Exploring the structure of strength-related attitude features: The relation between attitude importance and attitude accessibility.
- 1 January 2001
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Psychological Association (APA) in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Vol. 81 (4) , 566-586
- https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.81.4.566
Abstract
One of the most significant current controversies in the attitude literature involves the latent structure of attitude attributes related to their strength. Four studies were conducted to explore whether 2 strength-related attributes (importance and accessibility) are affected identically by various manipulations (which would suggest that they reflect a single latent construct) and whether the attributes cause one another (which would suggest they are distinct constructs). Three laboratory experiments and 1 survey study show that (a) repeated expression and personal relevance manipulations have different effects on importance and accessibility and (b) increased importance can cause heightened accessibility. Thus, these 2 attitude attributes appear to constitute related but independent constructs. These studies therefore help to illuminate the nature of attitude strength and the interplay of its sources.Keywords
This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit:
- Attitude StrengthPublished by Taylor & Francis ,2014
- Attitudes as Object–Evaluation Associations of Varying StrengthSocial Cognition, 2007
- Subjective Theories About Encoding May Influence Recognition: Judgmental Regulation in Human MemorySocial Cognition, 1998
- Subjective Experience Versus Content of Information in the Construction of Attitude JudgmentsPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1996
- The structure of self-conception: Conceptualization and measurement.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1985
- Satirical persuasion and topic salienceSouthern Speech Communication Journal, 1977
- Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena.Psychological Review, 1967