whom you work with matter? Effects of referent group and age composition on managers’ compensation. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 , 725–740.
• Parker, S. K. , Wall, T. D. , & Jackson, P. R. (1997). “That's not my job”: Developing flexible employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal , 40 , 899–929.
• Pelled, L. H. (1995). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory. Organization Science , 7 , 615–631.
• Pfeffer, J. , & Leblebici, H. (1973). Executive recruitment and the development of interfirm organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly , 18 , 449–461.
• Pfeffer, J. , & Salancik, G. R. (1973). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective . Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Porter, L. W. , & Lawler, E. E. (1965). Properties of organization structure in relation to job attitudes and job behavior. Psychological Bulletin , 64 , 23–51.
• Rashotte, L. S. (2002). What does that smile mean? The meaning of nonverbal behaviors in social interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly , 65 , 92–102.
• Raven, B. H. (1993). The bases of power: Origins and recent developments. Journal of Social Issues , 49 , 227–251.
• Richer, S. , Blanchard, C. , & Vallerand, R. J. (2002). A motivational model of work turnover. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 32 , 2089–2113.
• Rhoades, J. A. , Arnold, J. , & Jay, C. (2001). The role of affective traits and affective states in disputants’ motivation and behavior during episodes of organizational conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 22 , 329–345.
• Robbins, S. P. , Judge, T. A. , Millett, B. , & Boyle, M. (2014). Organisational behaviour (7th ed.). French’s Forest, NSW, Australia: Pearson Education.
• Ryan, A. M. , Horvath, M. , Ployhart, R. E. , Schmitt, N. , & Slade, L. A. (2000). Hypothesizing differential item functioning in global employee opinion surveys. Personnel Psychology , 53 , 531–562.
• Scott, W. G. , & Mitchell, T. R. (1976). Organization theory: A structural and behavioral analysis . Homewood, IL: Irwin.
• Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative science quarterly , 28 , 339–358.
• Smith-Crowe, K. , Burke, M. J. , & Landis, R. S. (2003). Organizational climate as a moderator of safety knowledge-safety performance relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 24 , 861–876.
• Staw, B. M. (1981). The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Academy of Management Review , 6 , 577–587.
• Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal , 43 , 178–190.
• Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette , & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2d ed., Vol. 3, pp. 652–717). Mountain View, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
• Tjosvold, D. (1997). Networking by professionals to manage change: Dentists’ cooperation and competition to develop their business. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 18 , 745–752.
• Tse, H. M. M. , Troth, A. M. , & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2015). Leader-member exchange and emotion in organizations. In B. Erdogan & T. N. Bauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of leader-member exchange (pp. 209–225). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin , 63 , 384–399.
• Umphress, E. E. , Simmons, A. L. , Folger, R. , Ren, R. , & Bobocel, R. (2013). Observer reactions to interpersonal injustice: The roles of perpetrator intent and victim perception. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 34 , 327–349.
• Van Erde, W. , & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom’s Expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 81 , 576–588.
• Van Knippenberg, D. , & Van Schie, E. L. S. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 73 , 137–147.
• Vigoda, E. (2000). Organizational politics, job attitudes, and work outcomes: Exploration and implications for the public sector. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 57 , 326–347.
• Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation . New York: Wiley.
• Wall, J. , & Callister, R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management , 21 , 515–558.
• Wallach, M. A. , Kogan, N. , & Bem D. J. (1964). Diffusion of responsibility and level of risk taking in groups. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology , 68 , 263–274.
• Watson, D. (1988). The vicissitudes of mood measurement: Effects of varying descriptors, time frames, and response formats on measures of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 55 , 128–141.
• Watson, D. , & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin , 98 , 219–235.
• Watson, D. , & Walker, L. M. (1996). The long-term stability and predictive validity of trait measures of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70 , 567–577.
• Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review , 12 , 173–194.
• Weiss, H. M. , & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). Westport, CT: JAI Press.
• West, M. (1996). Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: A conceptual integration. In M. A. West (Ed.), The handbook of work group psychology (pp. 555–579). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
• Wilkin, C. L. (2012). I can’t get no job satisfaction: Meta-analysis comparing permanent and contingent workers. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 34 , 47–64.
• Yukl, G. , & Tracey, J. B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology , 77 , 525–535.

Related Articles

• Organizational Sensemaking
• Human Resource Management and Organizational Psychology
• Overqualification in the Workplace
• Communication and Intergroup Relations
• Justice in Teams
• Training from an Organizational Psychology Perspective
• Dual Process Models of Persuasion

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Psychology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 18 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|195.158.225.230]
• 195.158.225.230

Character limit 500 /500

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

5.3 Changing Attitudes by Changing Behavior

Learning objectives.

• Outline the principles of self-perception and explain how they can account for the influences of behavior on attitude.
• Outline the principles of cognitive dissonance and explain how they can account for the influences of behavior on attitude.

Although it might not have surprised you to hear that we can often predict people’s behaviors if we know their thoughts and their feelings about the attitude object, you might be more surprised to find that our actions also have an influence on our thoughts and feelings. It makes sense that if I like Cheerios, I’ll buy them, because my thoughts and feelings about a product influence my behavior. But will my attitudes toward Frosted Flakes become more positive if I decide—for whatever reason—to buy them instead of Cheerios?

It turns out that if we engage in a behavior, and particularly one that we had not expected that we would have, our thoughts and feelings toward that behavior are likely to change. This might not seem intuitive, but it represents another example of how the principles of social psychology—in this case the principle of attitude consistency—lead us to make predictions that wouldn’t otherwise be that obvious.

Imagine that one Tuesday evening in the middle of the semester you see your friend Joachim. He’s just finished his dinner and tells you that he’s planning to head home to study and work on a term paper. When you see him the next day, however, he seems a bit shaken. It turns out that instead of going home to study, Joachim spent the entire evening listening to music at a rock club in town. He says that he had a great time, stayed up late to watch the last set, and didn’t get home until the crack of dawn. And he woke up so late this morning that he missed his first two classes.

You might imagine that Joachim might be feeling some uncertainty and perhaps some regret about his unexpected behavior the night before. Although he knows that it is important to study and to get to his classes on time, he nevertheless realizes that, at least in this case, he neglected his schoolwork in favor of another activity. Joachim seems to be wondering why he, who knows how important school is, engaged in this behavior after he promised himself that he was going home to study. Let’s see if we can use the principles of attitude consistency to help us understand how Joachim might respond to his unexpected behavior and how his attitudes toward listening to music and studying might follow from it.

Self-Perception Involves Inferring Our Beliefs From Our Behaviors

People have an avid interest in understanding the causes of behavior, both theirs and others, and doing so helps us meet the important goals of other-concern and self-concern. If we can better understand how and why the other people around us act the way they do, then we will have a better chance of avoiding harm from others and a better chance of getting those other people to cooperate with and like us. And if we have a better idea of understanding the causes of our own behavior, we can better work to keep that behavior in line with our preferred plans and goals.

In some cases people may be somewhat unsure about their attitudes toward different attitude objects. For instance, perhaps Joachim is a bit unsure about his attitude toward schoolwork versus listening to music (and this uncertainty certainly seems to be increasing in light of his recent behavior). Might Joachim look at his own behavior to help him determine his thoughts and feelings, just as he might look at the behavior of others to understand why they act the way that they do? Self-perception occurs when we use our own behavior as a guide to help us determine our own thoughts and feelings (Bem, 1972; Olson & Stone, 2005).

Research Focus

Looking at Our Own Behavior to Determine Our Attitudes

Eliot Aronson and J. Merrill Carlsmith (1963) conducted an experiment to determine whether young children might look at their own behavior to help determine their attitudes toward toys. In their research, they first had the children rate the attractiveness of several toys. They then chose a toy that a child had just indicated he or she really wanted to play with and—this was rather mean—told that child he or she could not play with that toy. Furthermore, and according to random assignment to conditions, half of the children were threatened with mild punishment if they disobeyed and the other half were threatened with severe punishment. In the mild threat condition the experimenter said, “I don’t want you to play with the toy. If you played with it, I would be annoyed,” whereas in the harsh threat condition the experimenter said, “I don’t want you to play with the toy. If you played with it, I would be very angry. I would have to take all of my toys and go home and never come back again.” The experimenter then left the room for a few minutes to give the children the time and opportunity to play with the other toys and to resist the temptation of playing with the forbidden toy, while watching the children through a one-way mirror.

It turned out that both the harsh and the mild threat were sufficient to prevent the children from playing with the forbidden toy—none of the children actually did so. Nevertheless, when the experimenter returned to the room and asked each child to again rate how much he or she liked the forbidden toy, the children who had received the harsh threat rated the toy significantly more positively than the children who had received the mild threat. Furthermore, the children who had only received the mild threat actually rated the forbidden toy less positively than they had at the beginning of the experiment. And this change was long lasting. Even when tested several weeks later, children still showed these changes (Freedman, 1965).

The results of this study indicate that the children’s self-perceptions of their behaviors influenced their attitudes toward the toys. Assume for a moment that the children were a bit unsure about how much they liked the toy that they did not play with and that they needed some information to determine their beliefs. The children in the harsh threat condition had a strong external reason for not having played with the toy—they were going to get into really big trouble if they did. Because these children likely saw the social situation as the cause of their behavior, they found it easy to believe that they still liked the toy a lot. For the children in the mild threat condition, however, the external reasons for their behavior were not so apparent—they had only been asked not to play with the toy. These children were more likely to come to the conclusion that their behavior was caused by internal, person factors—that they did not play with the toy simply because they did not like it that much.

We can use the principles of self-perception to help understand how Joachim is interpreting his behavior of staying out all night at the club rather than studying. When Joachim looks at this behavior, he may start to wonder why he engaged in it. One answer is that the social situation caused the behavior—he might decide that the band he heard last night was so fantastic that he simply had to go hear them and could not possibly have left the club early. Blaming the situation for the behavior allows him to avoid blaming himself for it and to avoid facing the fact that he found listening to music more important than his schoolwork. But the fact that Joachim is a bit worried about his unusual behavior suggests that he, at least in part, might be starting to wonder about his own motivations.

Perhaps you have experienced the effects of self-perception. Have you ever found yourself becoming more convinced about an argument you were making as you heard yourself making it? Or did you ever realize how thirsty you must have been as you quickly drank a big glass of water? Research has shown that self-perception occurs regularly and in many different domains. For instance, Gary Wells and Richard Petty (1980) found that people who were asked to shake their heads up and down rather than sideways while reading arguments favoring or opposing tuition increases at their school ended up agreeing with the arguments more, and Daryl Bem (1965) found that when people were told by the experimenter to say that certain cartoons were funny, they ended up actually finding those cartoons funnier. It appears in these cases that people looked at their own behavior: If they moved their head up and down or said that the cartoons were funny, they figured that they must agree with the arguments and like the cartoon.

Creating Insufficient and Oversufficient Justification

You may recall that one common finding in social psychology is that people frequently do not realize the extent to which behavior is influenced by the social situation. Although this is particularly true for the behavior of others, in some cases it may apply to understanding our own behavior as well. This means that, at least in some cases, we may believe that we have chosen to engage in a behavior for personal reasons, even though external, situational factors have actually led us to it. Consider again the children who did not play with the forbidden toy in the Aronson and Carlsmith study, even though they were given only a mild reason for not doing so. Although these children were actually led to avoid the toy by the power of the situation (they certainly would have played with it if the experimenter hadn’t told them not to), they frequently concluded that the decision was a personal choice and ended up believing that the toy was not that fun after all. When the social situation actually causes our behavior, but we do not realize that the social situation was the cause , we call the phenomenon insufficient justification . Insufficient justification occurs when the threat or reward is actually sufficient to get the person to engage in or to avoid a behavior, but the threat or reward is insufficient to allow the person to conclude that the situation caused the behavior.

Although insufficient justification leads people to like something less because they (incorrectly) infer that they did not engage in a behavior due to internal reasons, it is also possible that the opposite may occur. People may in some cases come to like a task less when they perceive that they did engage in it for external reasons. Overjustification occurs when we view our behavior as caused by the situation, leading us to discount the extent to which our behavior was actually caused by our own interest in it (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Lepper & Greene, 1978).

Mark Lepper and his colleagues (Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973) studied the overjustification phenomenon by leading some children to think that they engaged in an activity for a reward rather than because they simply enjoyed it. First, they placed some fun felt-tipped markers into the classroom of the children they were studying. The children loved the markers and played with them right away. Then, the markers were taken out of the classroom and the children were given a chance to play with the markers individually at an experimental session with the researcher. At the research session, the children were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups. One group of children (the expected reward condition ) was told that if they played with the markers they would receive a good drawing award. A second group (the unexpected reward condition ) also played with the markers and got the award—but they were not told ahead of time that they would be receiving the award (it came as a surprise after the session). The third group (the no reward condition ) played with the markers too but got no award.

Then, the researchers placed the markers back in the classroom and observed how much the children in each of the three groups played with them. The results are shown in Figure 5.5 “Undermining Initial Interest in an Activity” . The fascinating result was that the children who had been led to expect a reward for playing with the markers during the experimental session played with the markers less at the second session than they had at the first session. Expecting to receive the award at the session had undermined their initial interest in the markers.

Figure 5.5 Undermining Initial Interest in an Activity

Children who had been expecting to receive a reward when they played with the fun markers played less with them in their free play period than did children who received no reward or an unexpected reward—their initial interest had been undermined by the expected reward. Data are from Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett (1973).

Although this might not seem logical at first, it is exactly what is expected on the basis of the principle of overjustification. When the children had to choose whether or not to play with the markers when the markers reappeared in the classroom, they based their decision on their own prior behavior. The children in the no reward condition group and the children in the unexpected reward condition group realized that they played with the markers because they liked them. Children in the expected award condition group, however, remembered that they were promised a reward for the activity before they played with the markers the last time. These children were more likely to draw the inference that they play with the markers mostly for the external reward, and because they did not expect to get any reward for playing with the markers in the classroom they discounted the possibility that they enjoyed playing the markers because they liked them. As a result, they played less frequently with the markers in comparison to the children in the other groups.

This research suggests that, although giving rewards may in many cases lead us to perform an activity more frequently or with more effort, reward may not always increase our liking for the activity. In some cases reward may actually make us like an activity less than we did before we were rewarded for it. And this outcome is particularly likely when the reward is perceived as an obvious attempt on the part of others to get us to do something. When children are given money by their parents to get good grades in school, they may improve their school performance to gain the reward. But at the same time their liking for school may decrease. On the other hand, rewards that are seen as more internal to the activity, such as rewards that praise us, remind us of our achievements in the domain, and make us feel good about ourselves as a result of our accomplishments, are more likely to be effective in increasing not only the performance of, but also the liking of, the activity (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Hulleman, Durik, Schweigert, & Harackiewicz, 2008).

In short, when we use harsh punishments we may prevent a behavior from occurring. However, because the person sees that it is the punishment that is controlling the behavior, the person’s attitudes may not change. Parents who wish to encourage their children to share their toys or to practice the piano therefore would be wise to provide “just enough” external incentive. Perhaps a consistent reminder of the appropriateness of the activity would be enough to engage the activity, making a stronger reprimand or other punishment unnecessary. Similarly, when we use extremely positive rewards, we may increase the behavior but at the same time undermine the person’s interest in the activity.

The problem, of course, is finding the right balance between reinforcement and overreinforcement. If we want our child to avoid playing in the street, and if we provide harsh punishment for disobeying, we may prevent the behavior but not change the attitude. The child may not play in the street while we are watching but do so when we leave. Providing less punishment is more likely to lead the child to actually change his or her beliefs about the appropriateness of the behavior, but the punishment must be enough to prevent the undesired behavior in the first place. The moral is clear: If we want someone to develop a strong attitude, we should use the smallest reward or punishment that is effective in producing the desired behavior.

The Experience of Cognitive Dissonance Can Create Attitude Change

Let’s return once more to our friend Joachim and imagine that we now discover that over the next two weeks he has spent virtually every night at clubs listening to music rather than studying. And these behaviors are starting to have some severe consequences: He just found out that he’s failed his biology midterm. How will he ever explain that to his parents? What were at first relatively small discrepancies between self-concept and behavior are starting to snowball, and they are starting to have more affective consequences. Joachim is realizing that he’s in big trouble—the inconsistencies between his prior attitudes about the importance of schoolwork and his behavior are creating some significant threats to his positive self-esteem. The discomfort that occurs when we behave in ways that we see as inappropriate, such as when we fail to live up to our own expectations , is called cognitive dissonance (Cooper, 2007; Festinger, 1957; Harmon-Jones & Mills, 1999). The discomfort of cognitive dissonance is experienced as pain, showing up in a part of the brain that is particularly sensitive to pain—the anterior cingulate cortex (van Veen, Krug, Schooler, & Carter, 2009).

Leon Festinger and J. Merrill Carlsmith (1959) conducted an important study designed to demonstrate the extent to which behaviors that are discrepant from our initial beliefs can create cognitive dissonance and can influence attitudes. College students participated in an experiment in which they were asked to work on a task that was incredibly boring and lasted for a full hour. After they had finished the task, the experimenter explained that the assistant who normally helped convince people to participate in the study was unavailable and that he could use some help persuading the next person that the task was going to be interesting and enjoyable. The experimenter explained that it would be much more convincing if a fellow student rather than the experimenter delivered this message and asked the participant if he would be willing do to it. Thus with his request the experimenter induced the participants to lie about the task to another student, and all the participants agreed to do so.

The experimental manipulation involved the amount of money the students were paid to tell the lie. Half of the students were offered a large payment ($20) for telling the lie, whereas the other half were offered only a small payment ($1) for telling the lie. After the participants had told the lie, an interviewer asked each of them how much they had enjoyed the task they had performed earlier in the experiment. As you can see in Figure 5.6 “Festinger and Carlsmith” , Festinger and Carlsmith found that the students who had been paid $20 for saying the tasks had been enjoyable rated the task as very boring, which indeed it was. In contrast, the students who were paid only $1 for telling the lie changed their attitude toward the task and rated it as significantly more interesting.

Festinger explained the results of this study in terms of consistency and inconsistency among cognitions. He hypothesized that some thoughts might be dissonant , in the sense that they made us feel uncomfortable, while other thoughts were more consonant , in the sense that they made us feel good. He argued that people may feel an uncomfortable state (which he called cognitive dissonance ) when they have many dissonant thoughts—for instance, between the idea that (a) they are smart and decent people and (b) they nevertheless told a lie to another student for only a small payment.

