Attitudes and the Explict-Implicit Axis
by tdaxp ~ August 18th, 2007
Both Rosenberg & Hovland (1960, 3) and Triandis (1971,3) break down attitudes into three components: cognitive (what people believe), affective (what people feel), and behavioral (what people do). The chart used to illustrate this troika is reproduced below:
Schematic Conception of Attitudes
However, it strikes me this model can be rationalized if we look at how explicit an attitude is. For instance, cognitive attitudes rely entirely on what people verbally think, while behavioral attitudes might not even reflect what people feel.
Dotted Boxes are Intervening Variables
Yet, I look at this and I think it should tie in somehow to the generations of war and the OODA loop:
But no matter how hard I try, I can’t make a mapping (even if I add extra attitude components, like “existential,” “observational,” etc). Any suggestions?
Bibliography:
Rosenberg, M. J., & Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitudes. In M. J. Rosenberg, C. I. Hovland. W. J. McGuire, R. P. Abelson, & J. W. Brehm (Eds.), Attitude organization and change: An analysis of consistency among attitude components (pp. 1-14). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Triandis, H. C. (1971). Attitudes and attitude change. New York: Wiley.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Dan,
I'm not sure you'll be able to get a clean mapping. “Attitudes” are implicit within Boyd's “Orientation” — the manner or context by which we interpret “Observations”, which then elicit “Decisions” and “Actions”.
“Orientation” is the deepest and most profound of Boyd's OODA loop, and the most often overlooked or shortchanged.
I believe that all three varieties of “attitudes” will fit within “Orientation” — and that the balance among these three will influence subsequent “Decision” and “Action”.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Shane,
In Boyd's OODA loop, the interlocking elements of Orientation are
* Cultural traditions
* Analysis & Synthesis
* Previous Experience
* New Information
* Genetic Heritage
Behavioral attitudes would seem to be identical to Action.
Cognitive attitudes, requiring conscious cognition, would appear to require going through the Decision stage.
Affect, being an implicit guide to action and feeding into conscious decision making, would appear to be within orientation
While I agree that Orientation is the deepest & most profound part of the OODA loo, I do not believe that all aspects of all attitudes can be said to reside exclusively within Orientation.
August 19th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Dan,
I once tried making more explicit the vagueness of Boyd's loop, particularly the Orientation, by using my own Revised OODA [1], eh?
However, it strikes me this model can be rationalized if we look at how explicit an attitude is. For instance, cognitive attitudes rely entirely on what people verbally think, while behavioral attitudes might not even reflect what people feel.
When you separate these in this way, you are thinking along the same lines I tried using when I revised the OODA for my own use. Not only did I want to break out of the general vagueness of the Orient phase and explicit/implicit assumptions, but I wanted to separate out the subconscious, unconscious, and the conscious orientations. I did not advance as far in my design as I might have, preferring at that point to leave a little bit of fuzziness; I wanted a more useful OODA design, which I think I achieved, even while knowing some things were not being isolated to perfection!
What strikes me about your current search is how these “attitudes” may relate to the troika I used for activity:
1. Reflective/Habitual Acts
2. Impulsive Acts
3. Focused Acts
Loosely, these would be related to attitude in an “implicit—->explicit continuum” as well as an “unconscious—->subconscious—->conscious continuum” like this:
1. Reflective/Habitual Acts — Implicit, Unconscious
2. Impulsive Acts — Im-/Explicit, Sub-/Conscious
3. Focused Acts — Explicit, Conscious
The second, Impulsive Acts, are guided by some consciously detected observations but without enough info or too much conflicting info for those observations to be understood (and thus, preventing direct Focused Acts or unconscious Reflexive/Habitual Acts); so there is a mix of the explicit, which isn't entirely understood, and implicit rules urging activity, that leads to Impulsive Acts.
I've also mapped the Revised OODA to the generations of war [3] [4]; how that will tie better into your current undertaking is something I'll consider further.
[1] http://www.fifthgeneration.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2006/10/rethinking_the_ooda.php
[2] http://www.flickr.com/photos/dreaming5gw/517144426/
[3] http://www.flickr.com/photos/dreaming5gw/517144444/
[4] http://www.fifthgeneration.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2006/10/observing_the_maturing_world.php
August 19th, 2007 at 12:00 am
(cross-posted from DGW)
Dan,
I once tried making more explicit the vagueness of Boyd's loop, particularly the Orientation, by using my own Revised OODA [1], eh?
**However, it strikes me this model can be rationalized if we look at how explicit an attitude is. For instance, cognitive attitudes rely entirely on what people verbally think, while behavioral attitudes might not even reflect what people feel.**
When you separate these in this way, you are thinking along the same lines I tried using when I revised the OODA for my own use. Not only did I want to break out of the general vagueness of the Orient phase and explicit/implicit assumptions, but I wanted to separate out the subconscious, unconscious, and the conscious orientations. I did not advance as far in my design as I might have, preferring at that point to leave a little bit of fuzziness; I wanted a more useful OODA design, which I think I achieved, even while knowing some things were not being isolated to perfection!
What strikes me about your current search is how these “attitudes” may relate to the troika I used for activity:
1. Reflective/Habitual Acts
2. Impulsive Acts
3. Focused Acts
Loosely, these would be related to attitude in an “implicit—->explicit continuum” as well as an “unconscious—->subconscious—->conscious continuum” like this:
1. Reflective/Habitual Acts — Implicit, Unconscious
2. Impulsive Acts — Im-/Explicit, Sub-/Conscious
3. Focused Acts — Explicit, Conscious
The second, Impulsive Acts, are guided by some consciously detected observations but without enough info or too much conflicting info for those observations to be understood (and thus, preventing direct Focused Acts or unconscious Reflexive/Habitual Acts); so there is a mix of the explicit, which isn't entirely understood, and implicit rules urging activity, that leads to Impulsive Acts.
I've also mapped the Revised OODA to the generations of war [3] [4]; how that will tie better into your current undertaking is something I'll consider further.
[1] http://www.fifthgeneration.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2006/10/rethinking_the_ooda.php
[2] http://www.flickr.com/photos/dreaming5gw/517144426/
[3] http://www.flickr.com/photos/dreaming5gw/517144444/
[4] http://www.fifthgeneration.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2006/10/observing_the_maturing_world.php
August 19th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Sorry for the double comment! I'd left some html code in the cross-posted comment and needed to fix; plus, the confirmation screen placed the confirmation code in the middle of the comment, and looked like something was wrong….
Plus, I wrote “Reflective/Habitual Acts” above which should read: “Reflexive/Habitual Acts.” Reflexive means something other than Reflective; reflective would fit more in the “Focused Acts” category, whereas with “reflexive” I meant habitual responses to stimuli (as opposed to habitual generally-proactive activity.)
August 19th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Curtis,
The reflexive/impulsive/focused continuum seems maps to the stages of automatizing responses (conscious, finger-tip feeling, automatic). It makes sense that your troika matches to attitudes, as the more an attitude is practiced the less thoughtful or conscious it becomes.
I'm trying to focus my remaining research at Nebraska on attitudes, so I am so enjoying this conversation!