Attitude and Social Cognition Class 12 NCERT Solutions

Strategic angle. This is a two-part question, so split your answer in two: first a crisp one-line definition, then the three components. Markers look for the word evaluative in the definition and for all three of A, B and C in the components, so make sure both halves are present.

Read the components as one attitude seen from three sides:

1. Cognition is what you think. The beliefs and ideas about the object form the ground the attitude stands on.
2. Affect is what you feel. The emotion attached to the object, warm or cold, pleasant or unpleasant.
3. Behaviour is what you are ready to do. The tendency to act, not the action itself; an attitude is a readiness, not the behaviour.

Why this matters. The sharpest point to add is that an attitude is not behaviour; it is only a tendency to behave, so it cannot be seen directly from outside. Adding the `green environment' example (positive view, happy feeling, joining the drive) turns three abstract labels into something the examiner can picture, which is exactly what the verb ``discuss'' asks for.

A second mark-winning move is to separate an attitude from its near neighbours. Beliefs are only the cognitive ground an attitude stands on, such as belief in God or in democracy. Values are attitudes or beliefs that carry a ``should'' or ``ought'', such as the value that one should always be honest; because they become an inseparable part of a person's outlook, values are very hard to change. Mentioning this trio (attitude, belief, value) shows the examiner you can place the attitude in its wider family rather than defining it in isolation.

Finally, note that the three components are usually consistent but not always. The cognitive part of the green-environment attitude may be strong while the affective and behavioural parts stay weak, so we cannot safely predict one component from the other two. Saying this guards against the common oversimplification that the three always march together, and it is the kind of qualification that lifts an answer into the top band.

Define an attitude as an evaluative state of mind about an attitude object, then give its three components: cognitive (thought), affective (feeling) and behavioural (tendency to act), the A-B-C components.

Strategic angle. The examiner wants a clear ``yes'' followed by the how. Open by settling the nature-versus-nurture point in one line (mostly learnt, only a small indirect inborn part), then spend the rest of the answer on the five learning routes, each with its own example. One example per route is what separates a full-mark answer from a bare list.

Group the five routes by what does the teaching:

1. The object itself teaches through association (the subject liked because the teacher is liked).
2. Consequences teach through reward and punishment (praise for yoga builds a pro-health attitude).
3. Other people teach through modelling (copying parents who respect elders).
4. The group teaches through norms (place-of-worship customs).
5. Information teaches through media and books (a biography building respect for hard work).

Why this matters. The line that lifts the answer is the qualifier on the inborn part: genetic factors influence attitudes only indirectly, alongside learning. Saying this shows you know the debate, not just the list.

Add one more layer of depth by spotting that the fourth route, group or cultural norms, is not really separate from the first three. When a norm such as offering flowers at a place of worship is picked up, the same child is being taught by association (the object linked with a sacred setting), by reward and punishment (approval for following the custom), and by modelling (copying elders who do it). Pointing this out shows you understand the routes as overlapping rather than as five sealed boxes, which is the deeper reading the examiner rewards.

Close by noting that the same five routes also explain how prejudices are learnt, which ties this question to the prejudice section later in the chapter. That bridge is worth one extra sentence because it tells the marker you can see attitude formation and prejudice as one continuous idea: a prejudice is simply a (usually negative) attitude learnt through these very same processes.

Attitudes are mostly learnt through five routes: association, reward and punishment, modelling, group or cultural norms, and exposure to information; inborn factors play only a small, indirect part.

Structural observation. The trap here is to repeat the learning processes from the previous question. The mark-scheme wants the four contexts instead. Keep them apart in your head: processes are the ``how'', factors are the ``where and through whom''.

Order the four factors by the circle of life they sit in:

1. Closest circle: family and school. The earliest and strongest source, acting through association, reward and modelling.
2. Next circle: reference groups. The groups we want to belong to, strongest in early adolescence.
3. Inner circle: personal experience. A single powerful event (the army driver) can reshape an attitude on its own.
4. Widest circle: media. Books, television and the Internet, reaching us even without anyone physically present.

Why this matters. The detail that earns the top band is naming when each factor bites: family in early childhood, reference groups in early adolescence, media throughout. Adding that media can cut both ways, building harmony or pushing consumerism, shows balanced understanding rather than a flat list.

It also helps to say how each factor does its teaching, because that links this answer back to the learning processes. Family and school work mostly by association, reward and punishment, and modelling. Reference groups work through norms, and also through reward and punishment, since the wish to belong makes a person adopt the group's way of thinking. Personal experience can rewrite an attitude in a single stroke, as the army driver's brush with death turned him into a community leader. Media first strengthens the cognitive and affective parts and only later touches behaviour. Showing this factor-to-process mapping is what turns four labels into a real explanation.

A final high-value point is the caution on media: there is often no check on the information being spread, so the same channel that can build social harmony can just as easily manufacture consumerist attitudes where none existed. Naming both faces of media signals balanced judgment, which is exactly what a ``what are the factors'' answer is meant to demonstrate.

The four context factors are family and school, reference groups, personal experiences and the media; each gives a setting in which attitudes are learnt, and each is strongest at a particular stage of life.

Strategic angle. This is a yes/no question with an example demand. Answer ``no'' at once, then prove it with LaPiere, then say when the two do line up. That three-move structure (claim, evidence, conditions) is what earns full marks.

