Actitudes y construcción de la agenda pública

Authors

  • Javier Carreón Guillén Universidad Autónoma de México.
  • Jorge Henández Valdés Universidad Autónoma de México.
  • María de Lourdes Morales Flores Universidad Autónoma de México.
  • Bertha Rivera Varela
  • Gerardo Arturo Limón Domínguez Universidad Autónoma de México.
  • Cruz García Lirios Universidad Autónoma de México.

Keywords:

Democracia, Tecnología, Actitud, Modelos, Agenda, Democracy, Technology, Attitude, Models, Agenda.

Abstract

Resumen

En las democracias modernas, la construcción de una agenda pública supone la influencia de los medios de comunicación sobre la opinión ciudadana y la de esta en la evaluación de las políticas de comunicación de masas. En este sentido, las actitudes han sido estudiadas como indicadores de la persuasión o disuasión de audiencias. Por ello, el objetivo del presente trabajo es discutir los modelos de actitudes en referencia al procesamiento de  información relativa a los temas de la agenda pública. Para tal propósito se revisan las teorías de actitudes y se contrastan sus postulados con los hallazgos más recientes en cuanto a la formación, función y composición de las actitudes. Tal ejercicio permitirá debatir la influencia de los medios de comunicación sobre la opinión ciudadana a través de las actitudes hacia la información generada por dispositivos electrónicos y cibernéticos en el actual contexto tecnológico y democrático. 

Abstract

In modern democracies, building a public agenda involves the influence of media on public opinion and citizen in evaluating this policy of mass communication. In this sense, attitudes have been studied as indicators of persuasion or deterrence of audiences. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to discuss models of attitudes in reference to the processing of information relating to the issues on the public agenda. For this purpose, we review the theories of attitudes and contrasted its principles with the latest findings regarding the formation, function and composition of attitudes. This exercise will discuss the influence of media on citizens’ opinions through attitudes toward the information generated by electronic devices and cyber in the current technological and democratic.

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Javier Carreón Guillén, Universidad Autónoma de México.

Doctor en administración por la UNAM, Facultad de Contaduría y Administración, profesor adscrito al Sistema Nacional de Investigadores, nivel 1 y profesor de la UNAM, Escuela Nacional de Trabajo Social.

Jorge Henández Valdés, Universidad Autónoma de México.

Doctorante en Ciencias Políticas y Sociales por la UNAM, Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales, profesor UNAM, Escuela Nacional de Trabajo Social

María de Lourdes Morales Flores, Universidad Autónoma de México.

Doctorante en Educación por la Benemerita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, profesora UNAM, Escuela Nacional de Trabajo Social y coordinadora en UAEM, unidad Huehuetoca.

Bertha Rivera Varela

Doctora en Geografía por la UNAM, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, profesor UAEM, unidad Chimalhuacan y Huehuetoca

Gerardo Arturo Limón Domínguez, Universidad Autónoma de México.

Doctor en psicología por la UNAM, facultad de psicología, profesor UPN unidad Chihuahua

Cruz García Lirios, Universidad Autónoma de México.

Doctorante en psicología social y ambiental por la UNAM Facultad de Psicología, profesor UAEM unidad Huehuetoca

References

Agarwal, Ritu, 2000, “Individual Acceptance of Information Technologies”, en: Robert W. Zmud (ed.), Framing the Domains of it Management Research: Glimpsing the Future to the Past, Pinnaflex, pp. 85-104.

Ajzen, Icek y Martin Fishbein, 1974, “Factors Influencing Intentions and the Intention Behavior Relation”, Human Relations, 27, pp. 1-15.

Ajzen, Icek y Martin Fishbein, 2005, “The Influence of Attitudes on Behavior”, en: Dolores Albarracín, Blair T. Johnson, y Mark P.Zanna. (eds.), The Handbook of Attitudes, Mahwah, Nueva Jersey, Lawrence Eribaum, pp.173-221.

Ajzen, Icek y James Sexton, 1999, “Depth of Processing, Beliefs Congruence, and Attitude Behavior Correspondence”, en: Shelly Chaiken y Yaacov Trope (eds.), Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology, New York, Guilford, pp. 117-138.

