Attitudes towards unfamiliar products: Self-efficacy determines the intensity of processing of relevant attributes;Einstellungen gegenüber unvertrauten produkten: Selbstwirksamkeit bestimmt die Intensität der verarbeitung relevanter produktattribute

Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 124-133

  Brömer, Philip ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Ambivalence; Attitude; Perceived self efficacy; Systematic processing

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032398351     PISSN: 00443514     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Andrews, J. C. & Shimp, T. A. (1990). Effects of involvement, argument strength, and source characteristics on central and peripheral processing of advertising. Psychology and Marketing, 7, 195-214.
2. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
4. Bandura, A. & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1017-1028.
5. Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
6. Berger, I. E. (1992). The nature of attitude accessibility and attitude confidence: A triangulated experiment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, 103-123.
7. Berger, I. E. & Mitchell, A. A. (1989). The effect of advertising on attitude accessibility, attitude confidence, and the attitude, behavior relationship. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 269-279.
8. Bohner, G., Moskowitz, G. B. & Chaiken, S. (1995). The interplay of heuristic and systematic processing of social information. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 33-68). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
9. Bohner, G., Rank, S., Reinhard, M.-A., Einwiller, S. & Erb, H.-P. (im Druck). Motivational determinants of systematic processing: Expectancy moderates effects of desired confidence on processing effort. European Journal of Social Psychology.
10. Bobko, P. (1986). A solution to some dilemmas when testing hypotheses about ordinal interactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 323-326.
11. Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L. & Berntson, G. G. (1997). Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 3-25.
12. Cacioppo, J. T. & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
13. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A. & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford.
14. Chaiken, S., Wood, W. & Eagly, A. H. (1996). Principles of persuasion. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social Psychology. Handbook of basic principles (pp. 702-742). New York: Guilford.
15. Chen, S., Shechter, D. & Chaiken, S. (1996). Getting at the truth or getting along: Accuracy- versus impression-motivated heuristic and systematic processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 262-275.
16. DeBono, K. G. & Packer, M. (1991). The effects of advertising appeal on perceptions of product quality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 194-200.
17. Eagly, A. H. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
18. Fazio, R. H., Powell, M. C. & Williams, C. J. (1989). The role of attitude accessibility in the attitude-to-behavior process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 280-288.
19. Friedrich, J., Fetherstonhaugh, D., Casey, S. & Gallagher, D. (1996). Argument integration and attitude change: Suppression effects in the integration of one-sided arguments that vary in persuasiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 179-191.
20. Griffin, R. & Kacmar, K. M. (1991). Laboratory research in management. Misconceptions and missed opportunities. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 301-311.
21. Jonas, K., Diehl, M. & Brömer, P. (1997). Effects of attitudinal ambivalence on information processing and attitude-intention-consistency. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 190-210.
22. Kaplan, K. J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 361-372.
23. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D. & Gore, P. A. (1997). Discriminant and predictive validity of academic self-concept, academic self-efficacy, and mathematics-specific self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 307-315.
24. Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C. & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 241-251.
25. MacInnis, D. J. & Jaworski, B. J. (1989). Information processing from advertisements: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Marketing, 53, 1-23.
26. Maheswaran, D. & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13-25.
27. Maheswaran, D. & Sternthal, B. (1990). The effects of knowledge, motivation, and type of message on ad processing and product judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 66-73.
28. Meyers-Levy, J. (1991). Elaborating on elaboration: The distinction between relational and item-specific elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 358-367.
29. Mitchell, A. A. (1993). Attitude toward the advertisement effects over time and in attitude change situations. In A. A. Mitchell (Ed.), Advertising exposure, memory, and choice. Advertising and consumer psychology (pp. 209-238). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Petty, R .E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (19, pp. 123-205). New York: Academic.
31. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T. & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847-855.
32. Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Adressing disturbing and disturbed consumer behavior: Is it necessary to change the way we conduct behavioral science? Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 1-8.
33. Petty, R. E., Haugtvedt, C. P. & Smith, S. M. (1995). Elaboration as a determinant of attitude strength: Creating attitudes that are persistent, resistent, and predictive of behavior. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 93-130). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Petty, R. E. & Priester, J. R. (1994). Mass media attitude change: Implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media effects. Advances in theory and research (pp. 91-122). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. Petty, R. E., Schumann, D. W., Richman, S. A. & Strathman, A. J. (1993). Positive mood and persuasion: Different roles for affect under high and low elaboration conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 5-20.
36. Romero, A. A., Agnew, C. R. & Insko, C. A. (1996). The cognitive mediation hypothesis revisited: An empirical response to methodological and theoretical criticism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 651-665.
37. Stiftung Warentest (1996). Finanztest (2). Berlin: Autor.
38. Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P. & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let's not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361-386). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. Tybout, A. M. & Artz, N. (1994). Consumer Psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 131-169.