Social and Critical Psychology

Attitude-Behaviour Gap Laboratory

Four fictional colleagues are asked how strongly they agree that they speak up when they disagree in a team meeting. All four score 6.2 out of 7. Then they go to work.

Simulated - fictional people, a fictional workplace and a model with visible coefficients

Learning objective

By the end you should be able to say why a strong attitude towards a behaviour does not, on its own, predict the behaviour.

About 15 minutes. Nothing you do here is saved or sent anywhere.

What the model is and is not

The likelihood figures come from a small logistic model whose coefficients are printed in the interface and in the teaching notes. They are chosen to make a teaching pattern visible. They are not estimates of anything, they do not come from any dataset, and they should never be quoted as effect sizes. The model is a deliberately simplified relative of the reasoned-action tradition; its most important simplification is stated on screen.

How to use this

Commit to an answer about Aisha, using only her score.
Experiment 1: predict what four colleagues with the same score actually do, then see the model's answer for each.
Experiment 2: take Marek and move his opportunity to speak up. Watch his behaviour change while his attitude does not.

This part needs JavaScript

The three experiments compute behavioural likelihoods and correlations in your browser, so they cannot run with JavaScript switched off. The rest of this page is readable without it.

Need a hand?

Key terms

Correspondence: How closely the questionnaire's specificity matches the action being predicted — in target, action, context and time.
Situational constraint: Features of the setting that decide whether an intention can be acted on at all.
Individual and sample claims: A correlation computed across 300 people, and a statement about one of them. The first does not license the second.

Experiment 1. Predict each colleague

All four scored 6.2 out of 7 on the same item — "I speak up when I disagree in a team meeting". Only their circumstances differ. Say how often you expect each of them actually to speak up, then press the button.

Experiment 2. Marek, and one condition

Marek's attitude does not move. Only his opportunity to speak up does.

More of the situation

Loads that colleague's circumstances.

The same person, the same disposition; only the question changes.

Four colleagues, four working lives

Each colleague, their attitude score, your prediction and the model's estimated proportion of occasions
Colleague	Attitude to speaking up	You said	Model

What each condition contributes

Contribution of each condition in log-odds units
Condition	Setting	Contribution

Go deeper: 300 colleagues, and where a correlation comes from

Everyone's attitude is drawn from the same distribution. Only the setting and the measure change.

The setting Uniform conditions - everyone gets the same chaired meeting, the same standing, the same opportunity Real teams - conditions vary as much as attitudes do

The measure A general values questionnaire A behaviour-level attitude scale A specific intention, matched to the action

Correlation between measured attitude and behaviour in each combination of setting and measure
Measure	Uniform conditions	Real teams

The selected cell, as a scatterplot

Rowan, Devi, Marek and Priya gave the same answer to the same question and did not behave the same way. Marek's case is the sharp one: every internal condition is as strong as Rowan's, and the occasion to disagree almost never arises. A course aimed at his attitude would change nothing. What a score measures is an answer to a question; whether the answer becomes an action depends on the room.

First, a judgement

Three experiments

From a score to an action

Four colleagues, four working lives

Estimated behaviour

Challenge - two things a report might say

What this demonstrates