Festinger argued that the people in his experiment who had been induced to lie for only $1 experienced more cognitive dissonance than the people who were paid $20 because the latter people had a strong external justification for having done it whereas the former did not. The people in the $1 condition, Festinger argued, needed to convince themselves that that the task was actually interesting to reduce the dissonance they were experiencing.

Figure 5.6 Festinger and Carlsmith

Participants who had engaged in a boring task and then told another student it was interesting experienced cognitive dissonance, leading them to rate the task more positively in comparison to those who were paid $20 to do the same. Data are from Festinger and Carlsmith (1959).

Although originally considered in terms of the inconsistency among different cognitions, Festinger’s theory has also been applied to the negative feelings that we experience when there is inconsistency between our attitudes and our behavior, and particularly when the behavior threatens our perceptions of ourselves as good people (Aronson, 1969). Thus Joachim is likely feeling cognitive dissonance because he has acted against his better judgment and these behaviors are having some real consequences for him. The dissonant thoughts involve (a) his perception of himself as a hardworking student, compared to (b) his recent behaviors that do not support that idea. Our expectation is that Joachim will not enjoy these negative feelings and will attempt to get rid of them.

We Reduce Dissonance by Decreasing Dissonant or by Increasing Consonant Cognitions

Because Joachim’s perception of himself as a hardworking student is now in jeopardy, he is feeling cognitive dissonance and will naturally try to reduce these negative emotions. He can do so in a number of ways. One possibility is that Joachim could simply change his behavior by starting to study more and go out less. If he is successful in doing this, his dissonance will clearly be reduced and he can again feel good about himself. But it seems that he has not been very successful in this regard—over the past weeks he has continually put off studying for listening to music. A second option is to attempt to reduce his dissonant cognitions—those that threaten his self-esteem. Perhaps he might try to convince himself that he has only failed one test and that he didn’t expect to do very well in biology anyway. If he can make the negative behaviors seem less important, dissonance will be reduced.

One of Festinger’s most powerful insights into social psychology was that, even if Joachim cannot change his behavior and even if he knows that what he’s doing has negative consequences, he still has a third option: He can create new consonant cognitions to counteract the dissonant cognitions. For instance, Joachim might try to convince himself that he is going to become an important record producer some day and that it is therefore essential that he attend many concerts. When Joachim takes this route he changes his beliefs to be more in line with his behavior, and the outcome is that he has now restored attitude consistency. His behaviors no longer seem as discrepant from his attitudes as they were before, and when consistency is restored, dissonance is reduced. What the principles of cognitive dissonance suggest, then, is that we may frequently spend more energy convincing ourselves that we are good people than we do thinking of ourselves accurately. Of course we do this because viewing ourselves negatively is painful.

Cognitive Dissonance in Everyday Life

Cognitive dissonance is an important social psychological principle that can explain how attitudes follow behavior in many domains of our everyday life. For instance, people who try but fail to quit smoking cigarettes naturally suffer lowered self-esteem (Gibbons, Eggleston, & Benthin, 1997). But rather than accepting this negative feeling, they frequently attempt to engage in behaviors that reduce dissonance. They may try to convince themselves that smoking is not that bad: “My grandmother smoked but lived to be 93 years old!” “I’m going to quit next year!” Or they may try to add new consonant cognitions: “Smoking is fun; it relaxes me.” You can see that these processes, although making us feel better about ourselves at least in the short run, may nevertheless have some long-term negative outcomes.

Elliot Aronson and Judson Mills (1959) studied whether the cognitive dissonance created by an initiation process could explain how much commitment students felt to a group they were part of. In their experiment, female college students volunteered to join a group that would be meeting regularly to discuss various aspects of the psychology of sex. According to random assignment, some of the women were told that they would be required to perform an embarrassing procedure (they were asked to read some obscene words and some sexually oriented passages from a novel in public) before they could join the group, whereas other women did not have to go through this initiation. Then all the women got a chance to listen to the group’s conversation, which turned out to be very boring.

Aronson and Mills found that the women who had gone through the embarrassing experience subsequently reported more liking for the group than those who had not, and Gerard and Matthewson (1966) found that having to take some electrical shocks as part of an initiation process had the same effect. Aronson and Mills argued that the more effort an individual expends to become a member of the group (for instance, a severe initiation), the more he will become committed to the group in order to justify the effort he has put in during the initiation. The idea is that the effort creates dissonant cognitions (“I did all this work to join the group”), which are then justified by creating more consonant ones (“OK, this group is really pretty fun”). The women who spent little effort to get into the group were able to see the group as the dull and boring conversation that it was. The women who went through the more severe initiation, however, succeeded in convincing themselves that the same discussion was a worthwhile experience. When we put in effort for something—an initiation, a big purchase price, or even some of our precious time—we will likely end up liking the activity more than we would have if the effort had been less. Even the effort of having to fill out a purchase agreement for a product, rather than having the salesperson do it for you, creates commitment to the purchase and a greater likelihood of staying in the deal (Cialdini, 1988).

Another time you may have experienced the negative affective state of cognitive dissonance is after you have made an important and irrevocable decision. Imagine that you are about to buy a new car and you have narrowed your search to a small new car and a larger (but much cheaper) used car. The problem is that you can see advantages and disadvantages to each. For instance, the smaller car would get better gas mileage, but the larger car—because it is used—is cheaper. Imagine, however, that you finally decide to buy the larger car because you feel that you really don’t have enough money for the new car.

That night, you’re lying in bed and wondering about your decision. Although you’ve enjoyed driving the big car that you have just purchased, you’re worried about rising gas costs, the negative impact of the big car on the environment, and the possibility that the car might need a lot of repairs. Have you made the right decision? This “buyer’s remorse” can be interpreted in terms of postdecisional dissonance — the feeling of regret that may occur after we make an important decision (Brehm, 1956). However, the principles of dissonance predict that once you make the decision— and regardless of which car you choose —you will convince yourself that you made the right choice. I would predict that since you have chosen the larger car you will begin to think more about the positive aspects of the choice that you have made (what you are going to be able to do with the money you saved, rather than how much more it is going to cost to fill up the gas tank) and at the same time you will likely downplay the values of the smaller car.

Jack Brehm (1956) posed as a representative of a consumer testing service and asked women to rate the attractiveness and desirability of several kinds of appliances, such as toasters and electric coffee makers. Each woman was told that as a reward for having participated in the survey, she could have one of the appliances as a gift. She was given a choice between two of the products she had rated as being about equally attractive. After she made her decision, her appliance was wrapped up and given to her. Then, 20 minutes later, each woman was asked to rerate all the products. As you can see in Figure 5.7 “Postdecisional Dissonance” , Brehm found that the women rated the appliance that they had chosen and been given as a gift higher than they had the first time. And the women also lowered their rating of the appliance they might have chosen but decided to reject. These results are of course consistent with the principles of cognitive dissonance—post-decisional dissonance is reduced by focusing on the positive aspects of the chosen product and the negative aspects of the rejected product.

Figure 5.7 Postdecisional Dissonance

As predicted by the desire to reduce postdecisional dissonance, participants increased the perceived desirability of a product they had chosen and decreased the perceived desirability of a product they did not choose. Data are from Brehm (1956).

What research on cognitive dissonance suggests, then, is that people who are experiencing dissonance will generally try to reduce it. If we fail to lose the weight we wanted to lose, we decide that we look good anyway. If we cheat on an exam, we decide that cheating is OK. If we hurt someone else’s feelings, we may even decide that they are bad people who deserve our negative behavior. To escape from feeling poorly about ourselves, people will engage in quite extraordinary rationalizing. No wonder that most of us believe that “If I had it all to do over again, I would not change anything important.”

Of course, the tendency to justify our past behavior has positive outcomes for our affect. If we are able to convince ourselves that we can do no wrong, we will be happier—at least for today. But the desire to create positive self-esteem can lead to a succession of self-justifications that ultimately result in a chain of irrational actions. The irony is that to avoid thinking of ourselves as bad or immoral, we may set ourselves up for more immoral acts. Once Joachim has convinced himself that his schoolwork is not important, it may be hard to pick it up again. Once a smoker has decided it is OK to smoke, she may just keep smoking. If we spend too much time thinking positively about ourselves we will not learn from our mistakes, nor grow or change. In order to learn from our behavior, it would be helpful to learn to tolerate dissonance long enough to examine the situation critically and dispassionately. We then stand a chance of breaking out of the cycle of action followed by justification, followed by more action.

There is still another potential negative outcome of dissonance: When we have to make choices we may feel that we have made poor ones. Barry Schwartz (2004) has argued that having too many choices can create dissonance and thus the opportunity for regret. When we go to the store and have to pick only one out of 30 different types of chocolates, we have more opportunities for postdecisional dissonance. Although it seems like being allowed to choose would be a good thing, people report being happier when they are given a free gift than when they are given a choice between two similar gifts and have to reject one of them (Hsee & Hastie, 2006).

Positive Self-Esteem Reduces Dissonance

We have seen that the experience of cognitive dissonance can influence our thoughts and feelings about an attitude object by making us feel uncomfortable about our own behaviors. The discrepant behavior causes our sense of self-worth to be lowered, which then causes us to change our attitudes to feel better about ourselves.

discrepant behavior ⟶ lowered self-worth ⟶ changes in thoughts and feelings

Imagine that immediately after you did something dishonest, but before you had a chance to try to reduce the dissonance you were experiencing, you were able to remind yourself of the fact that you had recently done something else very positive—perhaps you had recently spent some time volunteering at a homeless shelter or gotten a really high score on an important exam. Would the possibility of boosting your self-esteem in this other, but unrelated, domain make it unnecessary for you to engage in dissonance reduction? Could you not say, “Well, it’s true that I cheated, but I’m really a fine, intelligent, and generous person.” Research has demonstrated that this is the case. If we can affirm our self-worth, even on dimensions that are not related to the source of the original dissonance, the negative feelings we experience are reduced and so is the tendency to justify our attitudes (Steele, 1988).

Just as finding ways to affirm our self-esteem should reduce cognitive dissonance, threats to our self-esteem should increase it. Because cognitive dissonance poses a threat to one’s self-esteem, people who are more motivated by self-concern should show bigger changes in their thoughts and feelings after they engage in a discrepant behavior than should those who are less motivated by self-concern.

Following the research of Brehm, Steve Heine and Darren Lehman (1997) conducted an experiment to determine if threats to self-esteem would increase the magnitude of the dissonance-reduction effect, and if dissonance reduction would also occur for Japanese students as they had previously been found in students from Western samples. They expected that there would be less need for dissonance reduction in the Japanese than in Western students because the Japanese (and other Easterners) were less motivated overall to maintain a positive self-image.

In their study, 71 Canadian and 71 Japanese participants were first asked to take a personality test. According to random assignment to conditions, one third of the sample in each country were led to believe that they had scored much higher on the test than did the other participants and thus that they had “positive” personalities (the positive feedback condition). Another third of the sample (the negative feedback condition) were led to believe that they had scored more poorly on the test than average, and a final third (the control condition ) were not given any feedback on their personality test scores.

Then all participants rated the desirability of 10 compact discs (the discs were known to be popular in both Canada and Japan) and were asked to choose between their fifth and sixth rated CDs as compensation for their participation. Finally, after choosing one of the CDs, the participants were asked to again rate their liking for the CDs. The change in the ratings from before choice to after choice, which would have occurred if the participants increased their liking of the CD they had chosen or decreased their liking of the CD they had rejected, was the dependent measure in the study.

As you can see in Figure 5.8 “Spread of Alternatives by Culture and Feedback Condition” , the researchers found a significant interaction between culture and personality feedback. The pattern of means showed that the feedback mattered for the Canadian participants—the difference in the ratings of the chosen versus the rejected CD (the “spread of alternatives”) increased from the positive to the control to the negative feedback conditions. However, there was no significant simple effect of feedback for the Japanese students, nor did they show a significant spread of alternatives in any feedback condition.

Figure 5.8 Spread of Alternatives by Culture and Feedback Condition

The Canadian participants showed a greater spread of alternatives when their self-esteem was threatened, but Japanese participants did not. Data are from Heine and Lehman (1997).

However, other researchers have found that individuals from collectivist cultures do show dissonance effects when they are focused on their relationships with others. For instance, Kitayama, Snibbe, Markus, and Suzuki (2004) found that East Asian participants experienced dissonance particularly when they were asked to think about a close friend who had made a dissonance-creating decision. Such a result would be expected because behaviors that involve more other-oriented, collectivistic outcomes should be more important for these people. Indeed, research has found that advertisements that are framed in terms of personal benefits (“Use this breath mint!”) are more persuasive in individualistic cultures, whereas ads that emphasize family or ingroup benefits (“Share this breath mint with your friends!”) are more persuasive in collectivistic cultures (Han & Shavitt, 1994).

Although dissonance is most likely when our behavior violates our positive self-concept, attitude change can occur whenever our thoughts and behaviors are inconsistent, even if the self-concept is not involved. For instance, Harmon-Jones and his colleagues (Harmon-Jones, Brehm, Greenberg, Simon, & Nelson, 1996) had people drink an unpleasant-tasting beverage (Kool-Aid made with vinegar instead of sugar) and then write down on a small slip of paper, which they then immediately crumpled up and threw away, a statement saying that they really liked the drink. Harmon-Jones and his colleagues found that even though the lie could not possibly harm anyone, the act of lying nevertheless made the participants express more positive attitudes toward the drink. It appears that even lying to oneself about something relatively unimportant can produce dissonance and change attitudes (Prislin & Pool, 1996; Stone, 1999).

Salespeople make use of psychological principles, including self-perception and cognitive dissonance, to encourage people to buy their products, often in ways that seem less than completely open and ethical. Informed consumers are aware of such techniques, including the foot-in-the-door technique , the low-ball technique , and the bait-and-switch technique . Let’s consider in the next section how these strategies might work.

Social Psychology in the Public Interest

How Salespeople Use Principles of Persuasion

The research that we have discussed in this chapter suggests some of the many ways that we can persuade people to buy our products, to vote for our candidates, and to engage in other behaviors that we would like them to engage in. We have seen that we will be more successful if we use the right communicators and if we present the right messages under the right conditions. But it must also be kept in mind that a full understanding of the techniques used by persuaders may also be useful to help us avoid being persuaded by others.

Salespeople sometimes make use of the Behavior ⟶ Attitude relationship to attempt to persuade others. Regardless of whether the change is due to the cognitive principles of self-perception or the more affective principles of dissonance reduction, the attitude change that follows behavior can be strong and long lasting. This fact creates some very interesting opportunities for changing attitudes.

One approach based on this idea is to get people to move slowly in the desired direction, such that they commit to a smaller act first. The idea is that it will be relatively easy to get people to engage in a small behavior after which their perceptions of this initial behavior will change their attitudes, making it more likely for them to engage in a more costly behavior later. The foot-in-the-door technique refers to a persuasion attempt in which we first get the target to accept a rather minor request, and then we ask for a larger request . Freedman and Fraser (1966) asked homeowners if they would be willing to place a small sticker in the window of their house that said “Be a safe driver.” Many of the homeowners agreed to this small request. Then several weeks later, the researchers came back and asked these same homeowners to put a big, ugly “DRIVE CAREFULLY” sign on their lawns. Almost 80% of the homeowners who had agreed to put the sticker in their window later agreed to put the sign up, in comparison to only about 20% who agreed when they were asked about the sign without having been asked about the sticker first. In a more recent study, Nicolas Guéguen (2002) found that students in a computer discussion group were more likely to volunteer to complete a 40-question survey on their food habits (which required 15 to 20 minutes of their time) if they had already, a few minutes earlier, agreed to help the same requestor with a simple computer-related question (about how to convert a file type) than if they had not first been given the smaller opportunity to help.

You can see that the foot-in-the-door technique is a classic case of self-perception and commitment—once people label themselves as the kind of person who conforms to the requests of others in the relevant domain (“I volunteer to help safe driving campaigns,” “I help people in my discussion group”), it is easier to get them to conform later. Similarly, imagine a restaurant owner who has problems with people who make table reservations but then don’t call to cancel when they can’t come at the appointed time. The restaurant owner could try to reduce the problem by first getting a small commitment. Instead of having the people who take the reservations say, “Please call if you change your plans,” they could instead ask, “Will you call us if you change your plans?” and then wait for the person to say yes. The act of saying yes to a simple request creates commitment to the behavior, and not following through on the promise would be likely to create cognitive dissonance. Since people don’t want to feel that they have violated their commitment, this should reduce the no-show rate.

Another approach based on the attitudes-follow-behavior idea, and which can be used by unscrupulous salespeople, is known as the low-ball technique . In this case the salesperson promises the customer something desirable, such as a low price on a car, with the intention of getting the person to imagine themselves engaging in the desired behavior (in this case, purchasing the car). After the customer has committed to purchasing the car at a low price, the salesperson then indicates that he or she cannot actually sell the car at that price. In this case people are more likely to buy the car at the higher price than they would have been if the car had first been offered at the higher price. Backing out on a commitment seems wrong and may threaten self-esteem, even if the commitment was obtained in an unethical way.

In research testing the low-ball effect, Guéguen, Pascual, and Dagot (2002) asked people to watch a dog for them while they visited someone in the hospital. Some participants were told that they would need to watch the dog for 30 minutes. Other participants were first asked simply to commit to watching the dog, and then only later informed that they would have to watch it for 30 minutes. The latter group had been low-balled, and they complied more often with the request.

A close alternative to low-balling is known as the bait-and-switch technique , which occurs when someone advertises a product at a very low price. When you visit to the store to buy the product, however, you learn that the product you wanted at the low price has been sold out . An example is a car dealership that advertises a low-priced car in a newspaper ad but doesn’t have that car available when you visit the dealership to purchase it. Again, people are more likely to buy an alternative higher-priced product after they have committed themselves to the purchase than they would have been without the original information. Once you imagine yourself owning the car, your attitude toward the car becomes more positive, making the idea of giving it up more costly and also making it more likely that you will buy it.

