Interattitude Structure and Attitude Dynamics.

Abstract

Theories of attitude change have failed to identify the architecture of interattitudinal structures and relate it to attitude change. This article examines two models (a hierarchical and a spatial-linkage model) of interattitudinal structure that explicitly posit consequences for attitude change. An experiment (N = 391) was conducted that manipulated type of hierarchy (explicit versus implicit), whether the hierarchy was primed or not, and the location in the hierarchy to which a message was directed. Whereas the hierarchical model predicts only topdown influence of attitudes on each other, a spatial-linkage model predicts that linked attitudes may influence each other regardless of hierarchical position. The results support the spatial-linkage model in that interattitudinal change is constrained less by a concept's relative position in a hierarchical structure than by the concept's association with other concepts in that structure. Furthermore, within these interattitudinal structures, concepts directly targeted by a persuasive message often exhibit less attitude change than related concepts to which the focal concept appears to be linked. Finally, an explicit hierarchy of concepts appears to facilitate interattitudinal influence much more than an implicit hierarchy of concepts does; the key to this facilitation seems to be the mental accessibility of the organizational structure.A ttitudes have been conceptualized as simple evaluations of an object, associations of objects in memory, arguments for or against a given proposition, or knowledge about a conceptual domain, and beliefs (e.g., Eagly & Chaiken, 1993;Fazio, 1989;Kerlinger, 1984). The many conceptualizations of attitude extant in the literature raise questions regarding the organization, or structure, of related attitudes. If there were absolutely no attitude structure, then people might possess random

Reactance, Restoration, and Cognitive Structure: Comparative Statics

“…Another unexplored area in the TPR is reactance effects beyond the attitudes and behaviors targeted by the reactance-inducing message. There is evidence (Dinauer & Fink, 2005) that messages can affect concepts associated with the targeted attitudes and behaviors even when such concepts are not mentioned in the message. (In what follows, we refer to the concept targeted by the message as the target concept and a concept associated with the target concept as an associated concept.)…”

Mental representations of HPV in Appalachia: Gender, semantic network analysis, and knowledge gaps

“…Superordinate concepts are important because they can strongly influence subordinate ones (Dinauer & Fink, 2005; Hunter et al, 1976). Men's representations were hierarchically organized around cancer and sexual transmission, but also included some concepts-- women , disease , and cause --more centrally than vaccinated women did.…”

“…The concepts of cancer and women were bi-directionally linked to each other in men's and vaccinated women's semantic networks. While much attention has been paid to the implications of belief systems with uni-directional links (e.g., Dinauer & Fink, 2005; Hunter et al, 1976), the implications for bi-directionality are unknown. Bi-directionally related concepts, for example, may be those which are more stable, more resistant to change, and/or stronger.…”

“…This definition suggests that the ideas or beliefs are structured (Converse, 1964; Dinauer & Fink, 2005; Hunter, Levine, & Sayers, 1976), such as in a hierarchy from abstract ideas to more concrete ones. The structure has implications for interpreting a representation.…”

“…If another group holds women as the superordinate concept with directed connections to virus, cause, and cancer, then this structure may evoke a meaning that women cause the virus, which creates cancer in women. The influence of superordinate concepts on their connected ideas is argued in multiple models (e.g., Dinauer & Fink, 2005; Hunter et al, 1976). Further, the models suggest that persuasive messages have different effects depending on whether they target superordinate or the subordinate (connected) ideas.…”