Predicting attitude extremity: The interactive effects of schema development and the need to evaluate and their mediation by evaluative integration

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Volumn 30, Issue 10, 2004, Pages 1281-1294

  Federico, Christopher M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Attitude extremity; Attitude structure; Need to evaluate; Political expertise

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ATTITUDE; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; POLITICS; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; READING; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; TIME; VALIDATION STUDY;

ADULT; ATTITUDE; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; POLITICS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUESTIONNAIRES; READING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 4644295274     PISSN: 01461672     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0146167204263787     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. Abelson, R. P. (1995). Attitude extremity. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 25-42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. G. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social-psychological research; Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
4. Bizer, G. Y., Krosnick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L., Petty, R. E., Rucker, D. E., & Wheeler, S. C. (2003, May). The impact of personality on political beliefs, attitudes, and behavior: Need for cognition and need to evaluate. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Atlanta, GA.
5. Borooah, V. K. (2002). Logit and probit: Ordered and multinomial models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197-253.
7. Converse, P. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press.
8. Craig, S. C., Kane, J. G., & Martinez, M. D. (2002). Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't: Citizens' ambivalence about abortion. Political Psychology, 23, 285-303.
9. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10. Federico, C. M. (2003, April). When does schematicity imply structure? The interactive effects of expertise and the need to evaluate on interattitudinal structure. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
11. Federico, C. M., & Sidanius, J. (2002). Racism, ideology, and affirmative action, revisited: The antecedents and consequences of "principled objections" to affirmative action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 488-502.
12. Fiske, S. T., Lau, R. R., Smith, R. A. (1990). On the varieties and utilities of political expertise. Social Cognition, 8, 31-48.
13. Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum model of impression formation from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1-74). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
14. Goren, P. (2001). Core principles and policy reasoning in mass publics: A test of two theories. British Journal of Political Science, 31, 159-177.
15. Hamill, R., Lodge, M., & Blake, F. (1985). The breadth, depth, and utility of partisan, class, and ideological schemas. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 850-870.
16. Jarvis, W. B., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The need to evaluate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 172-194.
17. Judd, C. M., & Brauer, M. (1995). Repetition and evaluative extremity. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 43-72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18. Judd, C. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (1989). The structural bases of consistency among political attitudes: Effects of expertise and attitude importance. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 99-128). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Judd, C. M., Krosnick, J. A., & Milburn, M. A. (1981). Political involvement and attitude structure in the general public. American Socio-logical Review, 46, 660-669.
20. Judd, C. M., & Lusk, C. M. (1984). Knowledge structure and evaluative judgments: Effect of structural variables on judgmental extremity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1193-1207.
21. Judd, C. M., & Milburn, M. A. (1980). The structure of attitude systems in the general public: Comparisons of a structural equation model. American Sociological Review, 45, 627-643.
22. Kruglanski, A. W. (1996). Motivated social cognition: Principles of the interface. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: A handbook of basic principles (pp. 493-522). New York: Guilford.
23. Lance, C. E. (1988). Residual centering, exploratory and confirmatory moderator analysis, and decomposition of effects in path models containing interaction effects. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 163-175.
24. Lavine, H. (2002). Online versus memory-based process models of political evaluation. In K. R. Monroe (Ed.), Political psychology (pp. 225-247). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25. Lavine, H., Borgida, E., & Sullivan, J. L. (2000). On the relationship between attitude involvement and attitude accessibility: Toward a cognitive-motivational model of political information processing. Political Psychology, 21, 81-106.
26. Liberman, A., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Value conflict and thought induced attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 203-216.
27. Linville, P. W. (1982). The complexity-extremity effect and age-based stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 193-211.
28. Linville, P. W., & Jones, E. E. (1980). Polarized appraisals of outgroup members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 689-703.
29. Lodge, M., & Hamill, R. (1986). A partisan schema for political information processing. American Political Science Review, 80, 505-519.
30. Long, J. S., & Ervin, L. H. (2000). Using heteroskedasticity consistent standard errors in the linear regression model. American Statistician, 54, 217-234.
31. Lusk, C. M., & Judd, C. M. (1988). Political expertise and the structural mediators of candidate evaluations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 105-126.
32. MacKinnon, D. P. (2000). Contrasts in multiple mediator models. In J. Rose, L. Chassin, C. C. Presson, & S. J. Sherman (Eds.), Multi-variate applications in substance use research: New methods for new questions (pp. 141-160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33. Millar, M. G., & Tesser, A. (1986). Thought-induced attitude change: The effects of schema structure and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 259-269.
34. Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 602-627.
35. Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: Relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 431-449.
36. Sidanius, J. (1988). Political sophistication and political deviance: A structural equation examination of context theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 37-51.
37. Sidanius, J., & Lau, R. R. (1989). Political sophistication and political deviance: A matter of context. Political Psychology, 10, 85-109.
38. Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Reasoning and choice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
39. Tesser, A., Martin, L., & Mendolia, M. (1995). The impact of thought on attitude extremity and attitude-behavior consistency. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 73-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40. 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). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41. Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2001). On-line versus memory-based processing: The role of "need to evaluate" in person perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1599-1613.
42. Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2000). Analysis and design for non-experimental data: Addressing causal and non-causal hypotheses. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 412-450). New York: Cambridge University Press.
43. Zaller, J. (1990). Political awareness, elite opinion leadership, and the mass survey response. Social Cognition, 8, 125-153.
44. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.