Key Takeaways

• As predicted by the principle of attitude consistency, if we engage in an unexpected or unusual behavior, our thoughts and feelings toward that behavior are likely to change.
• Self-perception occurs when we use our own behavior as a guide to help us determine our thoughts and feelings.
• Self-perception can lead to either insufficient justification—the perception that there was not enough external threat to avoid engaging in a behavior—or overjustification—the perception that our behavior was caused primarily by external factors.
• Principles of self-perception suggest that to create true attitude change we should avoid using too much punishment or too much reward.
• Cognitive dissonance refers to the discomfort that occurs when we behave in ways that we see as inappropriate, such as when we fail to live up to our own expectations
• Dissonance is reduced by changing behavior, by reducing dissonant cognitions, or by creating new consonant cognitions to counteract the dissonant cognitions.
• Dissonance is observed in many everyday experiences, including initiation and the experience of postdecisional dissonance.
• Engaging in dissonance reduction has many positive outcomes for our affect but may lead to harmful self-justifications and irrational actions.
• Because dissonance involves self-concern, it is stronger when we do not feel very positively about ourselves and may be stronger in Western than in Eastern cultures.
• Marketers use the principles of dissonance in their attempts at persuasion. Examples are the foot-in-the-door technique, low-balling, and the bait-and-switch technique.

Exercises and Critical Thinking

• Describe a time when your attitudes changed on the basis of your observation of your behaviors.
• Describe a time when you behaved in a way that was inconsistent with your self-concept and which led you to experience cognitive dissonance. How did you reduce the dissonance?
• Benjamin Franklin once asked one of his rivals in Congress to lend him a scarce and valuable book. The opponent accepted the request, and Franklin found, as he had predicted, that the opponent began to like him more after doing it. Explain this “Benjamin Franklin effect” in terms of self-perception and cognitive dissonance.
• Did you ever buy a product or engage in an activity as the result of the foot-in-the-door technique, low-balling, or the bait-and-switch technique? If so, describe your experience.

Aronson, E. (1969). The theory of cognitive dissonance: A current perspective. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1–34). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1963). Effect of the severity of threat on the devaluation of forbidden behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66 (6), 584–588.

Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59 , 171–181.

Bem, D. J. (1965). An experimental analysis of self-persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1 (3), 199–218.

Brehm, J. W. (1956). Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52 (3), 384–389.

Cialdini, R. (1988). Influence: Science and practice . Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

Cooper, J. M. (2007). Cognitive dissonance: 50 years of a classical theory . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Self-determination research: Reflections and future directions. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 431–441). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125 (6), 627–668.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance . Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58 , 203–210.

Freedman, J. L. (1965). Long-term behavioral effects of cognitive dissonance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1 (2), 145–155.

Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 (2), 195–202.

Gerard, H. B., & Matthewson, G. C. (1966). The effects of severity of initiation on liking for a group: A replication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2 , 278–287.

Gibbons, F. X., Eggleston, T. J., & Benthin, A. C. (1997). Cognitive reactions to smoking relapse: The reciprocal relation between dissonance and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 (1), 184–195.

Guéguen, N. (2002). Foot-in-the-door technique and computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 18 (1), 11–15. doi: 10.1016/s0747-5632(01)00033-4.

Guéguen, N., Pascual, A., & Dagot, L. (2002). Low-ball and compliance to a request: An application in a field setting. Psychological Reports, 91 (1), 81–84. doi: 10.2466/pr0.91.5.81-84.

Han, S., & Shavitt, S. (1994). Persuasion and culture: Advertising appeals in individualistic and collectivistic societies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30 (4), 326–350.

Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (1999). Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Harmon-Jones, E., Brehm, J. W., Greenberg, J., Simon, L., & Nelson, D. E. (1996). Evidence that the production of aversive consequences is not necessary to create cognitive dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (1), 5–16.

Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1997). Culture, dissonance, and self-affirmation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23 , 389-400. doi:10.1177/0146167297234005.

Hsee, C. K., & Hastie, R. (2006). Decision and experience: Why don’t we choose what makes us happy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10 (1), 31–37.

Hulleman, C. S., Durik, A. M., Schweigert, S. B., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2008). Task values, achievement goals, and interest: An integrative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (2), 398–416. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.398.

Kitayama, S., Snibbe, A. C., Markus, H. R., & Suzuki, T. (2004). Is there any “free” choice?: Self and dissonance in two cultures. Psychological Science, 15 (8), 527–535.

Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D. (1978). The hidden costs of reward: New perspectives on the psychology of human motivation . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the “overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28 , 129–137.

Olson, J. M., & Stone, J. (2005). The influence of behavior on attitudes. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 223–271). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Prislin, R., & Pool, G. J. (1996). Behavior, consequences, and the self: Is all well that ends well? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22 (9), 933–948.

Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less . New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21 , 261–302.

Stone, J. (Ed.). (1999). What exactly have I done? The role of self-attribute accessibility in dissonance . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

van Veen, V., Krug, M. K., Schooler, J. W., & Carter, C. S. (2009). Neural activity predicts attitude change in cognitive dissonance. Nature Neuroscience, 12 (11), 1469–1474.

Wells, G. L., & Petty, R. E. (1980). The effects of overt head movements on persuasion: Compatibility and incompatibility of responses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1 (3), 219–230.

Principles of Social Psychology Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Is Behaviorism?

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Classical Conditioning

Operant conditioning, frequently asked questions.

Behaviorism is a theory of learning based on the idea that all behaviors are acquired through conditioning, and conditioning occurs through interaction with the environment . Behaviorists believe that our actions are shaped by environmental stimuli.

In simple terms, according to this school of thought, also known as behavioral psychology, behavior can be studied in a systematic and observable manner regardless of internal mental states. Behavioral theory also says that only observable behavior should be studied, as cognition , emotions , and mood are far too subjective.

Strict behaviorists believe that any person—regardless of genetic background, personality traits , and internal thoughts— can be trained to perform any task, within the limits of their physical capabilities. It only requires the right conditioning.

Verywell / Jiaqi Zhou

History of Behaviorism

Behaviorism was formally established with the 1913 publication of John B. Watson 's classic paper, "Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It." It is best summed up by the following quote from Watson, who is often considered the father of behaviorism:

"Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors."

Simply put, strict behaviorists believe that all behaviors are the result of experience. Any person, regardless of their background, can be trained to act in a particular manner given the right conditioning.

From about 1920 through the mid-1950s, behaviorism became the dominant school of thought in psychology . Some suggest that the popularity of behavioral psychology grew out of the desire to establish psychology as an objective and measurable science.

During that time, researchers were interested in creating theories that could be clearly described and empirically measured, but also used to make contributions that might have an influence on the fabric of everyday human lives.

Types of Behaviorism

There are two main types of behaviorism used to describe how behavior is formed.

Methodological Behaviorism

Methodological behaviorism states that observable behavior should be studied scientifically and that mental states and cognitive processes don't add to the understanding of behavior. Methodological behaviorism aligns with Watson's ideologies and approach.

Radical Behaviorism

Radical behaviorism is rooted in the theory that behavior can be understood by looking at one's past and present environment and the reinforcements within it, thereby influencing behavior either positively or negatively. This behavioral approach was created by the psychologist B.F. Skinner .

Classical conditioning is a technique frequently used in behavioral training in which a neutral stimulus is paired with a naturally occurring stimulus. Eventually, the neutral stimulus comes to evoke the same response as the naturally occurring stimulus, even without the naturally occurring stimulus presenting itself.

Throughout the course of three distinct phases of classical conditioning, the associated stimulus becomes known as the conditioned stimulus and the learned behavior is known as the conditioned response .

Learning Through Association

The classical conditioning process works by developing an association between an environmental stimulus and a naturally occurring stimulus.

In physiologist Ivan Pavlov 's classic experiments, dogs associated the presentation of food (something that naturally and automatically triggers a salivation response) at first with the sound of a bell, then with the sight of a lab assistant's white coat. Eventually, the lab coat alone elicited a salivation response from the dogs.

Factors That Impact Conditioning

During the first part of the classical conditioning process, known as acquisition , a response is established and strengthened. Factors such as the prominence of the stimuli and the timing of the presentation can play an important role in how quickly an association is formed.

When an association disappears, this is known as extinction . It causes the behavior to weaken gradually or vanish. Factors such as the strength of the original response can play a role in how quickly extinction occurs. The longer a response has been conditioned, for example, the longer it may take for it to become extinct.

Operant conditioning, sometimes referred to as instrumental conditioning, is a method of learning that occurs through reinforcement and punishment . Through operant conditioning, an association is made between a behavior and a consequence for that behavior.

This behavioral approach says that when a desirable result follows an action, the behavior becomes more likely to happen again in the future. Conversely, responses followed by adverse outcomes become less likely to reoccur.

Consequences Affect Learning

Behaviorist B.F. Skinner described operant conditioning as the process in which learning can occur through reinforcement and punishment. More specifically: By forming an association between a certain behavior and the consequences of that behavior, you learn.

For example, if a parent rewards their child with praise every time they pick up their toys, the desired behavior is consistently reinforced and the child will become more likely to clean up messes.

Timing Plays a Role

The process of operant conditioning seems fairly straightforward—simply observe a behavior, then offer a reward or punishment. However, Skinner discovered that the timing of these rewards and punishments has an important influence on how quickly a new behavior is acquired and the strength of the corresponding response.

This makes reinforcement schedules important in operant conditioning. These can involve either continuous or partial reinforcement.

• Continuous reinforcement involves rewarding every single instance of a behavior. It is often used at the beginning of the operant conditioning process. Then, as the behavior is learned, the schedule might switch to one of partial reinforcement.
• Partial reinforcement involves offering a reward after a number of responses or after a period of time has elapsed. Sometimes, partial reinforcement occurs on a consistent or fixed schedule. In other instances, a variable and unpredictable number of responses or amount of time must occur before the reinforcement is delivered.

Uses for Behaviorism

The behaviorist perspective has a few different uses, including some related to education and mental health.

Behaviorism can be used to help students learn, such as by influencing lesson design. For instance, some teachers use consistent encouragement to help students learn (operant conditioning) while others focus more on creating a stimulating environment to increase engagement (classical conditioning).

One of the greatest strengths of behavioral psychology is the ability to clearly observe and measure behaviors. Because behaviorism is based on observable behaviors, it is often easier to quantify and collect data when conducting research.

Mental Health

Behavioral therapy was born from behaviorism and originally used in the treatment of autism and schizophrenia. This type of therapy involves helping people change problematic thoughts and behaviors, thereby improving mental health.

Effective therapeutic techniques such as intensive behavioral intervention, behavior analysis, token economies, and discrete trial training are all rooted in behaviorism. These approaches are often very useful in changing maladaptive or harmful behaviors in both children and adults.

Impact of Behaviorism

Several thinkers influenced behavioral psychology. Among these are Edward Thorndike , a pioneering psychologist who described the law of effect, and Clark Hull , who proposed the drive theory of learning.

There are a number of therapeutic techniques rooted in behavioral psychology. Though behavioral psychology assumed more of a background position after 1950, its principles still remain important.

Even today, behavior analysis is often used as a therapeutic technique to help children with autism and developmental delays acquire new skills. It frequently involves processes such as shaping (rewarding closer approximations to the desired behavior) and chaining (breaking a task down into smaller parts, then teaching and chaining the subsequent steps together).

Other behavioral therapy techniques include aversion therapy , systematic desensitization , token economies, behavior modeling , and contingency management.

Criticisms of Behaviorism

Many critics argue that behaviorism is a one-dimensional approach to understanding human behavior. They suggest that behavioral theories do not account for free will or internal influences such as moods, thoughts, and feelings.

Freud, for example, felt that behaviorism failed by not accounting for the unconscious mind's thoughts, feelings, and desires, which influence people's actions. Other thinkers, such as Carl Rogers and other humanistic psychologists , believed that behaviorism was too rigid and limited, failing to take into consideration personal agency.

More recently, biological psychology has emphasized the role the brain and genetics play in determining and influencing human actions. The cognitive approach to psychology focuses on mental processes such as thinking, decision-making, language, and problem-solving. In both cases, behaviorism neglects these processes and influences in favor of studying only observable behaviors.

Behavioral psychology also does not account for other types of learning that occur without the use of reinforcement and punishment. Moreover, people and animals can adapt their behavior when new information is introduced, even if that behavior was established through reinforcement.

A Word From Verywell

While the behavioral approach might not be the dominant force that it once was, it has still had a major impact on our understanding of human psychology . The conditioning process alone has been used to understand many different types of behaviors, ranging from how people learn to how language develops.

But perhaps the greatest contributions of behavioral psychology lie in its practical applications. Its techniques can play a powerful role in modifying problematic behavior and encouraging more positive, helpful responses. Outside of psychology, parents, teachers, animal trainers, and many others make use of basic behavioral principles to help teach new behaviors and discourage unwanted ones.

John B. Watson is known as the founder of behaviorism. Though others had similar ideas in the early 1900s, when behavioral theory began, some suggest that Watson is credited as behavioral psychology's founder due to being "an attractive, strong, scientifically accomplished, and forceful speaker and an engaging writer" who was willing to share this behavioral approach when other psychologists were less likely to speak up.

Behaviorism can be used to help elicit positive behaviors or responses in students, such as by using reinforcement. Teachers with a behavioral approach often use "skill and drill" exercises to reinforce correct responses through consistent repetition, for instance.

Other ways reinforcement-based behaviorism can be used in education include praising students for getting the right answer and providing prizes for those who do well. Using tests to measure performance enables teachers to measure observable behaviors and is, therefore, another behavioral approach.

Behaviorism says that behavior is a result of environment, the environment being an external stimulus. Psychoanalysis is the opposite of this, in that it is rooted in the belief that behavior is a result of an internal stimulus. Psychoanalytic theory is based on behaviors being motivated by one's unconscious mind, thus resulting in actions that are consistent with their unknown wishes and desires.

Whereas strict behaviorism has no room for cognitive influences, cognitive behaviorism operates on the assumption that behavior is impacted by thoughts and emotions. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), for instance, attempts to change negative behaviors by changing the destructive thought patterns behind them.

Krapfl JE. Behaviorism and society . Behav Anal. 2016;39(1):123-9. doi:10.1007/s40614-016-0063-8

Abramson CI. Problems of teaching the behaviorist perspective in the cognitive revolution . Behav Sci (Basel). 2013;3(1):55-71. doi:10.3390/bs3010055

Malone JC. Did John B. Watson really "found" behaviorism? . Behav Anal. 2014;37(1):1-12. doi:10.1007/s40614-014-0004-3

Penn State University. Introductory psychology blog (S14)_C .

Moore J. Methodological behaviorism from the standpoint of a radical behaviorist . Behav Anal. 2013;36(2):197-208. doi:10.1007/bf03392306

Rouleau N, Karbowski LM, Persinger MA. Experimental evidence of classical conditioning and microscopic engrams in an electroconductive material . PLoS ONE. 2016;11(10):e0165269. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0165269

Vanelzakker MB, Dahlgren MK, Davis FC, Dubois S, Shin LM. From Pavlov to PTSD: The extinction of conditioned fear in rodents, humans, and anxiety disorders . Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2014;113:3-18. doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2013.11.014

Kehoe EJ. Repeated acquisitions and extinctions in classical conditioning of the rabbit nictitating membrane response . Learn Mem. 2006;13(3):366-75. doi:10.1101/lm.169306

Staddon JE, Cerutti DT. Operant conditioning . Annu Rev Psychol. 2003;54:115-44. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145124

Kaplan D. Behaviorism in online teacher training . Psychol . 2018;9(4):83687. doi:10.4236/psych.2018.94035

Stanford University. Behaviorism .

Smith T. What is evidence-based behavior analysis? . Behav Anal. 2013;36(1):7-33. doi:10.1007/bf03392290

Morris EK, Altus DE, Smith NG. A study in the founding of applied behavior analysis through its publications . Behav Anal . 2013;36(1):73-107. doi:10.1007/bf03392293

Schreibman L, Dawson G, Stahmer AC, et al. Naturalistic developmental behavioral interventions: Empirically validated treatments for autism spectrum disorder . J Autism Dev Disord. 2015;45(8):2411-28. doi:10.1007/s10803-015-2407-8

Bower GH. The evolution of a cognitive psychologist: a journey from simple behaviors to complex mental acts. Annu Rev Psychol . 2008;59:1-27. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093722

University of California Berkeley. Behaviorism .

American Psychoanalytic Association. About psychoanalysis .

Mills JA. Control: A History of Behavioral Psychology . New York University Press.

Skinner BF. About Behaviorism . Alfred A. Knopf.

Watson JB. Behaviorism . Transaction Publishers.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Social Psychology

Group Behavior

Learning objectives.

• Illustrate when the presence of others is likely to result in groupthink, social facilitation, or social loafing

When in group settings, we are often influenced by the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors around us. Whether it is due to normative or informational social influence, groups have power to influence individuals. Another phenomenon of group conformity is groupthink. Groupthink is the modification of the opinions of members of a group to align with what they believe is the group consensus (Janis, 1972). In group situations, the group often takes action that individuals would not perform outside the group setting because groups make more extreme decisions than individuals do. Moreover, groupthink can hinder opposing trains of thought. This elimination of diverse opinions contributes to faulty decision by the group.

Dig Deeper: Groupthink in the U.S. Government

There have been several instances of groupthink in the U.S. government. One example occurred when the United States led a small coalition of nations to invade Iraq in March 2003. This invasion occurred because a small group of advisors and former President George W. Bush were convinced that Iraq represented a significant terrorism threat with a large stockpile of weapons of mass destruction at its disposal. Although some of these individuals may have had some doubts about the credibility of the information available to them at the time, in the end, the group arrived at a consensus that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and represented a significant threat to national security. It later came to light that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, but not until the invasion was well underway. As a result, 6000 American soldiers were killed and many more civilians died. How did the Bush administration arrive at their conclusions? Here is a video of Colin Powell discussing the information he had, 16 years after his famous United Nations speech, in which he spoke about how Iraq most certainly had materials to create weapons of mass destruction (“Colin Powell Says UN Presentation on Iraq ‘Fell on Me’,” 2017). Do you see evidence of groupthink?

Why does groupthink occur? There are several causes of groupthink, which makes it preventable. When the group is highly cohesive, or has a strong sense of connection, maintaining group harmony may become more important to the group than making sound decisions. If the group leader is directive and makes his opinions known, this may discourage group members from disagreeing with the leader. If the group is isolated from hearing alternative or new viewpoints, groupthink may be more likely. How do you know when groupthink is occurring?

