312 Attitudes in Social Behavior
toward the object. For example, an abstract painting that ini-
tially evokes confusion might come to be liked over time—
simply because the painting is more familiar. The results of
several fascinating studies have shown that conscious recog-
nition that stimuli are familiar is not necessary for the mere
exposure effect to occur (e.g., Moreland & Beach, 1992), nor,
in fact, is conscious perceptionof the object—subliminal ex-
posures can increase liking for a stimulus (e.g., Bornstein &
D’Agostino, 1992).
Behavioral Processes
A third potential source of attitudes is behavioral
information—specifically, knowledge of one’s previous ac-
tions toward a target. This knowledge can influence attitudes
through a variety of processes, including dissonance arousal
and self-perception processes. From the perspective of disso-
nance theory (Festinger, 1957), knowing that one has acted
favorably or unfavorably toward a target willmotivatean indi-
vidual to evaluate the target in a manner consistent with those
actions (e.g., Cooper & Fazio, 1984). From the perspective of
self-perception theory (Bem, 1972), individuals might logi-
callyinferthat their attitudes are consistent with their actions
(e.g., Olson, 1992). Thus, an effect of past behavior on atti-
tudes may reflect both cognitive and affective processes.
In a recent paper, Albarracin and Wyer (2000) reported
several studies in which they cleverly tested the effects of
knowledge about past behavior by leading participants to be-
lieve that they had expressed either support for or opposition
to a particular position without being aware of it. Because
participants had not actually engaged in such behavior, the
research tested directly the effects of believingthat one has
behaved in a certain fashion. Results showed that participants
reported attitudes that were consistent with the alleged past
behavior and that subsequent behavior toward the target also
tended to be consistent with the alleged prior action. Thus,
behavioral information had a direct effect on attitudes and
subsequent behavior.
Biological Processes
Social psychologists have directed little attention to biologi-
cal processes in attitude formation. A few biological issues
have been examined, including physiological concomitants
of attitudes (e.g., Cacioppo & Petty, 1987), the impact of cer-
tain drugs on attitudes and persuasion (e.g., MacDonald,
Zanna, & Fong, 1996), and the role of physiological arousal
in specific attitudinal phenomena (e.g., Zanna & Cooper,
1974). In general, however, biological processes have been
neglected by attitude researchers.
A provocative biological perspective on attitudes concerns
the role of genetic factors. The field of behavioral genetics
has begun to influence social psychologists, including atti-
tude researchers. It is extremely unlikely, of course, that
there are direct, one-to-one connections between genes and
attitudes (e.g., a gene that causes attitudes toward capital
punishment). Nevertheless, genes could establish general
predispositions that shape environmental experiences in
ways that increase the likelihood of an individual’s develop-
ing specific traits and attitudes. For example, children who
are naturally small for their age might be picked on by other
children more than their larger peers are, with the result that
the smaller children might develop anxieties about social in-
teraction, resulting in consequences for their attitudes toward
social events.
Arvey, Bouchard, Segal, and Abraham (1989) found that
approximately 30% of the observed variance in job satisfac-
tion in their sample of identical twins raised apart was
attributable to genetic factors. Thus, respondents’ attitudes
toward their jobs appeared to be partly inherited. In addition,
Eaves, Eysenck, and Martin (1989) reported the results of
two surveys involving almost 4,000 pairs of same-sex twins.
A variety of social attitudes were assessed, including those
toward crime, religion, race, and lifestyle. Heritability esti-
mates for individual items ranged from 1% to 62%, with a
median of 39%.
But how do genes impact attitudes? What are some
specific, genetically influenced characteristics that can sys-
tematically bias environmental experience so as to induce
particular attitudes? Tesser (1993) identified several possibil-
ities, including intelligence, temperament, and sensory struc-
tures. Olson, Vernon, Harris, and Jang (2001) measured some
potential mediators of attitude heritability, including physical
characteristics and personality factors, in a study of more
than 300 pairs of same-sex twins. Most of these possible me-
diators were themselves highly heritable in the sample of
twins, and multivariate analyses showed that several of the
variables correlated at a genetic level with attitudes that were
heritable. For example, the personality trait of sociability
yielded a significant heritability coefficient and significant
genetic correlations with five of the six heritable attitude
measures. These data suggest that the heritability of sociabil-
ity (see Zuckerman, 1995) might account in part for the heri-
table components of some attitudes.
Tesser (1993) hypothesized that attitudes that are highly
heritable might have a biological basis that makes attitude
change difficult, which could lead individuals to develop psy-
chological defenses to protect the attitudes. For example,
niche buildingmight occur (see Plomin, DeFries, & Loehlin,
1977), such that individuals seek out environments that are