Attitude consistency theory implication for policy analysis: the case of sustainable agriculture

Abstract

<p>Public policies, in general, have multiple dimensions, competing visions, or alternatives with variable outcomes for different segments of the public. Given this scenario, one contribution sociologists and social psychologists can make to public policy analysis is through monitoring attitudes held by individual constituents. This is meaningful when attitudes are significant predispositions to behavior. Attitude theory, and in particular cognitive consistency theory, gives us one understanding for the link between attitudes and behavior;A policy analytical framework on a specific issue, namely sustainable agriculture, was examined. Sustainable agriculture was defined as having three distinct dimensions; sustainability as food sufficiency, stewardship, and community. Each dimension supported a different agricultural policy; status quo, environmental provisions to the status quo, and dramatic shift in focus from the individual to larger geographic regions;Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance was applied to sustainable agriculture utilizing a national survey of households. This theory postulates that when inconsistent attitudes within individuals become salient (or familiar), dissonance results. Therefore an individual unfamiliar with agriculture is more likely to have inconsistent attitudes toward agriculture (than an individual familiar with agriculture). The emotional effect of dissonance motivates individuals to change some attitudes to become consonant with other attitudes and/or behavior. The move toward consistency brings predictability to behavior and meaningful input to policy analysis;The data utilized in this study, through a variety of statistical procedures partially confirmed the three stated hypotheses. Respondents to the survey did adhere to a single dimension of agriculture as confirmed by a factor analysis and correlation analysis. The important concept of familiarity, however, was not significantly related to adherence. That is, the greater the respondent's familiarity with agriculture did not lead to a higher adherence to a particular dimension of sustainable agriculture. The data also did not support the hypothesized relationship between familiarity, political orientation (or partisanship), and adherence to a particular meaning of sustainable agriculture.</p>