There are several symptoms of groupthink including the following:

• perceiving the group as invulnerable or invincible—believing it can do no wrong
• believing the group is morally correct
• self-censorship by group members, such as withholding information to avoid disrupting the group consensus
• the quashing of dissenting group members’ opinions
• the shielding of the group leader from dissenting views
• perceiving an illusion of unanimity among group members
• holding stereotypes or negative attitudes toward the out-group or others’ with differing viewpoints (Janis, 1972)

Given the causes and symptoms of groupthink, how can it be avoided? There are several strategies that can improve group decision making including seeking outside opinions, voting in private, having the leader withhold position statements until all group members have voiced their views, conducting research on all viewpoints, weighing the costs and benefits of all options, and developing a contingency plan (Janis, 1972; Mitchell & Eckstein, 2009).

Group Polarization

Another phenomenon that occurs within group settings is group polarization. Group polarization (Teger & Pruitt, 1967) is the strengthening of an original group attitude after the discussion of views within a group. That is, if a group initially favors a viewpoint, after discussion the group consensus is likely a stronger endorsement of the viewpoint. Conversely, if the group was initially opposed to a viewpoint, group discussion would likely lead to stronger opposition. Group polarization explains many actions taken by groups that would not be undertaken by individuals. Group polarization can be observed at political conventions, when platforms of the party are supported by individuals who, when not in a group, would decline to support them. A more everyday example is a group’s discussion of how attractive someone is. Does your opinion change if you find someone attractive, but your friends do not agree? If your friends vociferously agree, might you then find this person even more attractive?

Social Facilitation

Not all intergroup interactions lead to the negative outcomes we have described. Sometimes being in a group situation can improve performance. Social facilitation occurs when an individual performs better when an audience is watching than when the individual performs the behavior alone. This typically occurs when people are performing a task for which they are skilled. Can you think of an example in which having an audience could improve performance? One common example is sports. Skilled basketball players will be more likely to make a free throw basket when surrounded by a cheering audience than when playing alone in the gym (Figure 1). However, there are instances when even skilled athletes can have difficulty under pressure. For example, if an athlete is less skilled or nervous about making a free throw, having an audience may actually hinder rather than help. In sum, social facilitation is likely to occur for easy tasks, or tasks at which we are skilled, but worse performance may occur when performing in front of others, depending on the task.

Social Loafing

Another way in which a group presence can affect our performance is social loafing. Social loafing is the exertion of less effort by a person working together with a group. Social loafing occurs when our individual performance cannot be evaluated separately from the group. Thus, group performance declines on easy tasks (Karau & Williams, 1993). Essentially individual group members loaf and let other group members pick up the slack. Because each individual’s efforts cannot be evaluated, individuals become less motivated to perform well. For example, consider a group of people cooperating to clean litter from the roadside. Some people will exert a great amount of effort, while others will exert little effort. Yet the entire job gets done, and it may not be obvious who worked hard and who didn’t.

As a college student you may have experienced social loafing while working on a group project. Have you ever had to contribute more than your fair share because your fellow group members weren’t putting in the work? This may happen when a professor assigns a group grade instead of individual grades. If the professor doesn’t know how much effort each student contributed to a project, some students may be inclined to let more conscientious students do more of the work. The chance of social loafing in student work groups increases as the size of the group increases (Shepperd & Taylor, 1999).

Interestingly, the opposite of social loafing occurs when the task is complex and difficult (Bond & Titus, 1983; Geen, 1989). Remember the previous discussion of choking under pressure? This happens when you perform a difficult task and your individual performance can be evaluated. In a group setting, such as the student work group, if your individual performance cannot be evaluated, there is less pressure for you to do well, and thus less anxiety or physiological arousal (Latané, Williams, & Harkens, 1979). This puts you in a relaxed state in which you can perform your best, if you choose (Zajonc, 1965). If the task is a difficult one, many people feel motivated and believe that their group needs their input to do well on a challenging project (Jackson & Williams, 1985). Given what you learned about social loafing, what advice would you give a new professor about how to design group projects? If you suggested that individuals’ efforts should not be evaluated, to prevent the anxiety of choking under pressure, but that the task must be challenging, you have a good understanding of the concepts discussed in this section. Alternatively, you can suggest that individuals’ efforts should be evaluated, but the task should be easy so as to facilitate performance. Good luck trying to convince your professor to only assign easy projects!

The table below summarizes the types of social influence you have learned about in this module.

You can view the transcript for “Social Influence: Crash Course Psychology #38” here (opens in new window) .

CC licensed content, Shared previously

• Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience. Authored by : OpenStax College. Located at : https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/12-4-conformity-compliance-and-obedience . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
• Social Influence: Crash Course Psychology #38. Provided by : CrashCourse. Located at : https://youtu.be/UGxGDdQnC1Y?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtOPRKzVLY0jJY-uHOH9KVU6 . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License

group members modify their opinions to match what they believe is the group consensus

strengthening of the original group attitude after discussing views within the group

improved performance when an audience is watching versus when the individual performs the behavior alone

exertion of less effort by a person working in a group because individual performance cannot be evaluated separately from the group, thus causing performance decline on easy tasks

General Psychology Copyright © by OpenStax and Lumen Learning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

What Is Behavior Change in Psychology? 5 Models and Theories

Can the answer to this question help us change our less desirable behaviors?

Changing less desirable behaviors can help individuals, communities, and our environment.

However, behaviors can be highly ingrained and become habits we perform automatically without thinking. This poses a significant challenge to changing these behaviors.

To design effective interventions with which to change behavior, it is useful to understand the theories and models of behavior change.

This article will cover the leading theories and models, as well as an interesting study and some simple techniques to help your clients change their behavior.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Goal Achievement Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients create actionable goals and master techniques to create lasting behavior change.

This Article Contains:

What is behavioral change 14 examples, 2 psychology theories about changing behavior, 3 scientific models and frameworks explained, behavior change research: a fascinating study, why is behavioral change difficult, how to elicit behavior change: 4 techniques, helpful resources from positivepsychology.com, a take-home message.

Behavioral change is about altering habits and behaviors for the long term. The majority of research around health-related behaviors (Davis, Campbell, Hildon, Hobbs, & Michie, 2015) indicates that small changes can lead to enormous improvements in people’s health and life expectancy. These changes can have knock-on effects on the health of others (Swann et al., 2010).

Examples include:

• Smoking cessation
• Reducing alcohol intake
• Eating healthily
• Exercising regularly
• Practicing safe sex
• Driving safely

Other behaviors that are the target of change interventions are those affecting the environment, for example:

• Leaving lights on
• Not recycling

Some behavior changes may be related to improving wellbeing, such as

• Reducing procrastination
• Incorporating regular self-care activities
• Being more assertive at work
• Going to bed earlier
• Practicing mindfulness

These are just a few examples of behavior changes that many have tried at some time in their lives. Some changes may be easy, but others prove quite challenging.

In a literature review by Davis et al. (2015), researchers identified 82 theories of behavior change applicable to individuals. We will discuss the most frequently occurring theories and models in this article.

The theory of planned behavior/reasoned action

Fishbein and Ajzen developed the theory of reasoned action in the 1970s. This theory posits that behaviors occur because of intention, and intention is influenced by personal attitude and the perceived social norm (Madden, Ellen, & Ajzen, 1992).

This means that the more positive a person’s attitude toward changing their behavior and the more others are doing the desired behavior or supporting the behavior change, the stronger the person’s intention to change their behavior will be and the more likely they are to successfully change it.

In the 1980s, Ajzen extended this model to incorporate perceived behavioral control as an influencer of intention and sometimes as a direct influence on behavior (Madden et al., 1992).

Perceived behavioral control is a person’s confidence in their capability to perform the behavior and whether they believe they can overcome barriers and challenges. This extended model is known as the theory of planned behavior  and accounts for more variation in behavior change than the theory of reasoned action (Madden et al., 1992).

The theories of planned behavior/reasoned action

The image above, adapted from Madden et al. (1992), shows the theory of reasoned action in gray and the addition of perceived behavioral control in brown to create the theory of planned behavior.

Here is a useful YouTube explanation of the theory of planned behavior.

Social cognitive theory

The social cognitive theory, proposed by Bandura in 1986, is an expansion of his earlier social learning theory, in which he states that many behaviors are learned by observing others in our social environment (Bandura, 1999).

For us to adopt a behavior, we have to pay attention to the behavior being modeled, remember it, and reproduce it. We may be rewarded for this, which reinforces the behavior, or punished, which reduces the likelihood we will do it again. However, Bandura acknowledged that there is more to adopting a behavior than this.

He expanded his theory to include personal factors of the individual: cognitive, affective, and biological. This includes an individual’s personal resources and abilities, their perceived self-efficacy (capability of performing the behavior), their expectations of the costs and benefits of changing their behavior, and the perceived barriers and opportunities that may help or hinder them.

Bandura emphasizes that we are the agents of our own development and change, and our perceived self-efficacy and outcome expectations play an important role in determining our actions . Our social surroundings can aid or inhibit our goals by providing opportunities or imposing restrictions, which in turn can affect our perceived self-efficacy and outcome expectations for next time (Bandura, 1999).

A model of this theory is shown below, highlighting a bidirectional relationship between an individual’s personal factors, the environment, and their behavior, with each factor influencing the others.

Social cognitive theory model

YouTube has this good summary video on Bandura’s social cognitive theory.

Theories can be used to build models and frameworks that have more practical applications and can be used to develop interventions. Three frequently occurring models are explained below.

Transtheoretical model

Otherwise known as the stages of change , this is the most frequently occurring model in the literature. The transtheoretical model was developed by Prochaska and DiClemente in the late ’70s and suggests six stages of behavior change (Prochaska, 1979; Prochaska & DiClemente, 1982).

Identifying the stage an individual is in helps health professionals, coaches, and therapists provide targeted interventions for that stage.

The six stages of change are:

• Precontemplation The individual is not intending to change their behavior. They may be uninformed about the consequences of their behavior or lack confidence in their ability to change, sometimes because of previous failed attempts.
• Contemplation The individual is intending to change their behavior within the next six months. They can see the benefits of making a change but are also very aware of the disadvantages and challenges, which can keep them stuck in this stage.
• Preparation The individual is planning to change their behavior within the next month. They have usually taken some steps already, such as joining a support group, buying a self-help book, finding a coach etc., and have some form of plan in place.
• Action The individual has made significant changes to their behavior within the last six months, which has led to a different outcome in their health and/or wellbeing.
• Maintenance The individual continues to change their behavior enough to prevent relapse but is not putting as much time and effort into this as in the action stage.NOTE: Relapse can occur at any stage up to and including this one, going back to any of the earlier stages in the model. People most frequently return to contemplation or preparation for another attempt at changing their behavior (Prochaska & Velicer, 1997).
• Termination The individual is no longer tempted to use their old behavior as a coping method and feels confident in their ability to keep this change. Many people will struggle to reach this end state.

The transtheoretical model/stages of change

Here is a short YouTube animation about the transtheoretical model of change.

Information–motivation–behavioral skills model

This model was designed by Fisher and Fisher (1992) after reviewing the literature on changing AIDS-risk behavior. They propose three key factors that influence behavior change:

• Information about the behavior
• Motivation to perform the behavior
• Behavioral skills to perform the behavior

Information includes automatic thoughts about a behavior as well as consciously learned information. Motivation includes both personal motivation , the desire to change behavior for oneself, and social motivation, the desire to change behavior to fit into the social environment.

Information and motivation influence behavioral skills, which include objective skills and perceived self-efficacy. The combination of information, motivation, and behavioral skills influences behavior change (see image below).

As a helping professional, increasing the amount of information your client has, helping them find their motivation, or increasing their objective behavioral skills or perceived self-efficacy could help them change their behavior.

The information–motivation–behavioral skills model (Fisher & Fisher, 1992)

Behavior change wheel & COM-B model

In 2011, Michie, van Stralen, and West pulled together different behavior change frameworks to create a behavior change wheel. The aim of this was to provide guidance for policy makers and those performing behavioral interventions, based on the existing evidence.

The behavior change wheel from Michie et al. (2011)

The hub of this wheel, the most relevant part for us, involves three conditions: capability, opportunity, and motivation.

• Capability includes both physical and psychological ability to perform the behavior, including having the necessary knowledge and skills.
• Opportunity is about the environment around the individual, which either facilitates or inhibits a behavior.
• Motivation is the drive and energy to perform a behavior, including habits, emotions, and thoughts.

These components have been put together to form the COM-B model, where opportunity and capability influence motivation, and all three factors influence behavior. Improving any of these areas could help your client change their behavior.

COM-B model (Michie et al., 2011)

They wanted to see if interventions to promote sustainable behaviors were more likely to induce behavior change in people who had recently moved.

They studied 800 participants, half of whom had moved within the previous six months. The other half lived in the same areas and were matched for home ownership, house size, access to public transport, and recycling facilities, but had not recently moved.

The researchers gave an intervention on sustainable behaviors to half of the movers and half of the non-movers, and compared self-report data on behaviors before and after the intervention.

After accounting for environmental values, past behavior, habit strength, intentions, perceived control, personal norms, and involvement, they found that the intervention had the strongest effect on the self-reported sustainable behaviors of those who had recently moved within the last three months, termed the “window of opportunity.”

Download 3 Free Goals Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients create actionable goals and master techniques for lasting behavior change.

Download 3 Free Goals Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

• Email Address *
• Your Expertise * Your expertise Therapy Coaching Education Counseling Business Healthcare Other
• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The process of change can seem daunting, and many people find it difficult. It is important to remember that change is a process and not a one-off event. It can be difficult to make large changes in one step, but breaking up a large goal into smaller parts takes planning and commitment.

It’s challenging to stay motivated if the reward for behavior change seems far off in the future or is vague; for example, exercising more to reduce risk of heart disease in older age.

If there are no immediate rewards for changing a behavior, or if there are immediate costs, such as nicotine cravings when quitting smoking, this can make it difficult to stay motivated. This is why it is helpful to identify these issues in advance and create plans for when they occur.

As described in the theories and models above, there are many elements at play that determine how successful a behavior change will be. Having the intention does not necessarily translate into the behavior (Gollwitzer, 1999). A meta-analysis by Webb and Sheeran (2006) found that a medium-to-large change in intention leads to a small-to-medium change in behavior, known as the intention–behavior gap.

Factors that help with behavior change include the following (Gollwitzer, 1999):

• Goals should be as specific as possible, not vague.
• The goal should be in the immediate rather than the distant future.
• The reason for a behavior change should be for positive gain rather than the loss of a negative.
• The reason for behavior change should be for learning rather than for performance/achievement.

Change is difficult, and you will probably face setbacks during your progress. Habits are easy and helpful in freeing up resources by making small decisions and non-decisions. Disrupting habits requires removing triggers, inhibiting automated responses, and replacing habituated responses with more adaptable, positive behaviors (Orbell & Verplanken, 2020).

As this quote suggests, genuine change comes from within ourselves when we are willing to change our behavior.

Motivation and resilience are important factors in initiating change, overcoming resistance, and remaining determined. It is helpful to identify the psychological capital available to you to support you along the journey of behavioral change. Several approaches aim to help you change your habits.

Planning and goal setting are proven methods in mental health interventions for behavioral change (Keyworth et al., 2020).

Goal definition, e.g., SMART Goals, can effectively motivate and guide toward goal achievement (Kremer, Moran, & Kearney, 2019).

To achieve goals in the long run, it is important to establish new good habits and undo existing bad habits (Clear, 2018).

One way to adopt new habits can be by changing your environment. If you, for example, want to do more sports to become healthier and fitter, you can prepare before going to bed by arranging your sports clothes or other necessities.

Self-tracking and self-contracts are valuable tools to promote the development of habits. Monitoring your progress helps to centralize goal-relevant activities and keeps resources mobilized to remain committed (Locke & Latham, 2002).

If we want to change something in our lives, we will probably adjust how we behave. Otherwise, we will get more of the same. Nonetheless, we want to stress that you should also be grateful for your prior transformations and proud of current, positive behavior patterns.

Here are some examples:

Implementation intentions

An implementation intention links a particular behavior to a specific situation: “If X happens, then I will do Y.” This means that if a specific situation occurs, the thinking process automatically reminds a person of the particular behavior they intended to apply.

It is a way to create new habits and has been effective in a multitude of situations (Gollwitzer, 1999). An example might be telling yourself, “If I see the lights on in an empty room, I will switch them off.” This means you are more likely to notice this situation and do something about it when it arises.

Motivational interviewing

Motivational interviewing helps individuals gain clarity in their thoughts and motivations for change, and identifies barriers to change so that solutions can be considered. This is known as change talk .

Motivational interviewing is a process of guiding rather than directing, helping a client to identify their strengths and goals, and improving their sense of self-efficacy and autonomy.

This approach is particularly useful in those who are reluctant or ambivalent about changing their behavior and outperforms traditional advice giving in helping clients to change their behavior (Rubak, Sandboek, Lauritzen, & Christensen, 2005).

Get inspired by TED talks

There are many fantastic TED talks on behavior change. Here are two examples.

In this wonderful talk, behavioral neuroscientist Tali Sharot explains why the common method used to promote behavior change – threatening people with the risks of continuing as they are – does not work: “Fear induces inaction, whereas the thrill of a gain induces action.”

She suggests that three key factors are important in changing our behavior:

• Social incentives
• Immediate reward
• Progress monitoring

In this nine-minute talk, American psychiatrist, neuroscientist, and author Judson Brewer suggests that mindfulness can be a useful method in behavior change. He invites us to notice our urge toward a certain behavior, be curious about why we have the urge, and decide whether the behavior is truly rewarding or whether we can let it go.

• Notice the urge.
• Get curious.
• Feel the joy in letting go.

On our site, we have several resources that are invaluable for implementing behavior changes. To help, check out some of the following:

• Abstraction Worksheet This worksheet presents three simple prompts to help clients clearly define and illustrate a desired behavior change and its consequences.
• Motivational Interviewing: Querying Extremes Worksheet This worksheet helps clients systematically explore possible negative consequences of continuing with a current behavior and possible positive consequences of changing their behavior.
• Reward Replacement Worksheet This worksheet helps clients identify the negative consequences of behaviors they use to reward themselves and select different reward behaviors with positive consequences to replace them.
• Motivational Interviewing Worksheets These worksheets present a series of motivational interviewing questions according to the DARN Acronym , which stands for Desires , Ability , Reasons , and Need .

If you’re looking for more science-based ways to help others reach their goals, this collection contains 17 validated motivation & goals-achievement tools for practitioners. Use them to help others turn their dreams into reality by applying the latest science-based behavioral change techniques.

