Karl Cassel

COMM 363: Attitude vs. Action Argument

3 February, 2016

As I explore the debate of persuasion regarding the question of action or attitude, there is

great room for application to a spiritual context, allowing me to blend my knowledge of

persuasion and my personal experiences in my journey of faith. A major theme behind the idea of

a life of faith is the process of change, which can be seen in the transition from our old lives of

sin to a better understanding and pursuit of Christ. This is paralleled by Gass & Seiters idea that

persuaders rely on attitudes as a means of bring about changes (44).

Beginning by looking at the way attitude becomes manifest in action, it is important to

understand that our attitudes do correspond with our behaviors as well as represent favorable

or unfavorable evaluations of things which is known as the evaluative dimension (44). Looking

to my own life, I find a time when my attitude dictated my actions which came when I was eight

years old. As I had grown up in a Christian family, I found myself laying in bed one night,

growing increasingly anxious and concerned as I wrestled with the idea of what would actually

happen to me after I die and where I would end up as well as a knowledge of my need for

Christs saving grace from my convictions. This attitude, or psychological tendency that is

expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor, was being

processed inside of me and can be explained by Fishbein and Azjens theory of reasoned action

which does a good job of accounting for the role of attitudes and intentions on behavior (44 &

50).

Unpacking this situation, my behavioral intent and then overt behavior which was going

downstairs to my dad to accept Jesus into my life as my Lord and Savior, was shaped by my
attitude toward the behavior as well as my subjective norm component. My attitude toward the

behavior was brought about by my descriptive belief about the outcome, accepting Jesus into my

heart will bring me eternal life, as well as my evaluation of the outcome, it will be beneficial for

myself to accept Jesus into my life. Then my subjective norm component was brought about

from my normative beliefs, it is expected that I accept Christ into my heart to be a Christian, as

well as my motivation to comply, I want what my dad has which is eternal life.

Next, it is important to examine the other side of the debate which regards believing by

doing. An example from my personal life comes from a time when I was able to visit the slums

of Chennai, India with my grandfather. We took a trip to this poverty-stricken area where my

grandfather was able to observe and diagnose patients, however, my action of going to this area

would bring about a new spiritual perspective, or attitude, that I would not have known without

having this experience. Seeing these people with virtually nothing, pouring whatever funds they

had into gifts and offerings for the Hindu statues and gods they worshipped for protection and

prosperity.

This perceived reality shaped my attitude of not only the rich blessings the Lord has

bestowed upon myself, my family, and those around me, but also the disparity and deep sense of

lost that is so prevalent throughout the world in people that do not know the Lord. For so many

years I had taken for granted the blessings in my life, so my action of physically visiting this

impoverished area brought about an attitude change in my personal life. This attitude change that

followed my experience in India lead me to the cognitive dissonance theory which explains how

people rationalize contradictory decisions and behaviors in their own minds and to other people

(63). I was experiencing dissonance in the way that my gravitation towards consistency, in this

case living out my typical life every day back in the states involving wastefulness and
complaining about insignificant things, was being challenged by my new attitude which resulted

from the experience I had through the action of visiting the poor of India.

To conclude, when it comes to persuasion and influence, attitude is more important than

action. This idea that attitude is more important than action is supported through the concept of

central processing which can be found in Petty and Cacioppos elaboration likelihood model

(ELM) (53). In order to form an attitude with central processing of the ELM, there must be

significant motivation of the subject as well as a sense of ability which is combined with an

evaluation of the merits of the issue in order to produce a well informed attitude. This attitude

will be quite strong and long-lasting as it was drawn from various aspects of ones understanding

and required explicit thought and knowledge. This is in contrast to peripheral processing which

relies on mental shortcuts and tends to be more short lived (53).

This longevity of attitude is vitally important to persuasion and influence because if I am

attempting to impact an audience, I can direct their thinking towards a more central processing

route in order for it to be more logical, to remain more founded, as well influence the audiences

attitudes for a longer period of time. The theory of reasoned action, as mentioned earlier, is a

vital aspect to the dominance of attitude over action. As explained, the weight behind ones overt

behavior is dependent on their intent which is shaped by a host of other attitudes and factors. The

importance of attitude over action lies in the strength of the many beliefs that go into forming an

attitude. Therefore, these formed attitudes are vitally important ones makeup and ability to

persuade and influence

Citations:
Gass, Robert H., and John S. Seiter. Persuasion, Social Influence, and Compliance Gaining.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1999. Print.