Attitude stability and attitude strength: one is enough to make it stable

Prišlin, Radmila

doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0992(199605)26:3<447::aid-ejsp768>3.0.co;2-i

Cited by 99 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 86 publications

(98 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some haphazardly collected examples include: enjoyable-unenjoyable, good-bad, foolish-wise, harmfulbeneficial, pleasant-unpleasant (Sparks et al, 1992), good-bad, desirable-undesirable, positive-negative, beneficial-harmful (Prislin, 1996), worrying-reassuring, unpleasantpleasant, punishing-rewarding, unenjoyable-enjoyable, useless-useful (Norman and Smith, 1995), and extremely good-extremely bad, like extremely-dislike extremely (Berger, 1992).…”

Section: Discourse and Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discursive Social Psychology: From Attitudes to Evaluative Practices

Potter

1998

European Review of Social Psychology

190

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter reviews the major theoretical and methodological features of discursive social psychology, and illustrates the scope and nature of this approach through showing the way it can respecify the social psychology of attitudes. It reviews discourse research on attitude variability; it describes conversation analytic studies on the way evaluations are managed in interaction and shows how our understanding of political oratory can be improved; it discusses the way evaluations are bound up with broader, culturally defined, systems of discourse; it discusses the relation between assessments and factual accounts; and finally it shows how a discursive approach can rework notions of function, consistency, vested interest, and emotion.The aim of this chapter is to introduce a discursive approach to social psychology to people who are more familiar with the mainstream experimental social cognition tradition.After making some preliminary remarks about the history, aims and theory of discursive social psychology I will focus on what would traditionally be called the social psychology of attitudes. This topic has the virtue of being at the heart of social psychology for much of the century, and thus provides a familiar startpoint for anyone wishing to understand what is distinctive about the discursive approach, and how radical its respecification of traditional notions will be.

show abstract

Section: Discourse and Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discursive Social Psychology: From Attitudes to Evaluative Practices

Potter

1998

European Review of Social Psychology

190

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, composites called "attitude strength" have been created by averaging measures of importance, certainty, and intensity (Haddock et al, 1996(Haddock et al, , 1999 1 Some inconsistencies across studies also emerged. For example, attitude importance and certainty loaded on the same factor in some studies (e.g., Erber et al, 1995;Prislin, 1996) but on different factors in other studies (e.g., Abelson, 1988;Pomerantz et al, 1995; Visser & Krosnick, 2001). And even within a single investigation, inconsistent results sometimes appeared.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The most pervasive type of empirical evidence presented to advance the notion of overlap among strength-related attributes has been factor analysis. In a number of studies, exploratory factor analyses or principal components analyses have been conducted in order to identify the factor structure underlying various strength-related attitude attributes (e.g., Abelson, 1988;Bass & Rosen, 1969;Bassili, 1996a;Erber, Hodges, & Wilson, 1995;Kokkinaki, 1998;Lastovicka & Gardner, 1979;Pomerantz, Chaiken, & Tordesillas, 1995;Prislin, 1996). Although these studies (listed down the left side of Table 1) each included somewhat different sets of strength-related attributes, most included measures of attitude importance, knowledge, accessibility, certainty, extremity, and elaboration.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…And even within a single investigation, inconsistent results sometimes appeared. For example, Bassili (1996) found importance and certainty to load on a common factor for some attitude 8 (and other measures;Bassili, 1996a;Prislin, 1996). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We then review evidence of convergences and divergences in the cognitive and behavioral consequences of attitude importance and certainty. In seven past exploratory factor analyses, these attitude attributes loaded on the same factor (e.g., Bass & Rosen, 1969;Bassili, 1996a;Prislin, 1996). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Exploring the Latent Structure of Strength‐related Attitude Attributes

Visser¹,

Bizer²,

Krosnick³

2006

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology

153

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[or she] will do…They draw lines about, and segregate, an otherwise chaotic environment; they are our methods for finding our way about in an ambiguous universe." Gordon W. Allport, 1935, p. 806 It has been nearly 70 years since Gordon Allport famously declared the attitude "the most distinctive and indispensable concept in contemporary American social psychology" (Allport, 1935, p. 798). In the decades since this bold claim, a large literature has accumulated generally reinforcing the notion that attitudes often do, as Allport (1935) suggested, profoundly influence perception, cognition, and behavior. Equally clear from this literature, however, is that attitudes do not always do so. That is, although some attitudes exert a powerful impact on thinking and on behavior, others are largely inconsequential. Similarly, whereas some attitudes are tremendously durable, resisting change in the face of a persuasive appeal and remaining stable over long spans of time, others are highly malleable and fluctuate greatly over time.The term "attitude strength" is often used to capture this distinction, and researchers have identified roughly a dozen attributes of attitudes that are associated with their strength (see .These strength-related attitude attributes include attitude importance, knowledge, elaboration, certainty, ambivalence, accessibility, intensity, extremity, structural consistency, and others. A large literature now exists documenting the relations of these attitude attributes with the four defining features of strong attitudes (i.e., resistance to change, stability over time, and a powerful impact on thought and on behavior; . For example, attitudes to which people attach more personal importance are better predictors of behavior (e.g., Budd, 1986;Parker, Perry, & Gillespie, 1974;Rokeach & Kliejunas, 1972), more resistant to change (Fine, 1957;Gorn, 1975;Zuwerink & Devine, 1996), and more powerfully influence liking of other people (Byrne, London, & Griffitt, 1968;Clore & Baldridge, 1968;Granberg & Holmberg, 1986;Krosnick, 1988b;McGraw, Lodge, & Stroh, 1990), inferences about others' personality traits (Judd & Johnson, 1981), and many other cognitive processes. Similar sorts of relations have been documented between other strength-2 related attitude attributes and the four defining features of strong attitudes (for a review, see . But considerably less is known about the relations among the strength-related attitude attributes themselves. In fact, a controversy has emerged in the attitude literature in recent years regarding the underlying structure of these attributes.In this chapter, we review this controversy and the empirical evidence and conceptual assumptions that have fueled it. We then draw on a diverse set of recent studies to shed new light on the conceptual and practical utility of the competing perspectives. Finally, we consider the implications of our findings for the conceptualization of attitude strength and for the methods by which it is studied. We begin below by defining each strength-rela...

show abstract

The Psychological Underpinnings of Political Behavior

Krosnick

Visser

Harder³

2010

Handbook of Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A. life, liberty, and property B. honor, liberty, and peace C. liberty, health, and community D. life, respect, and equal protection E. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness Educational testing research documents that performance on such items hinges not only on the respondent ' s familiarity with the question ' s subject matter but on how difficult the " distractor " response options are (e.g., Kline, 1986). For anyone who majored in American Politics in college, reading options A -D in this context might induce a smile. The distractors are all structurally similar to the right answer (naming three " rights " ), and they are all plausible. But for people who have heard about the Declaration of Independence only very occasionally in school and have never read it, this might be a much tougher question.What if the question were asked this way instead:Which of the following are the inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence?A. to own a boat, to laugh occasionally, and to have a good meal daily B. to have a pet, to sleep in a bed every night, and to breathe air daily C. to live, to learn, and to love D. to vacation in a country away from home, to chop vegetables with a knife, and to get regular haircuts E. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

show abstract

Attitude stability and attitude strength: one is enough to make it stable

Abstract: The

Cited by 99 publications

References 86 publications

Discursive Social Psychology: From Attitudes to Evaluative Practices

Discursive Social Psychology: From Attitudes to Evaluative Practices

Exploring the Latent Structure of Strength‐related Attitude Attributes

The Psychological Underpinnings of Political Behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About