17 Tools To Increase Motivation and Goal Achievement

These 17 Motivation & Goal Achievement Exercises [PDF] contain all you need to help others set meaningful goals, increase self-drive, and experience greater accomplishment and life satisfaction.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

If your aim is to design interventions that are effective in helping clients change their behavior, then understanding the theories and models of behavior change is a useful first step.

Behavior change is more complicated than having the knowledge or even the right intentions to behave a certain way. There are so many factors at play, including an individual’s beliefs about their capabilities and barriers, as well as environmental factors, such as social norms.

We hope that this article gave you the guidance, inspiration, techniques, and resources you need to help your clients implement change. Don’t forget to download our three Goal Achievement Exercises for free .

• Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychology , 2 (1), 21–41.
• Clear, J. (2018). How To Start New Habits That Actually Stick. Retrieved from https://jamesclear.com/three-steps-habit-change.
• Davis, R., Campbell, R., Hildon, Z., Hobbs, L., & Michie, S. (2015). Theories of behaviour and behaviour change across the social and behavioural sciences: A scoping review. Health Psychology Review , 9 (3), 323–344.
• Fisher, J. D., & Fisher, W. A. (1992). Changing AIDS-risk behavior. Psychological Bulletin , 111 (3), 455–474.
• Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist , 54 (7), 493–503.
• Keyworth, C., Epton, T., Goldthorpe, J., Calam, R., & Armitage, C. J. (2020). Delivering opportunistic behavior change interventions: a systematic review of systematic reviews. Prevention Science, 21(3) , 319-331.
• Kremer, J., Moran, A. P., & Kearney, C. J. (2019). Pure sport: Sport psychology in action . Routledge.
• Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9) , 705.
• Madden, T. J., Ellen, P. S., & Ajzen, I. (1992). A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 18 (1), 3–9.
• Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science , 6 , 42.
• Orbell, S., & Verplanken, B. (2020). 13 Changing behavior using habit theory. The handbook of behavior change, 178 .
• Prochaska, J. O. (1979). Systems of psychotherapy: A transtheoretical analysis. Dorsey Press.
• Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1982). Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a more integrative model of change.  Psychotherapy: Theory, research & practice ,  19 (3), 276-288.
• Rubak, S., Sandboek, A., Lauritzen, T., & Christensen, B. (2005). Motivational interviewing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of General Practice , 55 (513), 305–312.
• Swann, C., Carmona, C., Ryan, M., Raynor, M., Baris, E., Dunsdon, S., & Kelly, M. P. (2010). Health systems and health-related behaviour change: A review of primary and secondary evidence. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
• Verplanken, B., & Roy, D. (2016). Empowering interventions to promote sustainable lifestyles: Testing the habit discontinuity hypothesis in a field experiment. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 45 , 127–134.
• Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin , 132 (2), 249–268.

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

Hi Nicole, I am a teacher trainer and wanted to know if these theories will work for teachers, who will be implementing a programme with the goal of building joyful reading habits in primary school children using storybooks.

Absolutely! These theories, such as the Theory of Planned Behavior highlight how understanding intentions, social influences, and self-confidence can help shape positive reading habits. By incorporating these insights into your program, you can create an engaging environment that encourages children to embrace reading joyfully.

Warm regards, Julia | Community Manager

Very detailed and intelligent article

This article is really doing great work. Concerning with my course unit of Behavioural Change, as a Psychology student. A sum of Applaud to the author

Very helpful article, thank you.

TTM was actually developed in the late 70’s by Prochaska and DiClemente, not 1997 or the individual that you sited in this article. I’m currently doing research on that model for a graduate course and came across your article. Here is a site from Boston University with some great details about the model

https://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/mph-modules/sb/behavioralchangetheories/BehavioralChangeTheories_print.html

Hi Darlene,

Whoops! Thanks for picking up this mistake and for the helpful reference.

We’ve corrected this now in the post 🙂

– Nicole | Community Manager

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation

Motivation is vital to beginning and maintaining healthy behavior in the workplace, education, and beyond, and it drives us toward our desired outcomes (Zajda, 2023). [...]

SMART Goals, HARD Goals, PACT, or OKRs: What Works?

Goal setting is vital in business, education, and performance environments such as sports, yet it is also a key component of many coaching and counseling [...]

How to Assess and Improve Readiness for Change

Clients seeking professional help from a counselor or therapist are often aware they need to change yet may not be ready to begin their journey. [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (49)
• Coaching & Application (58)
• Compassion (25)
• Counseling (51)
• Emotional Intelligence (23)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (21)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (20)
• Mindfulness (44)
• Motivation & Goals (45)
• Optimism & Mindset (34)
• Positive CBT (30)
• Positive Communication (20)
• Positive Education (47)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (18)
• Positive Parenting (15)
• Positive Psychology (34)
• Positive Workplace (37)
• Productivity (17)
• Relationships (43)
• Resilience & Coping (37)
• Self Awareness (21)
• Self Esteem (38)
• Strengths & Virtues (32)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (34)
• Theory & Books (46)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (64)

• Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

3 Goal Achievement Exercises Pack

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Social Determinants and Health Behaviors: Conceptual Frames and Empirical Advances

Susan e. short.

a Department of Sociology, Brown University, Box 1916, Providence, RI 02912, USA

Stefanie Mollborn

b Institute of Behavioral Science and Department of Sociology, University of Colorado Boulder, UCB 483, Boulder, CO 80309-0483, USA

Health behaviors shape health and well-being in individuals and populations. Drawing on recent research, we review applications of the widely applied “social determinants” approach to health behaviors. This approach shifts the lens from individual attribution and responsibility to societal organization and the myriad institutions, structures, inequalities, and ideologies undergirding health behaviors. Recent scholarship integrates a social determinants perspective with biosocial approaches to health behavior dynamics. Empirical advances model feedback among social, psychological and biological factors. Health behaviors are increasingly recognized as multidimensional and embedded in health lifestyles, varying over the life course and across place and reflecting dialectic between structure and agency that necessitates situating individuals in context. Advances in measuring and modeling health behaviors promise to enhance representations of this complexity.

Introduction

At any given point, an individual’s health and health behaviors reflect physical endowments in combination with a cumulated set of experiences and circumstances that have unfolded over time, in distinct social and physical contexts. This perspective, a blend of medical sociology, social demography, and social epidemiology, emphasizes the social milieu of health, or what is more commonly known as the social determinants of health . Over the past decade, scientific and policy interest in the social determinants of health has grown markedly, reflecting increasing consensus that overall health and health disparities are shaped significantly by nonmedical factors [ 1 , 2 ]. While these nonmedical factors include individual characteristics, such as education, income, and health beliefs, many others derive from an individual’s social and physical contexts – families, schools, workplaces, neighborhoods, and the larger politicaleconomic organization of society – “upstream” factors that further enable or constrain health[ 3 ]. Other nonmedical factors include the institutional and ideational contexts that shape normative environments and contribute to ideas and identities [ 3 – 5 ].

This emphasis on ‘extra-individual’ social factors is reflected in the recent 2020 Healthy People framework, published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which states:

“health and health behaviors are determined by influences at multiple levels, including personal (i.e., biological, psychological), organizational/institutional, environmental (i.e., both social and physical), and policy levels…Historically, many health fields have focused on individual-level health determinants and interventions.”

Below we review recent research on social determinants with a focus on health behaviors. Health behaviors are conceptually and practically pivotal in research on health. Conceptually, they are recognized as key mediating mechanisms between more distal structural and ideological environments and individual health outcomes. Practically, health behaviors are estimated to account for about 40% of deaths in the U.S. annually [ 7 ]. We organize this review thematically, highlighting selected conceptual frames and empirical advances in sociology and related fields, with emphasis on research published since 2013.

1. Health Behaviors – Definitions and Emerging Concepts

Health behaviors, sometimes called health-related behaviors, are actions taken by individuals that affect health or mortality. These actions may be intentional or unintentional, and can promote or detract from the health of the actor or others. Actions that can be classified as health behaviors are many; examples include smoking, substance use, diet, physical activity, sleep, risky sexual activities, health care seeking behaviors, and adherence to prescribed medical treatments. Health behaviors are frequently discussed as individual-level behaviors, but they can be measured and summarized for individuals, groups, or populations. Health behaviors are dynamic, varying over the lifespan, across cohorts, across settings, and over time. With smoking in the U.S, for example, the likelihood of initiation varies with age. Recent cohorts of adults are less likely to smoke than those in the mid-1900s, smoking prevalence is higher in the south than in the west, and smoking became less common after the Surgeon General’s Report of 1964 [ 8 – 11].

Focused interest in health behaviors, and efforts aimed at changing them, emerged in the midtwentieth century [ 12 ]. Narrowly defined biomedical approaches to health behavior research and interventions have been critiqued in recent years for an overemphasis on individual choice and personal responsibility; this individual focus is reflected in theories built around educating individuals to change health beliefs and actions [ 4 ]. A sociological approach expands the bounds of inquiry by emphasizing the need to examine individual actions in context, recognizing a role for structure as well as agency. Such an approach considers the place of constraints that limit choice, and the role of normative structures that shape the social values attached to activities, identities, and choices. It also engages themes of inequality and power in society.

Conceptual and methodological advances in defining health behaviors emphasize integrative and dynamic measurement. An important theoretical advance in the last decade is the concept of “health lifestyles” [ 4 , 13 ]. Policies targeting health behaviors tend to focus on a single behavior, often finding that these behaviors are resistant to change. A health lifestyle approach instead views behaviors as occurring in sets and influencing each other, developing from deeply rooted identities arising from membership in social groups [ 14 ]. Thus, health lifestyles are enacted at the individual level but are shaped by the meso and macro levels. Understanding the interplay between health behaviors is seen as fundamental for successfully changing those behaviors [ 15 ]. Most of the limited empirical work has focused on adults [ 16 , 17 ], but research and policy is now targeting the early life course as well [ 5 , 18 ]. For example, Mollborn et al . modeled U.S. preschoolers’ predominant health lifestyles and the intergenerational processes that give rise to them, finding that they predicted school readiness in kindergarten [ 5 ].

A significant methodological advance has been the collection of more refined data on health behaviors through intensive longitudinal data collection [ 19 ]. Innovations in technology allow for simultaneous and frequent data collection on social and spatial dimensions of activities in real time, creating enhanced opportunities to learn how individuals practice health behaviors as they unfold in usual social and spatial settings [ 20 – 22 ]. In the Human Mobility Project, Palmer and colleagues tested the feasibility of administering dynamic, location-based surveys by asking participants to download an app and install it on their phones, thereby gathering data on the phone’s positioning as participants moved through their daily routines and completed the surveys [ 23 ]. Others highlight the promise of health behavior interventions that provide frequent consistent reminders, monitoring, and rewards, through wearable devices, including monitors, [ 24 , 25 ], such as a pilot study that suggested that personally tailored text messaging about diabetes self-care to adolescents with type I diabetes was associated with greater glycemic control after three months [ 26 ].

2. A “Social Determinants” Approach to Health Behaviors

The interdisciplinary approach labeled “social determinants” seeks to understand how the social world shapes people’s health. One major pathway is through health behaviors. Health scholars distinguish between “downstream” (individual, in the body) and “upstream” (social structural, macro-level) causes of health behaviors [ 27 ]. Examples of the latter include institutions such as the health care system – which is changing rapidly in the U.S. due to the Affordable Care Act and is a target of ongoing research [ 28 ] – and the labor market – recession-based changes in this institution have spurred recent research on health implications [ 29 – 31 ]. For example, Kalousova and Burgard examined subjective and objective recessionary hardships, finding that they predicted problematic substance use in distinct ways [ 31 ]. Medical and psychological research focuses largely on downstream causes, while political, economic, and sociological research focuses more on the upstream [ 3 ]. The “meso” level between these two extremes is also fundamental for understanding health behaviors [ 32 ]. This level focuses on the proximate settings in which people live their lives – neighborhoods, workplaces, families, and the like – as well as the interpersonal interactions that take place within these settings. For example, examinations of women’s HIV risk in sub-Saharan Africa has traditionally focused on dynamics within sexual relationships, but more recent work recognizes the need to situate these relationships within the larger context of women’s lives, including their kinship, caregiving, and family responsibilities, as it is the family and kinship system in which gender, economic vulnerability and HIV risk are embedded [ 33 ].

Cutting-edge research into social determinants is taking place at the meso level. The importance of place for people’s health is increasingly acknowledged [ 34 ]. For example, the effects of neighborhoods on health behaviors [ 35 – 38 ], a longstanding focus of research, are becoming better understood by modeling neighborhoods dynamically, accounting for selection, and modeling spatial features of neighborhood environments [ 39 , 40 ]. Wodtke measured neighborhood poverty across childhood, finding that long-term exposure was positively associated with the likelihood of becoming a teen parent [ 41 ]. The spread of health behaviors in people’s social networks can now be modeled statistically [ 42 ], and scholars are working to disentangle causality from selection in understanding these processes of social contagion [ 43 – 45 ]. The benefits of social support are being further elaborated, but a nuanced view that also highlights the dark side of social relationships is emerging [ 42 , 43 ]. Examining peer influences on adolescent smoking behavior, Haas and colleagues conducted a dynamic social network analysis that distinguishes between increases and decreases in smoking, and explicitly incorporates endogenous network change, to show that while peer behavior influences smoking initiation, it is less related to smoking cessation [ 42 ].

Important concepts related to social determinants of health, like discrimination and stress, transcend the macro, meso, and micro levels [ 46 ]. For instance, discrimination is encoded in institutional practices, plays out in interaction at conscious and unconscious levels through processes involving bias and stigma [ 47 – 50 ], and affects individuals through health-damaging self-perceptions [ 32 ] and stereotype threat [ 51 ].

Similarly, key demographic factors, like social class, race/ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation, influence health through all of these levels [ 52 – 54 ]. For example, gender is conceptualized not only as an individual level characteristic, but also as embedded in and constitutive of social structure, with implications for health behaviors, and even the expression of biological variation ([ 53 , 55 , 56 ]).Viewing social class as a fundamental cause of health disparities [ 57 ], many researchers illustrate how higher social class enables greater access to knowledge and resources, often yielding health advantages at the institutional, interactional, and individual levels and leading to altered behaviors [ 13 , 58 – 60 ]. The concept of intersectionality [ 61 – 63 ] further complicates this perspective by acknowledging that people experience multiple social statuses simultaneously, and their effects on health behaviors are not simply additive. These nuanced multilevel approaches to understanding health behaviors are increasingly common and may yield multipronged policy strategies [ 52 , 64 ].

3. Biosocial Processes: Situating Individuals in Social and Physical Contexts

As conceptual and empirical attention to social and ecological factors grows, so, too, do efforts to expand understanding of biological factors. These advances intersect in biosocial approaches that include concepts such as embodiment, biological embedding, social genomics, and systems approaches [ 65 – 67 ]. Embodiment is the process of the biological incorporation of societal and ecological context from the physical and social worlds in which we live [ 68 ]. Embedding emphasizes the developmental aspects of embodiment by focusing on timing of environmental exposures, with an emphasis on exposures that occur early in the life course, perhaps coincidental with critical periods of brain or biological development, and with potential to shape life-long outcomes through a variety social and biological mechanisms, some of which span generations [ 65 ]. For example, Bygren reviews possible mechanisms that could contribute to the intergenerational transmission of alcoholism, including changes to sperm that result from paternal alcohol exposure [ 69 ]. Social genomics focuses on identifying the ways social experiences regulate genetic activity [ 67 , 70 ]. Finally, systems approaches emphasize dynamic interplay, or feedback, between and within “environments” and often “biological” processes. Ip and colleagues, for example, inform interventions related to childhood obesity by developing dynamic models that incorporate feedback between health behaviors (food intake, activity levels) and physiology (mood, genetic factors), and include inputs such as poverty and local food environment, by blending agent-based modeling approaches and frequentist statistical approaches [ 71 ]. Focusing on policy, Zhang and colleagues develop agent-based simulations to model processes of dietary decision-making to find polices that emphasize healthy eating norms may be more effective than those regulating food prices or local food outlets [ 72 ].

Conceptually, interaction approaches emphasize that while social environments shape health behaviors, not all individuals respond in the same way to the same environments [ 73 ]. Mitchell and colleagues illustrate this with an analysis of post-partum depression, making the case that some women are genetically more reactive to stress environments. Among women with the polymorphisms associated with reactivity, those in poor environments experience worse outcomes, and those in rich environments experience better outcomes. In contrast, embodiment or social genomics emphasizes how health behaviors, such as smoking or diet, shape genomic activity or other measured biology. Such approaches might, for example, illustrate how smoking or physical activity is associated with telomere length or allostatic load [ 74 , 75 ]. In practice these approaches overlap. Complexity is evident in real world examples. Cultural norms, including gender norms, regarding diet or play can be embodied in bone development or body size, and these physical characteristics can in turn shape health behaviors [ 53 , 76 ]. Institutional and cultural racism, associated conscious or unconscious bias, and discrimination,can be associated with psychosocial stress, health behaviors, and health outcomes [ 77 ] but these relationships will vary across individuals.

Detailing biosocial processes linking social environment and health behaviors is challenging. Example investigations include discrimination and social resistance [ 78 , 79 ], emotions and stress [ 80 , 81 ], and cognitive processes such as decision-making and framing [ 82 ]. Attempts to incorporate feedback processes conceptually and methodologically are growing [ 83 , 84 ], as are efforts to address the challenges of causality [ 85 ]. For example, in an analysis of exercise and alcohol consumption, Wagner and colleagues use the random assignment of roommates in the first year of college to disentangle the selection of peer environments from peer and genetic effects on health behaviors [ 85 ].

4. Elaborating Life Course and Intergenerational Processes

Health behaviors change over an individual’s life course. Some behaviors – like riding in a car seat – are only important early in life, while others – like drinking alcohol – emerge later. Yet people with similar social locations exhibit similar health behaviors throughout life, even though those behaviors change with age [ 86 ]. The key principles of the interdisciplinary life course theoretical perspective [ 87 , 88 ] help explain individuals’ health behaviors over time.