Ajzen, Icek, 1991, “The Theory of Planned Behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Processes, 50, pp. 179-211.

Ajzen, Icek, 2002, “Attitudes”, en: R. Ballesteros (ed.), Encyclopedic of Psychological Assessment, Londres, Sage Publications, pp. 110-115.

Ajzen, Icek, 2011, “Job Satisfaction, Effort and Performance: a Reasoned Action Perspective”, Contemporary Economics, 5, pp. 32-46.

Ajzen, Icek, Nicholas Joyce, Sana Sheikh y Nicole Gilbert Cote, 2011, “Knowledge and the Prediction of Behavior: the Role of Information Accuracy in the Theory of Planned Behavior”, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33, 101-117

Albarracín, Dolores, Joel B. Cohen y G. Tarcan Kumkale, 2003, “When Communications Collide with Recipient’s Actions Effects pre post-Message Behavior on Intentions to Follow the Message Recommendation”, Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 29, pp. 1-12.

Albarracín, Dolores, Harry M. Wallace y William Hart, 2012, “How Judgments Change Following Comparison of Current and Prior Information”, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34, pp. 44-55.

Albarracín, Dolores y Robert S. Wyer, Jr., 2011, “Elaborative and non Elaborative Processing of a Behavior Related Communication”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, pp. 691-705.

Armitage, Christopher y Mark Conner, 2001, “Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behavior: a meta Analytic Review”, British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, pp. 471-499.

Bagozzi, Richard P., Alice M. Tybout, Samuel Craig y Brian Sternthal, 1986, “The Construct Validity of the Tripartite Classification of Attitudes”, Journal of Marketing Research, 16, pp. 88-95.

Briñol, Pablo y Richard E. Petty, 2004, “Self Validation Processes: the Role of Thought Confidence in Persuasion”, en: Geoffrey Haddock y Gregory R. Maio (eds.), Contemporary Perspectives on the Psychology of Attitudes, Londres, Psychology Press, pp. 205-226.

Bronfenbrenner, Urie, 1979, The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press

Cacioppo, John T., Richard E. Petty y Stephen L. Crites, 1994, “Attitude change”, Encyclopedic of Human Behavior, 1, pp. 261- 270.

Caligiuri, Paula, Rick R. Jacobs y James L. Farr, 2000, “The Attitudinal and Behavioral Openness Scale: Development and Construct Validation”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, pp. 27-46.

Crano, William D. y Radmila Prisling, 2006, “Attitudes and Persuasion”, Annual Review of Psychology, 57, pp. 345-374.

Cialdini, Robert B., Richard E. Petty y John T. Cacioppo, 1981, “Attitude and Attitude Change”, Annual Review Psychology, 32, pp. 357- 404.

Davis, Fred D., 1989, “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology”, MIS Quarterly. 13, pp. 319-340.

Davis, Fred D. y Viswanath Venkatesh, 1996, “A Critical Assessment of Potential Measurement Biases in the Technology Acceptance Model: Three Experiments”, Journal Computer Studies. 45, pp. 19-45.

Davis, Fred D., 1993, “User Acceptance of Information Technology: Systems, Characteristics, User Perception and Behavioral Impacts”, International Journal of Man Machine Studies, 8, pp. 475-487.

Davis, Fred D., 2006, “On the Relationship between HCI and Technology Acceptance Research”, en: Ping Zhang y Dennis F. Galletta (cords.), Human-computer Interaction and Management Information Systems: Foundations, Nueva York, AMIS, pp. 395- 401.

Davis, Fred D., Richard P. Bagozzi y Paul R. Warshaw, 1989, “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models”, Management Science. 35, pp. 982-1003.

Dovidio, John F., Samuel L. Gaertner y Tamar Saguy, 2009, “Commonality and the Complexity of Us Social Attitudes and Social Change”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, pp. 3-20.

