View Item 

Show simple item record

Forming Judgments of Attitude Certainty, Intensity, and Importance: The Role of Subjective Experiences
dc.contributor.authorHaddock, Geoffreyen_US
dc.contributor.authorRothman, Alexanderen_US
dc.contributor.authorReber, Rolfen_US
dc.contributor.authorSchwarz, Norberten_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-04-14T13:35:50Z
dc.date.available2010-04-14T13:35:50Z
dc.date.issued1999en_US
dc.identifier.citationHaddock, Geoffrey; Rothman, Alexander; Reber, Rolf; Schwarz, Norbert (1999). "Forming Judgments of Attitude Certainty, Intensity, and Importance: The Role of Subjective Experiences." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25(7): 771-782. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/68385>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0146-1672en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/68385
dc.description.abstractTwo studies examined the impact of subjective experiences on reports of attitude certainty, intensity, and importance. In Study 1, participants with moderate or extreme attitudes toward doctor-assisted suicide generated three (easy) or seven (hard) arguments that either supported or countered their opinion toward the issue prior to indicating the strength of their attitude. Participants with moderate attitudes rated their opinions as more intense, personally important, and held with greater certainty when they had generated either a small number of supporting arguments or a large number of opposing arguments. Ratings provided by individuals with extreme attitudes were unaffected by the argument generation task. In Study 2, the impact of ease of recall on strength-related judgments was eliminated when it was rendered nondiagnostic by a misattribution manipulation. Implications of these findings for attitude strength and other judgmental phenomena are discussed.en_US
dc.format.extent3108 bytes
dc.format.extent78366 bytes
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.publisherSage Publicationsen_US
dc.titleForming Judgments of Attitude Certainty, Intensity, and Importance: The Role of Subjective Experiencesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPsychologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherUniversity of Exeter, England, G.Haddock@exeter.ac.uken_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherUniversity of Minnesotaen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherUniversity of Berne, Switzerlanden_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/68385/2/10.1177_0146167299025007001.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0146167299025007001en_US
dc.identifier.sourcePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletinen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAbelson, R. P. (1995). Attitude extremity. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 25-42). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAllport, F. H., & Hartman, D. A. (1925). The measurement and motivation of atypical opinion in a certain group. American Political Science Review, 19, 735-760.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBassili, J. N. (1993). Response latency versus certainty as indexes of the strength of voting intentions in a CATI survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 54-61.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBassili, J. N. (1996a). The how and why of response latency measurement in telephone surveys. In N. Schwarz & S. Sudman (Eds.), Answering questions: Methodology for determining cognitive and communicative processes in survey research (pp. 319-346). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBassili, J. N. (1996b). Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: The case of measures of attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 637-653.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBoninger, D. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Berent, M. K. (1995). The causes of attitude importance: Self-interest, social identification, and values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 61-80.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (in press). Dual process models in social psychology. New York: Guilford.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDijksterhuis, A., Macrae, C. N., & Haddock, G. (1999). When recollective experiences matter: Subjective ease of retrieval and stereotyping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 760-768.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDowning, J. W., Judd, C. M., & Brauer, M. (1992). Effects of repeated expressions on attitude extremity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 17-29.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceErber, M. W., Hodges, S. D., & Wilson, T. D. (1995). Attitude strength, attitude stability, and the effects of analyzing reasons. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 433-454). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 247-282). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1978). Attitudinal qualities relating to the strength of the attitude-behavior relation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 398-408.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFestinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHaddock, G., Rothman, A. J., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Are (some) reports of attitude strength context dependent?Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 28, 313-316.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHodges, S. D., & Wilson, T. D. (1993). Effects of analyzing reasons on attitude change: The moderating role of attitude accessibility. Social Cognition, 11, 353-366.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHoward-Pitney, B., Borgida, E., & Omoto, A. M. (1986). Personal involvement: An examination of processing differences. Social Cognition, 4, 39-57.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJohnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKiesler, C. A. (1971). The psychology of commitment: Experiments linking behavior to belief. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKrosnick, J. A. (1988). Attitude importance and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 240-255.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKrosnick, J. A., & Abelson, R. P. (1992). The case for measuring attitude strength in surveys. In J. Tanur (Ed.), Questions about questions: Inquiries into the cognitive bases of surveys (pp. 177-203). New York: Russell Sage.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKrosnick, J. A., Boninger, D. S., Chuang, Y. C., Berent, M. K., & Carnot, C. G. (1993). Attitude strength: One construct or many related constructs?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1132-1151.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKrosnick, J. A., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 1-24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKrosnick, J. A., & Schuman, H. (1988). Attitude intensity, importance, and certainty and susceptibility to response effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 940-952.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLeippe, M. R., & Elkin, R. A. (1987). When motives clash: Issue involvement and response involvement as determinants of persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 269-278.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePetty, R. E., & Cacioppo, R. E. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePetty, R. E., & Krosnick, J. A. (Eds.). (1995). Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRaden, D. (1985). Strength-related attitude dimensions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 312-330.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoese, N. J., & Olson, J. M. (1994). Attitude importance as a function of repeated attitude exposure. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 39-51.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRothman, A. J., & Hardin, C. D. (1997). Differential use of the availability heuristic in social judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 123-138.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRothman, A. J., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Constructing perceptions of vulnerability: Personal relevance and the use of experiential information in health judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1053-1064.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchuman, H., & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchwarz, N. (1998). Accessible content and accessibility experiences: The interplay of declarative and experiential information in judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 87-99en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 195-202.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSwann, W. B., Pelham, B. W., & Chidester, T. R. (1988). Change through paradox: Using self-verification to alter beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 268-273.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceThomsen, C. J., Borgida, E., & Lavine, H. (1995). The causes and consequences of personal involvement. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 191-214). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWÄnke, M., Bless, H., & Biller, B. (1996). Subjective experience versus content of information in the construction of attitude judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1105-1113.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilson, T. D., & Hodges, S. D. (1992). Attitudes as constructions. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), The construction of social judgment (pp. 37-65). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilson, T. D., Kraft, D., & Dunn, D. S. (1989). The disruptive effects of explaining attitudes: The moderating effects of knowledge about the attitude object. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 379-400.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
10.1177_0146167299025007001.pdf
Size:
76.52KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.