First, human lives are shaped by historical times [ 88 , 89 ]. For example, social acceptance of smoking in the U.S. has varied tremendously from decade to decade, influencing both people’s likelihood of smoking and the degree to which genetic susceptibility to smoking is associated with smoking behavior [ 90 ]. Second, the nature and timing of life events is consequential in a person’s later life course [ 91 ]. Pregnancy is seen as a risky sexual behavior for teens, but not for married adults [ 92 ]. Teen pregnancy is tied to other risky health behaviors in adolescence such as drug use [ 93 ] [ 94 ] and later-life outcomes such as educational attainment [ 95 ]. Third, people’s lives are linked within and across generations. Across generations, parents’ health behaviors shape their children’s health and vice versa [ 96 , 97 ]. Within generations, young people’s behaviors are influenced by those of their friends [ 44 ]. Fourth, people are agentic, making active choices among the options that their structural locations provide [ 4 , 13 ]. Thus, integrating social structural processes with psychological constructs such as planful competence and risk aversion is fundamental for more accurately predicting people’s health behaviors. Overall, the life course perspective emphasizes the dynamic nature of social circumstances and health, which is reflected in emerging research [ 88 , 98 – 101 ]. For example, research on migration emphasizes dynamic processes of “acculturation” after arriving in a new place [ 102 ].

Methodological challenges in this area are abundant. Reverse causality between health behaviors and structural location is a concern, as is selection bias [ 95 ]. Recent work on health behaviors from a life course perspective emphasizes dynamic processes such as developmental timing, cooccurrence, fluctuation, and nonlinear relationships [ 41 , 103 – 107 ]. For instance, Boynton-Jarrett and colleagues found that frequent life disruptions in adolescence across several domains predicted cumulative violence exposure and risky health behaviors [ 103 ]. Modeling theoretical ideas that follow from life course frames is methodologically challenging. Statistical techniques such as multilevel growth curve and trajectory modeling, age-period-cohort models, and latent class analyses are helping empirical tests catch up to theoretical innovations [ 5 , 64 , 95 , 108 – 110 ]. For example, Wang and colleagues modeled six distinct trajectories of engagement in risk behaviors such as delinquency, substance use, and sex, following Bahamian youth from grades 6–9, demonstrating the importance of early social risk factors for high risk trajectories [ 110 ].

Conclusions

Health behaviors are associated with a multitude of health and well-being outcomes at the individual and population levels. Drawing on recent research in sociology and related fields, we draw attention in this review to the application of a “social determinants” approach – now widely applied to health – to the specific topic of health behaviors. Such an approach shifts the lens from individual attribution and responsibility for health behaviors – to societal organization and the myriad institutions, structures, inequalities, and ideologies that undergird observed variation in health behaviors. We emphasize that a social determinants approach is not at odds with the incorporation of biological and psychological processes; rather, it recognizes the interplay between them in complex, dynamic systems, embracing a population approach that situates individuals in context. Life course frames that emphasize interdisciplinarity, history, time, context, and linked lives guide much recent investigation. And notably, through the conceptual refocus around social determinants and societal organization, a growing emphasis on links among health behaviors is emerging, upending the more usual single-disease, or single-health behavior, orientation to research and research specialization.

Future directions in “social determinants” research on health behaviors will be guided by this foundational thinking. The abundance of new data – including but not limited to administrative, geographic, social network, social media, medical, and genomic data – will provide ample opportunity for creative exploration. Our knowledge about health behavior dynamics is context-dependent. Changing societal factors, such as the legalization of marijuana use in some settings, or the implementation of the Affordable Care Act in the U.S., render understanding about individual health behaviors incomplete, as these understandings are contingent on context. The very populations that use marijuana or seek health care will change, as will the dynamics, determinants, and consequences of their health behaviors. Innovative science on the social determinants of health behaviors will continue to elaborate this complexity and expand the frames that guide health behavior research.

• Health behaviors reflect interplay between people and contextual factors.
• “Social determinants” include societal institutions, ideologies, and inequalities.
• Health behaviors contribute to and reflect embodiment and other biosocial processes.
• Recent work engages health lifestyles, agency, and multilevel life course dynamics.
• Empirical advances model feedback among social, psychological and biological factors.

Acknowledgements

We thank Leah Pierson for research assistance. We also acknowledge support from the Population Studies and Training Center at Brown University, which receives core support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development through grants R24HD041020 and T32HD007338, and the Institute of Behavioral Science at the University of Colorado Boulder, which receives core support through grant R24HD066613.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References and Recommended Reading

1.1 What Is Sociology?

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

• Explain concepts central to sociology.
• Describe how different sociological perspectives have developed.

What Are Society and Culture?

Sociology is the scientific and systematic study of groups and group interactions, societies and social interactions, from small and personal groups to very large groups. A group of people who live in a defined geographic area, who interact with one another, and who share a common culture is what sociologists call a society .

Sociologists study all aspects and levels of society. Sociologists working from the micro-level study small groups and individual interactions, while those using macro-level analysis look at trends among and between large groups and societies. For example, a micro-level study might look at the accepted rules of conversation in various groups such as among teenagers or business professionals. In contrast, a macro-level analysis might research the ways that language use has changed over time or in social media outlets.

The term culture refers to the group’s shared practices, values, and beliefs. Culture encompasses a group’s way of life, from routine, everyday interactions to the most important parts of group members’ lives. It includes everything produced by a society, including all the social rules.

Sociologists often study culture using the sociological imagination , which pioneer sociologist C. Wright Mills described as an awareness of the relationship between a person’s behavior and experience and the wider culture that shaped the person’s choices and perceptions. It’s a way of seeing our own and other people’s behavior in relationship to history and social structure (1959). One illustration of this is a person’s decision to marry. In the United States, this choice is heavily influenced by individual feelings. However, the social acceptability of marriage relative to the person’s circumstances also plays a part.

Remember, though, that culture is a product of the people in a society. Sociologists take care not to treat the concept of “culture” as though it were alive and real. The error of treating an abstract concept as though it has a real, material existence is known as reification (Sahn, 2013).

Studying Patterns: How Sociologists View Society

All sociologists are interested in the experiences of individuals and how those experiences are shaped by interactions with social groups and society. To a sociologist, the personal decisions an individual makes do not exist in a vacuum. Cultural patterns , social forces and influences put pressure on people to select one choice over another. Sociologists try to identify these general patterns by examining the behavior of large groups of people living in the same society and experiencing the same societal pressures.

Consider the changes in U.S. families. The “typical” family in past decades consisted of married parents living in a home with their unmarried children. Today, the percent of unmarried couples, same-sex couples, single-parent and single-adult households is increasing, as well as is the number of expanded households, in which extended family members such as grandparents, cousins, or adult children live together in the family home. While 15 million mothers still make up the majority of single parents, 3.5 million fathers are also raising their children alone (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). Increasingly, single people and cohabitating couples are choosing to raise children outside of marriage through surrogates or adoption.

Some sociologists study social facts —the laws, morals, values, religious beliefs, customs, fashions, rituals, and cultural rules that govern social life—that may contribute to these changes in the family. Do people in the United States view marriage and family differently over the years? Do they view them differently than Peruvians? Do employment and economic conditions play a role in families? Other sociologists are studying the consequences of these new patterns, such as the ways children influence and are influenced by them and/or the changing needs for education, housing, and healthcare.

Sociologists identify and study patterns related to all kinds of contemporary social issues. The “Stop and Frisk” policy, the emergence of new political factions, how Twitter influences everyday communication—these are all examples of topics that sociologists might explore.

Studying Part and Whole: How Sociologists View Social Structures

A key component of the sociological perspective is the idea that the individual and society are inseparable. It is impossible to study one without the other. German sociologist Norbert Elias called the process of simultaneously analyzing the behavior of individuals and the society that shapes that behavior figuration .

Consider religion. While people experience religion in a distinctly individual manner, religion exists in a larger social context as a social institution . For instance, an individual’s religious practice may be influenced by what government dictates, holidays, teachers, places of worship, rituals, and so on. These influences underscore the important relationship between individual practices of religion and social pressures that influence that religious experience (Elias, 1978). In simpler terms, figuration means that as one analyzes the social institutions in a society, the individuals using that institution in any fashion need to be ‘figured’ in to the analysis.

Sociology in the Real World

Individual-society connections.

When sociologist Nathan Kierns spoke to his friend Ashley (a pseudonym) about the move she and her partner had made from an urban center to a small Midwestern town, he was curious about how the social pressures placed on a lesbian couple differed from one community to the other. Ashley said that in the city they had been accustomed to getting looks and hearing comments when she and her partner walked hand in hand. Otherwise, she felt that they were at least being tolerated. There had been little to no outright discrimination.

Things changed when they moved to the small town for her partner’s job. For the first time, Ashley found herself experiencing direct discrimination because of her sexual orientation. Some of it was particularly hurtful. Landlords would not rent to them. Ashley, who is a highly trained professional, had a great deal of difficulty finding a new job.

When Nathan asked Ashley if she and her partner became discouraged or bitter about this new situation, Ashley said that rather than letting it get to them, they decided to do something about it. Ashley approached groups at a local college and several churches in the area. Together they decided to form the town's first Gay-Straight Alliance.

The alliance has worked successfully to educate their community about same-sex couples. It also worked to raise awareness about the kinds of discrimination that Ashley and her partner experienced in the town and how those could be eliminated. The alliance has become a strong advocacy group, and it is working to attain equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, or LGBTQ individuals.

Kierns observed that this is an excellent example of how negative social forces can result in a positive response from individuals to bring about social change (Kierns, 2011).

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
• Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-1-what-is-sociology

© Jan 18, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Psychological Measurement

19 Understanding Psychological Measurement

Learning objectives.

• Define measurement and give several examples of measurement in psychology.
• Explain what a psychological construct is and give several examples.
• Distinguish conceptual from operational definitions, give examples of each, and create simple operational definitions.
• Distinguish the four levels of measurement, give examples of each, and explain why this distinction is important.

What Is Measurement?

Measurement  is the assignment of scores to individuals so that the scores represent some characteristic of the individuals. This very general definition is consistent with the kinds of measurement that everyone is familiar with—for example, weighing oneself by stepping onto a bathroom scale, or checking the internal temperature of a roasting turkey using a meat thermometer. It is also consistent with measurement in the other sciences. In physics, for example, one might measure the potential energy of an object in Earth’s gravitational field by finding its mass and height (which of course requires measuring  those  variables) and then multiplying them together along with the gravitational acceleration of Earth (9.8 m/s2). The result of this procedure is a score that represents the object’s potential energy.

This general definition of measurement is consistent with measurement in psychology too. (Psychological measurement is often referred to as psychometrics .) Imagine, for example, that a cognitive psychologist wants to measure a person’s working memory capacity—their ability to hold in mind and think about several pieces of information all at the same time. To do this, she might use a backward digit span task, in which she reads a list of two digits to the person and asks them to repeat them in reverse order. She then repeats this several times, increasing the length of the list by one digit each time, until the person makes an error. The length of the longest list for which the person responds correctly is the score and represents their working memory capacity. Or imagine a clinical psychologist who is interested in how depressed a person is. He administers the Beck Depression Inventory, which is a 21-item self-report questionnaire in which the person rates the extent to which they have felt sad, lost energy, and experienced other symptoms of depression over the past 2 weeks. The sum of these 21 ratings is the score and represents the person’s current level of depression.

The important point here is that measurement does not require any particular instruments or procedures. What it  does  require is  some  systematic procedure for assigning scores to individuals or objects so that those scores represent the characteristic of interest.

Psychological Constructs

Many variables studied by psychologists are straightforward and simple to measure. These include age, height, weight, and birth order. You can ask people how old they are and be reasonably sure that they know and will tell you. Although people might not know or want to tell you how much they weigh, you can have them step onto a bathroom scale. Other variables studied by psychologists—perhaps the majority—are not so straightforward or simple to measure. We cannot accurately assess people’s level of intelligence by looking at them, and we certainly cannot put their self-esteem on a bathroom scale. These kinds of variables are called  constructs  (pronounced  CON-structs ) and include personality traits (e.g., extraversion), emotional states (e.g., fear), attitudes (e.g., toward taxes), and abilities (e.g., athleticism).

Psychological constructs cannot be observed directly. One reason is that they often represent  tendencies  to think, feel, or act in certain ways. For example, to say that a particular university student is highly extraverted does not necessarily mean that she is behaving in an extraverted way right now. In fact, she might be sitting quietly by herself, reading a book. Instead, it means that she has a general tendency to behave in extraverted ways (e.g., being outgoing, enjoying social interactions) across a variety of situations. Another reason psychological constructs cannot be observed directly is that they often involve internal processes. Fear, for example, involves the activation of certain central and peripheral nervous system structures, along with certain kinds of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors—none of which is necessarily obvious to an outside observer. Notice also that neither extraversion nor fear “reduces to” any particular thought, feeling, act, or physiological structure or process. Instead, each is a kind of summary of a complex set of behaviors and internal processes.

The Big Five

The Big Five is a set of five broad dimensions that capture much of the variation in human personality. Each of the Big Five can even be defined in terms of six more specific constructs called “facets” (Costa & McCrae, 1992) [1] .

Table 4.1 The Big Five Personality Dimensions

The  conceptual definition  of a psychological construct describes the behaviors and internal processes that make up that construct, along with how it relates to other variables. For example, a conceptual definition of neuroticism (another one of the Big Five) would be that it is people’s tendency to experience negative emotions such as anxiety, anger, and sadness across a variety of situations. This definition might also include that it has a strong genetic component, remains fairly stable over time, and is positively correlated with the tendency to experience pain and other physical symptoms.

Students sometimes wonder why, when researchers want to understand a construct like self-esteem or neuroticism, they do not simply look it up in the dictionary. One reason is that many scientific constructs do not have counterparts in everyday language (e.g., working memory capacity). More important, researchers are in the business of developing definitions that are more detailed and precise—and that more accurately describe the way the world is—than the informal definitions in the dictionary. As we will see, they do this by proposing conceptual definitions, testing them empirically, and revising them as necessary. Sometimes they throw them out altogether. This is why the research literature often includes different conceptual definitions of the same construct. In some cases, an older conceptual definition has been replaced by a newer one that fits and works better. In others, researchers are still in the process of deciding which of various conceptual definitions is the best.

Operational Definitions

An  operational definition  is a definition of a variable in terms of precisely how it is to be measured. These measures generally fall into one of three broad categories.  Self-report measures  are those in which participants report on their own thoughts, feelings, and actions, as with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) [2] . Behavioral measures  are those in which some other aspect of participants’ behavior is observed and recorded. This is an extremely broad category that includes the observation of people’s behavior both in highly structured laboratory tasks and in more natural settings. A good example of the former would be measuring working memory capacity using the backward digit span task. A good example of the latter is a famous operational definition of physical aggression from researcher Albert Bandura and his colleagues (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961) [3] . They let each of several children play for 20 minutes in a room that contained a clown-shaped punching bag called a Bobo doll. They filmed each child and counted the number of acts of physical aggression the child committed. These included hitting the doll with a mallet, punching it, and kicking it. Their operational definition, then, was the number of these specifically defined acts that the child committed during the 20-minute period. Finally,  physiological measures  are those that involve recording any of a wide variety of physiological processes, including heart rate and blood pressure, galvanic skin response, hormone levels, and electrical activity and blood flow in the brain.

For any given variable or construct, there will be multiple operational definitions. Stress is a good example. A rough conceptual definition is that stress is an adaptive response to a perceived danger or threat that involves physiological, cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. But researchers have operationally defined it in several ways. The Social Readjustment Rating Scale (Holmes & Rahe, 1967) [4] is a self-report questionnaire on which people identify stressful events that they have experienced in the past year and assigns points for each one depending on its severity. For example, a man who has been divorced (73 points), changed jobs (36 points), and had a change in sleeping habits (16 points) in the past year would have a total score of 125. The Hassles and Uplifts Scale (Delongis, Coyne, Dakof, Folkman & Lazarus, 1982) [5]  is similar but focuses on everyday stressors like misplacing things and being concerned about one’s weight. The Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983) [6] is another self-report measure that focuses on people’s feelings of stress (e.g., “How often have you felt nervous and stressed?”). Researchers have also operationally defined stress in terms of several physiological variables including blood pressure and levels of the stress hormone cortisol.

When psychologists use multiple operational definitions of the same construct—either within a study or across studies—they are using converging operations . The idea is that the various operational definitions are “converging” or coming together on the same construct. When scores based on several different operational definitions are closely related to each other and produce similar patterns of results, this constitutes good evidence that the construct is being measured effectively and that it is useful. The various measures of stress, for example, are all correlated with each other and have all been shown to be correlated with other variables such as immune system functioning (also measured in a variety of ways) (Segerstrom & Miller, 2004) [7] . This is what allows researchers eventually to draw useful general conclusions, such as “stress is negatively correlated with immune system functioning,” as opposed to more specific and less useful ones, such as “people’s scores on the Perceived Stress Scale are negatively correlated with their white blood counts.”

Levels of Measurement

The psychologist S. S. Stevens suggested that scores can be assigned to individuals in a way that communicates more or less quantitative information about the variable of interest (Stevens, 1946) [8] . For example, the officials at a 100-m race could simply rank order the runners as they crossed the finish line (first, second, etc.), or they could time each runner to the nearest tenth of a second using a stopwatch (11.5 s, 12.1 s, etc.). In either case, they would be measuring the runners’ times by systematically assigning scores to represent those times. But while the rank ordering procedure communicates the fact that the second-place runner took longer to finish than the first-place finisher, the stopwatch procedure also communicates  how much  longer the second-place finisher took. Stevens actually suggested four different levels of measurement (which he called “scales of measurement”) that correspond to four types of information that can be communicated by a set of scores, and the statistical procedures that can be used with the information.

The  nominal level  of measurement is used for categorical variables and involves assigning scores that are category labels. Category labels communicate whether any two individuals are the same or different in terms of the variable being measured. For example, if you ask your participants about their marital status, you are engaged in nominal-level measurement. Or if you ask your participants to indicate which of several ethnicities they identify themselves with, you are again engaged in nominal-level measurement. The essential point about nominal scales is that they do not imply any ordering among the responses. For example, when classifying people according to their favorite color, there is no sense in which green is placed “ahead of” blue. Responses are merely categorized. Nominal scales thus embody the lowest level of measurement [9] .

The remaining three levels of measurement are used for quantitative variables. The  ordinal level  of measurement involves assigning scores so that they represent the rank order of the individuals. Ranks communicate not only whether any two individuals are the same or different in terms of the variable being measured but also whether one individual is higher or lower on that variable. For example, a researcher wishing to measure consumers’ satisfaction with their microwave ovens might ask them to specify their feelings as either “very dissatisfied,” “somewhat dissatisfied,” “somewhat satisfied,” or “very satisfied.” The items in this scale are ordered, ranging from least to most satisfied. This is what distinguishes ordinal from nominal scales. Unlike nominal scales, ordinal scales allow comparisons of the degree to which two individuals rate the variable. For example, our satisfaction ordering makes it meaningful to assert that one person is more satisfied than another with their microwave ovens. Such an assertion reflects the first person’s use of a verbal label that comes later in the list than the label chosen by the second person.