The reasoning in three moves:

1. Claim. Attitude and behaviour can come apart; behaviour does not always mirror attitude.
2. Evidence. LaPiere's hotels served the Chinese couple (positive behaviour) but said on paper they would refuse Chinese guests (negative attitude). The two contradicted each other.
3. Conditions for a match. They line up when the attitude is strong and central, the person is aware of it, there is no external pressure, the behaviour is unobserved, and a positive consequence is expected.

Why this matters. The high-value addition is the reverse direction: sometimes behaviour decides the attitude, as in the one-dollar group of the Festinger and Carlsmith study. Students paid only one dollar to call a boring task interesting could not justify the lie with the tiny payment, so they quietly revised their attitude and decided the task was genuinely interesting. Their behaviour came first and dragged the attitude after it. Mentioning this shows you see the attitude-behaviour link as a two-way street, which is the deeper idea the question is testing.

It is also worth listing the five conditions in full, because each is a separate scoring point: the attitude must be strong and central, the person aware of it, free of external pressure, unobserved by others, and expected to bring a positive consequence. The LaPiere hotels failed several of these at once: filling in a questionnaire is a low-pressure, unobserved setting where the prejudiced attitude could speak freely, whereas refusing a polite couple standing at the desk carried real social pressure to behave well. Spelling out that contrast explains why the attitude and the behaviour diverged, rather than merely noting that they did, and that ``why'' is where the top marks sit.

No: LaPiere's study proves behaviour need not reflect attitude. The two match only under specific conditions (strong, central, conscious attitude with no external pressure), and behaviour can even shape attitude in return.

Structural observation. A ``differentiate'' question is best run on a single axis so the two ideas never blur. The cleanest axis here is belief versus attitude: a stereotype is what you believe about a group, a prejudice is the whole attitude you hold towards it.

Run that axis through every point:

1. Nature: stereotype = a belief (cognition only); prejudice = an attitude (cognition + affect + behaviour).
2. Charge: a stereotype may be positive or negative; a prejudice is usually negative.
3. Order: the stereotype comes first and acts as the cognitive base; the prejudice grows on top of it.

Why this matters. The mark that students miss is the linking sentence: the stereotype is the cognitive component of the prejudice. Say that explicitly and you show the two are not separate topics but two levels of the same thing, a belief and the attitude it feeds. Close with one example, such as the belief that a group is `lazy' (stereotype) hardening into dislike and avoidance of that group (prejudice).

Stereotype = a group belief (cognitive only, any charge); prejudice = a usually negative attitude towards the group, built on that belief and adding feeling and a tendency to discriminate.

Strategic angle. A ``comment'' question wants you to agree or disagree and then justify. Agree with the statement, anchor it on the attitude-behaviour gap, and give one case for each half. The symmetry of the two halves is what makes the answer look complete.

Handle the two halves cleanly:

1. Prejudice minus discrimination. The negative attitude is held but not acted out, often because law restrains the behaviour while leaving the inner attitude in place.
2. Discrimination minus prejudice. Unfair behaviour appears under pressure of a rule, custom or group, even without any negative attitude driving it.

Why this matters. The point that lifts the answer is the practical note that law can curb discrimination (the behaviour) but not the cognitive and emotional parts of prejudice (the attitude). That single line explains why the two can exist apart, and why removing visible discrimination does not by itself remove prejudice.

Tie the two halves back to the A-B-C structure to show real understanding. Prejudice carries the cognitive part (a stereotype about the group) and the affective part (dislike or hatred). Discrimination is the behavioural part, the unfair treatment that actually reaches the target group. Because an attitude and its behaviour are different layers, you can switch one off while the other stays on: an anti-discrimination law disables the behaviour layer while leaving the thought and feeling layers running. Putting it in A-B-C terms turns a memorised pair of sentences into a structured argument.

Close by saying the two still co-occur very often, and that wherever both are present, intergroup conflict within the same society is likely. India's own history shows discrimination, with and without prejudice, based on gender, religion, caste, physical disability and illnesses such as AIDS. Anchoring the abstract point in these real examples is what an examiner means by ``comment'', and it converts a tidy distinction into a convincing, exam-ready answer.

The statement is correct. Prejudice (attitude) and discrimination (behaviour) are separable: prejudice can stay hidden when law or restraint blocks the behaviour, and discrimination can occur under pressure without an underlying prejudice, though the two usually appear together.

Strategic angle. This is an ``apply it'' question, so do not just list theories: attach each NCERT process of attitude change to a concrete action the friend can see. The examiner rewards the link between the named concept and the practical step.

Map each process to a move:

1. Information route to an action. Share clear facts on what nutrients junk food misses, so the cognitive base shifts first.
2. Cognitive dissonance to an action. Spotlight the contradiction between the friend's health goal and the habit, so the discomfort does the persuading.
3. Two-step concept to an action. Bring in a liked model (a favourite sportsperson or an admired elder) who eats healthy; the friend identifies, then imitates.
4. Low-pressure choice to an action. Offer the decision freely, because an unpressured choice produces a lasting change, not a forced one.

Why this matters. The highest-scoring answers name the three change processes (balance, dissonance, two-step) explicitly and then convert each into something you would actually do for your friend. The closing insight is that nagging usually fails because it adds external pressure, whereas dissonance plus a credible model lets the friend own the change, which is why the new attitude sticks.

Trigger cognitive dissonance between health goals and the junk-food habit, supply correct nutritional information, use a liked and credible model to start the change (two-step concept), reward healthy choices, and let the friend decide freely so the new attitude lasts.