Ambivalence and information integration in attitudinal judgment

British Journal of Social Psychology

Volumn 43, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 431-447

  Van Harreveld, Frenk ^a   Van Der Pligt, Joop ^a   De Vries, Nanne K ^b   Wenneker, Clemens ^a   Verhue, Dieter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REACTION TIME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTITUDE; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; REACTION TIME;

EID: 4944267134     PISSN: 01446665     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1348/0144666042037971     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
2. Andersen, N. H. (1971). Integration theory and attitude change. Psychological Review, 78, 171-206.
3. Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Govender, R., & Pratto, F. (1992). The generality of the automatic attitude activation effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 893-912.
4. Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Raymond, P., & Hymes, C. (1996). The automatic evaluation effect: Unconditional attitude activation with a pronunciation task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 104-128.
5. Bassili, J. N. (1996). Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: The case of measures of attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 637-653.
6. Chaiken, S., & Bargh, J. A. (1993). Occurrence versus moderation of the automatic attitude activation effect: Reply to Fazio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 759-765.
7. Fazio, R. H. (1990). A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. In C. Hendrick & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Research methods in personality and social psychology (pp. 74-97). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
8. Fazio, R. H. (1993). Variability in the likelihood of automatic attitude activation: Data re-analysis and commentary on Bargh, Chaiken, Govender, and Pratto (1992). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 753-758.
9. Fazio, 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. 247-283). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Fazio, R. H., Chen, J., McDonel, E. C., & Sherman, S. J. (1982). Attitude accessibility, attitude-behaviour consistency, and the strength of the object-evaluation association. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 339-357.
11. Fischhoff, B., Goitein, B., & Shapira, Z. (1982). The experienced utility of expected utility approaches. In N. T. Feather (Ed.), Expectations and actions: Expectancy-value models in psychology, (pp. 287-343). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Attributes, attitude, intention, and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Maio, G. R., Bell, D. W., & Esses, V. M. (1996). Ambivalence and persuasion: The processing of messages about immigrant groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 513-536.
16. McGregor, I., Newby-Clark, I. R., & Zanna, M. P. (1999). "Remembering" dissonance: Simultaneous accessibility of inconsistent cognitive elements moderates epistemic discomfort. In E. Harmon-Jones & J. Mills (Eds.), Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp. 325-352). Washington, DC: Brown Brumfield.
17. Newby-Clark, I. R., McGregor, I., & Zanna, M. P. (2002). Thinking and caring about cognitive inconsistency: When and for whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel uncomfortable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 157-166.
18. Rojahn, K., & Pettigrew, T. F. (1992) Memory for schema-relevant information: A meta-analytic resolution. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 81-109.
19. Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., & Fazio, R. H. (1997). The role of belief accessibility in attitude formation. Southern Communication Journal, 62, 107-116.
20. Strack, F., & Martin, L. L. (1987). Thinking, judging, and communicating: A process account of context effects in attitude surveys. In H. J. Hippler, N. Schwarz, & S. Sudman (Eds.), Social information processing and survey methodology (pp. 123-148). New York: Springer.
21. Tesser, A. (1978). Self-generated attitude-change. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 289-338). New York: Academic Press.
22. 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: Erlbaum.
23. Tourangeau, R. (1984). Cognitive science and survey methods. In T. Jabine, M. Straf, J. Tanur, & R. Tourangeau (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of survey methodology: Building a bridge between disciplines (pp. 149-162). Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
24. Tourangeau, R. (1987). Attitude measurement: A cognitive perspective. In H. J. Hippler, N. Schwarz, & S. Sudman (Eds.), Social information processing and survey methodology (pp. 123-148). New York: Springer.
25. Tourangeau, R., & Rasinski, K. A. (1988). Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 299-314.
26. Tourangeau, R., Rasinski, K. A., & D'Andrade, R. (1991). Attitude structure and attribute accessibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 48-75.
27. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the rationality of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
28. van der Pligt, J., & de Vries, N. K. (1998). Attribute importance in expectancy-value models of Attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1340-1355.
29. van der Pligt, J., de Vries, N. K., Manstead, A. S. R., & van Harreveld, F. (2000). The importance of being selective: Weighing the role of attribute importance. In: M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 135-200). New York: Academic Press.
30. van Harreveld, F., & van der Pligt, J. (2003). Unpublished raw data. University of Amsterdam.
31. van Harreveld, F., van der Pligt, J., de Vries, N. K., & Andreas, S. (2000). Attribute importance and accessibility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 363-380.
32. Vonk, R., & van Knippenberg, A. (1995). Processing attitude statements from in-group and out-group members: Effects of within-group and within-person inconsistencies on reading times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 215-227.
33. Wilson, T. D., & Hodges, S. D. (1992). Attitudes as temporary constructions. In L.L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), The construction of social judgments (pp. 37-65). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Wilson, T. D., Hodges, S. D., & LaFleur, S. J. (1995). Effects of introspecting about reasons: Inferring attitudes from accessible thoughts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 16-28.
35. Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of the Political Science, 36, 579-616.