On the other hand, ordinal scales fail to capture important information that will be present in the other levels of measurement we examine. In particular, the difference between two levels of an ordinal scale cannot be assumed to be the same as the difference between two other levels (just like you cannot assume that the gap between the runners in first and second place is equal to the gap between the runners in second and third place). In our satisfaction scale, for example, the difference between the responses “very dissatisfied” and “somewhat dissatisfied” is probably not equivalent to the difference between “somewhat dissatisfied” and “somewhat satisfied.” Nothing in our measurement procedure allows us to determine whether the two differences reflect the same difference in psychological satisfaction. Statisticians express this point by saying that the differences between adjacent scale values do not necessarily represent equal intervals on the underlying scale giving rise to the measurements. (In our case, the underlying scale is the true feeling of satisfaction, which we are trying to measure.)

The  interval level  of measurement involves assigning scores using numerical scales in which intervals have the same interpretation throughout. As an example, consider either the Fahrenheit or Celsius temperature scales. The difference between 30 degrees and 40 degrees represents the same temperature difference as the difference between 80 degrees and 90 degrees. This is because each 10-degree interval has the same physical meaning (in terms of the kinetic energy of molecules).

Interval scales are not perfect, however. In particular, they do not have a true zero point even if one of the scaled values happens to carry the name “zero.” The Fahrenheit scale illustrates the issue. Zero degrees Fahrenheit does not represent the complete absence of temperature (the absence of any molecular kinetic energy). In reality, the label “zero” is applied to its temperature for quite accidental reasons connected to the history of temperature measurement. Since an interval scale has no true zero point, it does not make sense to compute ratios of temperatures. For example, there is no sense in which the ratio of 40 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit is the same as the ratio of 100 to 50 degrees; no interesting physical property is preserved across the two ratios. After all, if the “zero” label were applied at the temperature that Fahrenheit happens to label as 10 degrees, the two ratios would instead be 30 to 10 and 90 to 40, no longer the same! For this reason, it does not make sense to say that 80 degrees is “twice as hot” as 40 degrees. Such a claim would depend on an arbitrary decision about where to “start” the temperature scale, namely, what temperature to call zero (whereas the claim is intended to make a more fundamental assertion about the underlying physical reality).

In psychology, the intelligence quotient (IQ) is often considered to be measured at the interval level. While it is technically possible to receive a score of 0 on an IQ test, such a score would not indicate the complete absence of IQ. Moreover, a person with an IQ score of 140 does not have twice the IQ of a person with a score of 70. However, the difference between IQ scores of 80 and 100 is the same as the difference between IQ scores of 120 and 140.

Finally, the  ratio level  of measurement involves assigning scores in such a way that there is a true zero point that represents the complete absence of the quantity. Height measured in meters and weight measured in kilograms are good examples. So are counts of discrete objects or events such as the number of siblings one has or the number of questions a student answers correctly on an exam. You can think of a ratio scale as the three earlier scales rolled up in one. Like a nominal scale, it provides a name or category for each object (the numbers serve as labels). Like an ordinal scale, the objects are ordered (in terms of the ordering of the numbers). Like an interval scale, the same difference at two places on the scale has the same meaning. However, in addition, the same ratio at two places on the scale also carries the same meaning (see Table 4.1).

The Fahrenheit scale for temperature has an arbitrary zero point and is therefore not a ratio scale. However, zero on the Kelvin scale is absolute zero. This makes the Kelvin scale a ratio scale. For example, if one temperature is twice as high as another as measured on the Kelvin scale, then it has twice the kinetic energy of the other temperature.

Another example of a ratio scale is the amount of money you have in your pocket right now (25 cents, 50 cents, etc.). Money is measured on a ratio scale because, in addition to having the properties of an interval scale, it has a true zero point: if you have zero money, this actually implies the absence of money. Since money has a true zero point, it makes sense to say that someone with 50 cents has twice as much money as someone with 25 cents.

Stevens’s levels of measurement are important for at least two reasons. First, they emphasize the generality of the concept of measurement. Although people do not normally think of categorizing or ranking individuals as measurement, in fact, they are as long as they are done so that they represent some characteristic of the individuals. Second, the levels of measurement can serve as a rough guide to the statistical procedures that can be used with the data and the conclusions that can be drawn from them. With nominal-level measurement, for example, the only available measure of central tendency is the mode. With ordinal-level measurement, the median or mode can be used as indicators of central tendency. Interval and ratio-level measurement are typically considered the most desirable because they permit for any indicators of central tendency to be computed (i.e., mean, median, or mode). Also, ratio-level measurement is the only level that allows meaningful statements about ratios of scores. Once again, one cannot say that someone with an IQ of 140 is twice as intelligent as someone with an IQ of 70 because IQ is measured at the interval level, but one can say that someone with six siblings has twice as many as someone with three because number of siblings is measured at the ratio level.

• Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4 , 5–13. ↵
• Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press ↵
• Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63 , 575–582. ↵
• Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The Social Readjustment Rating Scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11 (2), 213-218. ↵
• Delongis, A., Coyne, J. C., Dakof, G., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Relationships of daily hassles, uplifts, and major life events to health status. Health Psychology, 1 (2), 119-136. ↵
• Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 386-396. ↵
• Segerstrom, S. E., & Miller, G. E. (2004). Psychological stress and the human immune system: A meta-analytic study of 30 years of inquiry. Psychological Bulletin, 130 , 601–630. ↵
• Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103 , 677–680. ↵
• Levels of Measurement. Retrieved from http://wikieducator.org/Introduction_to_Research_Methods_In_Psychology/Theories_and_Measurement/Levels_of_Measurement ↵

Is the assignment of scores to individuals so that the scores represent some characteristic of the individuals.

A subfield of psychology concerned with the theories and techniques of psychological measurement.

Psychological variables that represent an individual's mental state or experience, often not directly observable, such as personality traits, emotional states, attitudes, and abilities.

Describes the behaviors and internal processes that make up a psychological construct, along with how it relates to other variables.

A definition of the variable in terms of precisely how it is to be measured.

Measures in which participants report on their own thoughts, feelings, and actions.

Measures in which some other aspect of participants’ behavior is observed and recorded.

Measures that involve recording any of a wide variety of physiological processes, including heart rate and blood pressure, galvanic skin response, hormone levels, and electrical activity and blood flow in the brain.

When psychologists use multiple operational definitions of the same construct—either within a study or across studies.

Four categories, or scales, of measurement (i.e., nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio) that specify the types of information that a set of scores can have, and the types of statistical procedures that can be used with the scores.

A measurement used for categorical variables and involves assigning scores that are category labels.

A measurement that involves assigning scores so that they represent the rank order of the individuals.

A measurement that involves assigning scores using numerical scales in which intervals have the same interpretation throughout.

A measurement that involves assigning scores in such a way that there is a true zero point that represents the complete absence of the quantity.

Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2019 by Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler, & Dana C. Leighton is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Search Icon

Events See all →

Hands on history.

10:00 a.m. - 2:30 p.m.

Penn Museum, 3260 South St.

268th Commencement

Franklin Field

Vahe Sarkissian

World Cafe Live, 3025 Walnut St.

Wawa Welcome America Day

10:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

Arts, Humanities, & Social Sciences

What predicts human behavior and how to change it

In the largest quantitative synthesis to date, dolores albarracín and her team dig through years of research on the science behind behavior change to determine the best ways to promote changes in behavior..

Pandemics, global warming, and rampant gun violence are all clear lessons in the need to move large groups of people to change their behavior. When a crisis hits, researchers, policymakers, health officials, and community leaders have to know how best to encourage people to change en masse and quickly. Each crisis leads to rehashing the same strategies, even those that have not worked in the past, due to the lack of definitive science of what interventions work across the board combined with well intended but erroneous intuitions.

To produce evidence on what determines and changes behavior, Dolores Albarracín and her colleagues from Penn’s Social Action Lab undertook a review of all of the available meta-analyses—a synthesis of the results from multiple studies—to determine what interventions work best when trying to change people’s behavior. What results is a new classification of predictors of behavior and a novel, empirical model for understanding the different ways to change behavior by targeting either individual or social/structural factors.

A new paper published in Nature Reviews Psychology reports that the strategies that people assume will work—like giving people accurate information or trying to change their beliefs—do not. At the same time, others like providing social support and tapping into individuals’ behavioral skills and habits as well as removing practical obstacles to behavior (e.g., providing health insurance to encourage health behaviors) can have more sizable impacts.

“Interventions targeting knowledge, general attitudes, beliefs, administrative and legal sanctions, and trustworthiness—these factors researchers and policymakers put so much weight on—are actually quite ineffective,” says Albarracín, the Alexandra Heyman Nash University Professor in the Annenberg School for Communication and director of the Science of Science Communication Division of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, who also has an appointment in Penn’s School of Arts & Sciences. “They have negligible effects.”

Unfortunately, many policies and reports are centered around goals like increasing vaccine confidence (an attitude) or curbing misinformation. Policymakers must look at evidence to determine what factors will return the investment, Albarracín says.

Co-author Javier Granados Samayoa, the Vartan Gregorian Postdoctoral Fellow at the Annenberg Public Policy Center , has noticed researchers’ tendency to target knowledge and beliefs when creating behavior change interventions.

“There’s something about it that seems so straightforward—you think and therefore you do. But what the literature suggests is that there are a lot of intervening processes that have to line up for people to actually act on those beliefs, so it’s not that easy,” he says.

Read more at Annenberg School for Communication.

Class of 2025 relishes time together at Hey Day

Picturing artistic pursuits

Hundreds of undergraduates take classes in the fine arts each semester, among them painting and drawing, ceramics and sculpture, printmaking and animation, photography and videography. The courses, through the School of Arts & Sciences and the Stuart Weitzman School of Design, give students the opportunity to immerse themselves in an art form in a collaborative way.

Campus & Community

Penn celebrates operation and benefits of largest solar power project in Pennsylvania

Solar production has begun at the Great Cove I and II facilities in central Pennsylvania, the equivalent of powering 70% of the electricity demand from Penn’s academic campus and health system in the Philadelphia area.

Education, Business, & Law

Investing in future teachers and educational leaders

The Empowerment Through Education Scholarship Program at Penn’s Graduate School of Education is helping to prepare and retain teachers and educational leaders.

‘The Illuminated Body’ fuses color, light, and sound

A new Arthur Ross Gallery exhibition of work by artist Barbara Earl Thomas features cut-paper portraits reminiscent of stained glass and an immersive installation constructed with intricately cut material lit from behind.

4.1 Understanding Psychological Measurement

Learning objectives.

• Define measurement and give several examples of measurement in psychology.
• Explain what a psychological construct is and give several examples.
• Distinguish conceptual from operational definitions, give examples of each, and create simple operational definitions.
• Distinguish the four levels of measurement, give examples of each, and explain why this distinction is important.

What Is Measurement?

Measurement  is the assignment of scores to individuals so that the scores represent some characteristic of the individuals. This very general definition is consistent with the kinds of measurement that everyone is familiar with—for example, weighing oneself by stepping onto a bathroom scale, or checking the internal temperature of a roasting turkey by inserting a meat thermometer. It is also consistent with measurement in the other sciences. In physics, for example, one might measure the potential energy of an object in Earth’s gravitational field by finding its mass and height (which of course requires measuring  those  variables) and then multiplying them together along with the gravitational acceleration of Earth (9.8 m/s2). The result of this procedure is a score that represents the object’s potential energy.

This general definition of measurement is consistent with measurement in psychology too. (Psychological measurement is often referred to as psychometrics .) Imagine, for example, that a cognitive psychologist wants to measure a person’s working memory capacity—his or her ability to hold in mind and think about several pieces of information all at the same time. To do this, she might use a backward digit span task, in which she reads a list of two digits to the person and asks him or her to repeat them in reverse order. She then repeats this several times, increasing the length of the list by one digit each time, until the person makes an error. The length of the longest list for which the person responds correctly is the score and represents his or her working memory capacity. Or imagine a clinical psychologist who is interested in how depressed a person is. He administers the Beck Depression Inventory, which is a 21-item self-report questionnaire in which the person rates the extent to which he or she has felt sad, lost energy, and experienced other symptoms of depression over the past 2 weeks. The sum of these 21 ratings is the score and represents his or her current level of depression.

The important point here is that measurement does not require any particular instruments or procedures. It does not require placing individuals or objects on bathroom scales, holding rulers up to them, or inserting thermometers into them. What it  does  require is  some  systematic procedure for assigning scores to individuals or objects so that those scores represent the characteristic of interest.

Psychological Constructs

Many variables studied by psychologists are straightforward and simple to measure. These include sex, age, height, weight, and birth order. You can often tell whether someone is male or female just by looking. You can ask people how old they are and be reasonably sure that they know and will tell you. Although people might not know or want to tell you how much they weigh, you can have them step onto a bathroom scale. Other variables studied by psychologists—perhaps the majority—are not so straightforward or simple to measure. We cannot accurately assess people’s level of intelligence by looking at them, and we certainly cannot put their self-esteem on a bathroom scale. These kinds of variables are called  constructs  (pronounced  CON-structs ) and include personality traits (e.g., extraversion), emotional states (e.g., fear), attitudes (e.g., toward taxes), and abilities (e.g., athleticism).

Psychological constructs cannot be observed directly. One reason is that they often represent  tendencies  to think, feel, or act in certain ways. For example, to say that a particular university student is highly extraverted does not necessarily mean that she is behaving in an extraverted way right now. In fact, she might be sitting quietly by herself, reading a book. Instead, it means that she has a general tendency to behave in extraverted ways (talking, laughing, etc.) across a variety of situations. Another reason psychological constructs cannot be observed directly is that they often involve internal processes. Fear, for example, involves the activation of certain central and peripheral nervous system structures, along with certain kinds of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors—none of which is necessarily obvious to an outside observer. Notice also that neither extraversion nor fear “reduces to” any particular thought, feeling, act, or physiological structure or process. Instead, each is a kind of summary of a complex set of behaviors and internal processes.

The Big Five

The Big Five is a set of five broad dimensions that capture much of the variation in human personality. Each of the Big Five can even be defined in terms of six more specific constructs called “facets” (Costa & McCrae, 1992) [1] .

Figure 4.1 The Big Five Personality Dimensions

The  conceptual definition  of a psychological construct describes the behaviors and internal processes that make up that construct, along with how it relates to other variables. For example, a conceptual definition of neuroticism (another one of the Big Five) would be that it is people’s tendency to experience negative emotions such as anxiety, anger, and sadness across a variety of situations. This definition might also include that it has a strong genetic component, remains fairly stable over time, and is positively correlated with the tendency to experience pain and other physical symptoms.

Students sometimes wonder why, when researchers want to understand a construct like self-esteem or neuroticism, they do not simply look it up in the dictionary. One reason is that many scientific constructs do not have counterparts in everyday language (e.g., working memory capacity). More important, researchers are in the business of developing definitions that are more detailed and precise—and that more accurately describe the way the world is—than the informal definitions in the dictionary. As we will see, they do this by proposing conceptual definitions, testing them empirically, and revising them as necessary. Sometimes they throw them out altogether. This is why the research literature often includes different conceptual definitions of the same construct. In some cases, an older conceptual definition has been replaced by a newer one that fits and works better. In others, researchers are still in the process of deciding which of various conceptual definitions is the best.

Operational Definitions

An  operational definition  is a definition of a variable in terms of precisely how it is to be measured. These measures generally fall into one of three broad categories.  Self-report measures  are those in which participants report on their own thoughts, feelings, and actions, as with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Behavioral measures  are those in which some other aspect of participants’ behavior is observed and recorded. This is an extremely broad category that includes the observation of people’s behavior both in highly structured laboratory tasks and in more natural settings. A good example of the former would be measuring working memory capacity using the backward digit span task. A good example of the latter is a famous operational definition of physical aggression from researcher Albert Bandura and his colleagues (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961) [2] . They let each of several children play for 20 minutes in a room that contained a clown-shaped punching bag called a Bobo doll. They filmed each child and counted the number of acts of physical aggression he or she committed. These included hitting the doll with a mallet, punching it, and kicking it. Their operational definition, then, was the number of these specifically defined acts that the child committed during the 20-minute period. Finally,  physiological measures  are those that involve recording any of a wide variety of physiological processes, including heart rate and blood pressure, galvanic skin response, hormone levels, and electrical activity and blood flow in the brain.

For any given variable or construct, there will be multiple operational definitions. Stress is a good example. A rough conceptual definition is that stress is an adaptive response to a perceived danger or threat that involves physiological, cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. But researchers have operationally defined it in several ways. The Social Readjustment Rating Scale is a self-report questionnaire on which people identify stressful events that they have experienced in the past year and assigns points for each one depending on its severity. For example, a man who has been divorced (73 points), changed jobs (36 points), and had a change in sleeping habits (16 points) in the past year would have a total score of 125. The Daily Hassles and Uplifts Scale is similar but focuses on everyday stressors like misplacing things and being concerned about one’s weight. The Perceived Stress Scale is another self-report measure that focuses on people’s feelings of stress (e.g., “How often have you felt nervous and stressed?”). Researchers have also operationally defined stress in terms of several physiological variables including blood pressure and levels of the stress hormone cortisol.

When psychologists use multiple operational definitions of the same construct—either within a study or across studies—they are using converging operations . The idea is that the various operational definitions are “converging” or coming together on the same construct. When scores based on several different operational definitions are closely related to each other and produce similar patterns of results, this constitutes good evidence that the construct is being measured effectively and that it is useful. The various measures of stress, for example, are all correlated with each other and have all been shown to be correlated with other variables such as immune system functioning (also measured in a variety of ways) (Segerstrom & Miller, 2004) [3] . This is what allows researchers eventually to draw useful general conclusions, such as “stress is negatively correlated with immune system functioning,” as opposed to more specific and less useful ones, such as “people’s scores on the Perceived Stress Scale are negatively correlated with their white blood counts.”