Eagly, Alice H. y Shelly Chaiken, 2005, “Attitude Research in the 21th Century the Current State of Knowledge”, en: Dolores Albarracín, Blair T. Johnson, y Mark P. Zanna (eds.), The Handbook of Attitudes, Mahwah, Nueva Jersey, Lawrence Eribaum, pp.747-763.

Fazio, Russell H., Mark P. Zanna y Joel Cooper, 1977, “Dissonance and self-Perception; an Integrative View of each Theory’s Proper Domain of Application”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, pp. 464-479.

Flay, Brian P., 1978, “Catastrophe Theory in Social Psychology: some Applications to Attitudes and Social Behavior”, Behavioral Science. 26, pp. 335-350.

French, David P., Stephen Sutton, Susie J. Hennings, Jo Mitchel, Nicholas J. Wareham, Simon Griffing, Wendy Hardeman y Ann Louis Kinminth, 2005, “The Importance of Affective Beliefs and Attitudes in the Theory Planned Behavior: Predicting the Intention to Increase Physical Activity”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, pp. 1824-1848.

Guering, Bernard, 1994, “Attitudes and Beliefs as Verbal Behavior”, Behavior Analyst, 17, pp. 155-163.

Hughes, Sean y Dermot Barnes, 2011, “The Dominance of Associative Theorizing in Implicit Attitudes Research: Propositional and Behavioral Alternatives”, Psychological Research, 6, pp. 465-498.

Johnson, Blair T., Gregory R. Maio y Aaron Smith- McLallen, 2005, “Communication and Attitude Change: Causes Process and Effects”, en: Dolores Albarracín, Blair T. Johnson, y Mark P. Zanna (eds.), The Handbook of Attitudes, Mahwah, Nueva Jersey, Lawrence Eribaum, pp. 617-669.

Kraft, Pal, Jostein Rise, Stephen Sutton y Espen Roysamb, 2005, “Perceived Difficulty in the Theory of Planned Behavior: Perceived Behavioral Control or Affective Attitude?”, British Journal of Psychology, 44, pp. 479-496.

Overwalle, Frank van y Frank Siebler, 2005, “A Connectionist Model of Attitudes Formation and Change”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, pp. 231-274.

Petty, Richard E. y John T. Cacioppo, 1984, “The Effects of Involvement on Responds to Argument Quantity and Quality: Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, pp. 69-81.

Petty, Richard E. y John. T. Cacioppo, 1986, “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, pp. 123-162.

Petty, Richard E., Pablo Briñol y Zakary L. Tormala, 2002, “Thought Confidence as a Determinant of Persuasion: the Self Validation Hypothesis”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, pp. 722-741.

Schwarz, Norbert y Gerd Bohner, 2001, “The Construction of Attitudes”, en: Abraham Tesser y Norbert Schwarz (eds.), Interpersonal processes Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology, Oxford, Reino Unido, Blackwell, pp. 436-457.

Smith, Joanne R. y Hogg, Michael A., 2008, “Social Identity and Attitudes”, en: William D. Crano y Radmila Prislin (eds.), Attitudes and Attitude Change, Nueva York, Psychology Press, pp. 337-360.

Sommer, Lutz, 2011, “The Theory Planned Behavior and the Impact of Past Behavior”, International Business y Economic Research Journal, 10, pp. 91-110.

Venkatesh, Viswanath, Michael G. Morris, Gordon B. Davis y Fred D. Davis, 2003, “User Acceptance of Information Technology: toward a Unified View”, Mis Quarterly, 27, pp. 425-476.

Wilson, Timothy D., Samuel Lindsay y Tonya Y. Schooler, 2000, “A Model of Dual Attitudes”, Psychological Review, 107, pp. 101-126.

Zajonc, Robert B., 1968, “Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, pp. 1-27.

How to Cite

Carreón Guillén, J., Henández Valdés, J., Morales Flores, M. de L., Rivera Varela, B., Limón Domínguez, G. A., & García Lirios, C. (2017). Actitudes y construcción de la agenda pública. Realidades Revista De La Facultad De Trabajo Social Y Desarrollo Humano, 3(2), 91–105. Retrieved from https://realidades.uanl.mx/index.php/realidades/article/view/71