Levels of Measurement

The psychologist S. S. Stevens suggested that scores can be assigned to individuals in a way that communicates more or less quantitative information about the variable of interest (Stevens, 1946) [4] . For example, the officials at a 100-m race could simply rank order the runners as they crossed the finish line (first, second, etc.), or they could time each runner to the nearest tenth of a second using a stopwatch (11.5 s, 12.1 s, etc.). In either case, they would be measuring the runners’ times by systematically assigning scores to represent those times. But while the rank ordering procedure communicates the fact that the second-place runner took longer to finish than the first-place finisher, the stopwatch procedure also communicates  how much  longer the second-place finisher took. Stevens actually suggested four different levels of measurement  (which he called “scales of measurement”) that correspond to four different levels of quantitative information that can be communicated by a set of scores.

The  nominal level  of measurement is used for categorical variables and involves assigning scores that are category labels. Category labels communicate whether any two individuals are the same or different in terms of the variable being measured. For example, if you look at your research participants as they enter the room, decide whether each one is male or female, and type this information into a spreadsheet, you are engaged in nominal-level measurement. Or if you ask your participants to indicate which of several ethnicities they identify themselves with, you are again engaged in nominal-level measurement. The essential point about nominal scales is that they do not imply any ordering among the responses. For example, when classifying people according to their favorite color, there is no sense in which green is placed “ahead of” blue. Responses are merely categorized. Nominal scales thus embody the lowest level of measurement [5] .

The remaining three levels of measurement are used for quantitative variables. The  ordinal level  of measurement involves assigning scores so that they represent the rank order of the individuals. Ranks communicate not only whether any two individuals are the same or different in terms of the variable being measured but also whether one individual is higher or lower on that variable. For example, a researcher wishing to measure consumers’ satisfaction with their microwave ovens might ask them to specify their feelings as either “very dissatisfied,” “somewhat dissatisfied,” “somewhat satisfied,” or “very satisfied.” The items in this scale are ordered, ranging from least to most satisfied. This is what distinguishes ordinal from nominal scales. Unlike nominal scales, ordinal scales allow comparisons of the degree to which two individuals rate the variable. For example, our satisfaction ordering makes it meaningful to assert that one person is more satisfied than another with their microwave ovens. Such an assertion reflects the first person’s use of a verbal label that comes later in the list than the label chosen by the second person.

On the other hand, ordinal scales fail to capture important information that will be present in the other levels of measurement we examine. In particular, the difference between two levels of an ordinal scale cannot be assumed to be the same as the difference between two other levels (just like you cannot assume that the gap between the runners in first and second place is equal to the gap between the runners in second and third place). In our satisfaction scale, for example, the difference between the responses “very dissatisfied” and “somewhat dissatisfied” is probably not equivalent to the difference between “somewhat dissatisfied” and “somewhat satisfied.” Nothing in our measurement procedure allows us to determine whether the two differences reflect the same difference in psychological satisfaction. Statisticians express this point by saying that the differences between adjacent scale values do not necessarily represent equal intervals on the underlying scale giving rise to the measurements. (In our case, the underlying scale is the true feeling of satisfaction, which we are trying to measure.)

The  interval level  of measurement involves assigning scores using numerical scales in which intervals have the same interpretation throughout. As an example, consider either the Fahrenheit or Celsius temperature scales. The difference between 30 degrees and 40 degrees represents the same temperature difference as the difference between 80 degrees and 90 degrees. This is because each 10-degree interval has the same physical meaning (in terms of the kinetic energy of molecules).

Interval scales are not perfect, however. In particular, they do not have a true zero point even if one of the scaled values happens to carry the name “zero.” The Fahrenheit scale illustrates the issue. Zero degrees Fahrenheit does not represent the complete absence of temperature (the absence of any molecular kinetic energy). In reality, the label “zero” is applied to its temperature for quite accidental reasons connected to the history of temperature measurement. Since an interval scale has no true zero point, it does not make sense to compute ratios of temperatures. For example, there is no sense in which the ratio of 40 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit is the same as the ratio of 100 to 50 degrees; no interesting physical property is preserved across the two ratios. After all, if the “zero” label were applied at the temperature that Fahrenheit happens to label as 10 degrees, the two ratios would instead be 30 to 10 and 90 to 40, no longer the same! For this reason, it does not make sense to say that 80 degrees is “twice as hot” as 40 degrees. Such a claim would depend on an arbitrary decision about where to “start” the temperature scale, namely, what temperature to call zero (whereas the claim is intended to make a more fundamental assertion about the underlying physical reality). In psychology, the intelligence quotient (IQ) is often considered to be measured at the interval level.

Finally, the  ratio level  of measurement involves assigning scores in such a way that there is a true zero point that represents the complete absence of the quantity. Height measured in meters and weight measured in kilograms are good examples. So are counts of discrete objects or events such as the number of siblings one has or the number of questions a student answers correctly on an exam. You can think of a ratio scale as the three earlier scales rolled up in one. Like a nominal scale, it provides a name or category for each object (the numbers serve as labels). Like an ordinal scale, the objects are ordered (in terms of the ordering of the numbers). Like an interval scale, the same difference at two places on the scale has the same meaning. However, in addition, the same ratio at two places on the scale also carries the same meaning (see Table 4.1).

The Fahrenheit scale for temperature has an arbitrary zero point and is therefore not a ratio scale. However, zero on the Kelvin scale is absolute zero. This makes the Kelvin scale a ratio scale. For example, if one temperature is twice as high as another as measured on the Kelvin scale, then it has twice the kinetic energy of the other temperature.

Another example of a ratio scale is the amount of money you have in your pocket right now (25 cents, 50 cents, etc.). Money is measured on a ratio scale because, in addition to having the properties of an interval scale, it has a true zero point: if you have zero money, this actually implies the absence of money. Since money has a true zero point, it makes sense to say that someone with 50 cents has twice as much money as someone with 25 cents.

Stevens’s levels of measurement are important for at least two reasons. First, they emphasize the generality of the concept of measurement. Although people do not normally think of categorizing or ranking individuals as measurement, in fact, they are as long as they are done so that they represent some characteristic of the individuals. Second, the levels of measurement can serve as a rough guide to the statistical procedures that can be used with the data and the conclusions that can be drawn from them. With nominal-level measurement, for example, the only available measure of central tendency is the mode. Also, ratio-level measurement is the only level that allows meaningful statements about ratios of scores. One cannot say that someone with an IQ of 140 is twice as intelligent as someone with an IQ of 70 because IQ is measured at the interval level, but one can say that someone with six siblings has twice as many as someone with three because number of siblings is measured at the ratio level.

Key Takeaways

• Measurement is the assignment of scores to individuals so that the scores represent some characteristic of the individuals. Psychological measurement can be achieved in a wide variety of ways, including self-report, behavioral, and physiological measures.
• Psychological constructs such as intelligence, self-esteem, and depression are variables that are not directly observable because they represent behavioral tendencies or complex patterns of behavior and internal processes. An important goal of scientific research is to conceptually define psychological constructs in ways that accurately describe them.
• For any conceptual definition of a construct, there will be many different operational definitions or ways of measuring it. The use of multiple operational definitions, or converging operations, is a common strategy in psychological research.
• Variables can be measured at four different levels—nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio—that communicate increasing amounts of quantitative information. The level of measurement affects the kinds of statistics you can use and conclusions you can draw from your data.
• Practice: Complete the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and compute your overall score.
• Practice: Think of three operational definitions for sexual jealousy, decisiveness, and social anxiety. Consider the possibility of self-report, behavioral, and physiological measures. Be as precise as you can.
• An university instructor measures the time it takes her students to finish an exam by looking through the stack of exams at the end. She assigns the one on the bottom a score of 1, the one on top of that a 2, and so on.
• A researcher accesses her participants’ medical records and counts the number of times they have seen a doctor in the past year.
• Participants in a research study are asked whether they are right-handed or left-handed.
• Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4 , 5–13. ↵
• Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63 , 575–582. ↵
• Segerstrom, S. E., & Miller, G. E. (2004). Psychological stress and the human immune system: A meta-analytic study of 30 years of inquiry. Psychological Bulletin, 130 , 601–630. ↵
• Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103 , 677–680. ↵
• Levels of Measurement. Retrieved from http://wikieducator.org/Introduction_to_Research_Methods_In_Psychology/Theories_and_Measurement/Levels_of_Measurement ↵

Share This Book

• Increase Font Size

Body shaming, IQ insults and cross talk: House committee meeting devolves into chaos amid personal insults

WASHINGTON — Criticism of a member's "fake eyelashes" and another's intelligence. A question about discussing a member's "bleach blond, bad-built butch body."

A House Oversight Committee meeting Thursday night devolved into chaos amid personal attacks and partisan bickering in a rare evening session that was supposed to center on a resolution recommending Attorney General Merrick Garland be held in contempt of Congress.

The already tense hearing was derailed when Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., responded to a question from Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, by saying, “I think your fake eyelashes are messing up what you’re reading.”

Democrats, led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, immediately moved to strike Greene's words from the record and make her apologize to Crockett.

"That is absolutely unacceptable," Ocasio-Cortez said over cross talk. "How dare you attack the physical appearance of another person?"

Greene taunted Ocasio-Cortez, asking, "Are your feelings hurt?"

"Oh, girl? Baby girl," Ocasio-Cortez shot back. "Don't even play."

Greene attacked a second member just minutes after she criticized Crockett, asserting that Ocasio-Cortez did not have "enough intelligence" for a debate.

Greene had asked Ocasio-Cortez, "Why don't you debate me?"

Ocasio-Cortez responded that she thought "it's pretty self-evident."

"You don't have enough intelligence," Greene said as members of Congress audibly groaned at her attack.

Greene agreed to strike her comments toward Crockett but vehemently refused to apologize for the evening's attacks, declaring, “You will never get an apology out of me.”

Amid repeated demands from Democrats to strike Greene’s words from the record and force her to apologize, Comer eventually ruled that Greene’s insult of Crockett did not violate House rules against engaging in “personalities” during debate. When Democratic ranking member Jamie Raskin of Maryland sought to appeal the ruling, Republicans offered a motion to table, or kill, his appeal.

After the vote, Crockett asked Comer for clarification to understand his ruling about personal attacks on members of Congress.

"I'm just curious, just to better understand your ruling," Crockett said. "If someone on this committee then starts talking about somebody's bleach blond, bad-built butch body, that would not be engaging in personalities, correct?"

Chaos erupted again, with a member instructing Crockett to "calm down."

"I have two hearing aids. I'm very deaf," the committee’s chairman, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., said after cross talk took over. "I'm not understanding — everybody's yelling. I'm doing the best I can."

After Comer agreed to strike Greene’s insult of Ocasio-Cortez, Democrats sought to enforce committee rules that would have prevented Greene from speaking for the rest of the hearing. Republicans voted to allow her to speak.

Comer ultimately called for a short recess amid debate over questions about a rule for members who have had comments struck from the record but wished to speak. Upon return, he reminded members to observe "the House's standard of decorum."

Greene was ultimately recognized to speak for more than four minutes, during which she reiterated that she would not apologize.

"I will not apologize for my words, and I will not change them," she said.

Nearly an hour after the hearing was derailed, the committee got back to debating whether Garland should be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to hand over audio recordings of President Joe Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur over his handling of classified documents.

Tensions were already running high after a long day, with Republicans peppering Raskin's opening remarks with interruptions.

The meeting had originally been scheduled for 11 a.m., but it was moved to 8 p.m. after several committee members traveled to New York to attend the trial of former President Donald Trump .

The committee voted 24-20 along party lines to recommend holding Garland in contempt following the contentious meeting. House Speaker Mike Johnson’s office has not yet said when it would put the contempt resolution before the full House.

Rebecca is a producer and off-air reporter covering Congress for NBC News, managing coverage of the House.

Megan Lebowitz is a politics reporter for NBC News.

At Justice Alito’s House, a ‘Stop the Steal’ Symbol on Display

An upside-down flag, adopted by Trump supporters contesting the Biden victory, flew over the justice’s front lawn as the Supreme Court was considering an election case.

A photo obtained by The Times shows an inverted flag at the Alito residence on Jan. 17, 2021, three days before the Biden inauguration. Credit...

Supported by

• Share full article

By Jodi Kantor

Jodi Kantor, who has been reporting on the Supreme Court, including the behind-the-scenes story of how the justices overturned the right to abortion, welcomes tips at nytimes.com/tips .

• May 16, 2024

After the 2020 presidential election, as some Trump supporters falsely claimed that President Biden had stolen the office, many of them displayed a startling symbol outside their homes, on their cars and in online posts: an upside-down American flag.

One of the homes flying an inverted flag during that time was the residence of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., in Alexandria, Va., according to photographs and interviews with neighbors.

The upside-down flag was aloft on Jan. 17, 2021, the images showed. President Donald J. Trump’s supporters, including some brandishing the same symbol, had rioted at the Capitol a little over a week before. Mr. Biden’s inauguration was three days away. Alarmed neighbors snapped photographs, some of which were recently obtained by The New York Times. Word of the flag filtered back to the court, people who worked there said in interviews.

While the flag was up, the court was still contending with whether to hear a 2020 election case, with Justice Alito on the losing end of that decision. In coming weeks, the justices will rule on two climactic cases involving the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, including whether Mr. Trump has immunity for his actions. Their decisions will shape how accountable he can be held for trying to overturn the last presidential election and his chances for re-election in the upcoming one.

“I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” Justice Alito said in an emailed statement to The Times. “It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.”

Judicial experts said in interviews that the flag was a clear violation of ethics rules, which seek to avoid even the appearance of bias, and could sow doubt about Justice Alito’s impartiality in cases related to the election and the Capitol riot.

The mere impression of political opinion can be a problem, the ethics experts said. “It might be his spouse or someone else living in his home, but he shouldn’t have it in his yard as his message to the world,” said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia.

This is “the equivalent of putting a ‘Stop the Steal’ sign in your yard, which is a problem if you’re deciding election-related cases,” she said.

Interviews show that the justice’s wife, Martha-Ann Alito, had been in a dispute with another family on the block over an anti-Trump sign on their lawn, but given the timing and the starkness of the symbol, neighbors interpreted the inverted flag as a political statement by the couple.

The longstanding ethics code for the lower courts, as well as the recent one adopted by the Supreme Court, stresses the need for judges to remain independent and avoid political statements or opinions on matters that could come before them.

“You always want to be proactive about the appearance of impartiality,” Jeremy Fogel, a former federal judge and the director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute, said in an interview. “The best practice would be to make sure that nothing like that is in front of your house.”

The court has also repeatedly warned its own employees against public displays of partisan views, according to guidelines circulated to the staff and reviewed by The Times. Displaying signs or bumper stickers is not permitted, according to the court’s internal rule book and a 2022 memo reiterating the ban on political activity.

Asked if these rules also apply to justices, the court declined to respond.

The exact duration that the flag flew outside the Alito residence is unclear. In an email from Jan. 18, 2021, reviewed by The Times, a neighbor wrote to a relative that the flag had been upside down for several days at that point.

In recent years, the quiet sanctuary of his street, with residents who are Republicans and Democrats, has tensed with conflict, neighbors said. Around the 2020 election , a family on the block displayed an anti-Trump sign with an expletive. It apparently offended Mrs. Alito and led to an escalating clash between her and the family, according to interviews.

Some residents have also bridled at the noise and intrusion brought by protesters, who started showing up outside the Alito residence in 2022 after the Supreme Court overturned the federal right to abortion. Other neighbors have joined the demonstrators, whose intent was “to bring the protest to their personal lives because the decisions affect our personal lives,” said Heather-Ann Irons, who came to the street to protest.

The half-dozen neighbors who saw the flag, or knew of it, requested anonymity because they said they did not want to add to the contentiousness on the block and feared reprisal. Last Saturday, May 11, protesters returned to the street, waving flags of their own (“Don’t Tread on My Uterus”) and using a megaphone to broadcast expletives at Justice Alito, who was in Ohio giving a commencement address . Mrs. Alito appeared in a window, complaining to the Supreme Court security detail outside.

Turning the American flag upside down is a symbol of emergency and distress, first used as a military S.O.S., historians said in interviews. In recent decades, it has increasingly been used as a political protest symbol — a controversial one, because the flag code and military tradition require the paramount symbol of the United States to be treated with respect.

Over the years, upside-down flags have been displayed by both the right and the left as an outcry over a range of issues, including the Vietnam War, gun violence , the Supreme Court’s overturning of the constitutional right to abortion and, in particular, election results. In 2012, Tea Party followers inverted flags at their homes to signal disgust at the re-election of President Barack Obama. Four years later, some liberals advised doing the same after Mr. Trump was elected.

During Mr. Trump’s quest to win, and then subvert, the 2020 election, the gesture took off as never before, becoming “really established as a symbol of the ‘Stop the Steal’ campaign,” according to Alex Newhouse, a researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder.

A flood of social media posts exhorted Trump supporters to flip over their flags or purchase new ones to display upside down.

“If Jan. 6 rolls around and Biden is confirmed by the Electoral College our nation is in distress!!” a poster wrote on Patriots.win, a forum for Trump supporters, garnering over a thousand “up” votes. “If you cannot go to the DC rally then you must do your duty and show your support for our president by flying the flag upside down!!!!”

Local newspapers from Lexington, Ky. , to Sun City, Ariz., to North Jersey wrote about the flags cropping up nearby. A few days before the inauguration, a Senate candidate in Minnesota flew an upside-down flag on his campaign vehicle .

Hanging an inverted flag outside a home was “an explicit signifier that you are part of this community that believes America has been taken and needs to be taken back,” Mr. Newhouse said.

This spring, the justices are already laboring under suspicion by many Americans that whatever decisions they make about the Jan. 6 cases will be partisan. Justice Clarence Thomas has declined to recuse himself despite the direct involvement of his wife, Virginia Thomas, in efforts to overturn the election.

Now, with decisions in the Jan. 6 cases expected in just a few weeks, a similar debate may unfurl about Justice Alito, the ethics experts said. “It really is a question of appearances and the potential impact on public confidence in the court,” Mr. Fogel said. “I think it would be better for the court if he weren’t involved in cases arising from the 2020 election. But I’m pretty certain that he will see that differently.”

If Justice Alito were on another court, Mr. Fogel said, the flag could also trigger some sort of review to determine if there was any misconduct. But because the Supreme Court serves as the arbiter of its own behavior, “you don’t really have anywhere to take it,” he said.

Aric Toler contributed reporting. Julie Tate contributed research.

Jodi Kantor is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter and co-author of “She Said,” which recounts how she and Megan Twohey broke the story of sexual abuse allegations against Harvey Weinstein, helping to ignite the #MeToo movement.    Instagram • More about Jodi Kantor

Advertisement