Understanding public attitudes toward tobacco harm reduction: The role of attitude structure

Journal of Applied Social Psychology

Volumn 38, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 2615-2635

  Stark, Emily ^a   Borgida, Eugene ^a   Kim, Anita ^a   Pickens, Brandy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 52649178949     PISSN: 00219029     EISSN: 15591816     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00406.x     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Aikman, S. N., Crites, S. L., Jr. Fabrigar, L. R. (2006). Beyond affect and cognition: Identification of the informational bases of food attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 340 382.
2. Borgida, E., Kim, A., Stark, E. N. Miller, C. (2008). Consumers and the allure of "safer" tobacco products: Scientific and policy issues. In C. Haugtvedt, F. Kardes P. Herr (Eds. Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 915 932). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Chaiken, S. Yates, S. (1985). Affective-cognitive consistency and thought-induced polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1470 1481.
4. Crites, S., Jr., Fabrigar, L. Petty, R. (1994). Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 619 634.
5. Cummings, K. M., Bansal, M., Hyland, A., Giovino, G. A., Hastrup, J., Yost, B., et al. (2002). Smoker misperceptions about the characteristics of different nicotine delivery devices. Presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, Savannah, GA.
6. Curtin, R., Presser, S. Singer, E. (2002). The effects of response rate changes on the index of consumer sentiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 413 428.
7. Della Carpini, M. Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT : Yale University Press.
8. Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York : John Wiley & Sons.
9. Drolet, A. Aaker, J. (2002). Off target? Changing cognitive-based attitudes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12, 59 68.
10. Eagly, A. H. Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
11. Edwards, K. (1990). The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 202 216.
12. Fabrigar, L. Petty, R. (1999). The role of the affective and cognitive bases of attitudes in susceptibility to affectively and cognitively based persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 363 381.
13. Gertner, J. (2005, June 12). Incendiary device. New York Times Magazine, pp. 45 51.
14. Haddock, G. Zanna, M. (1998). Assessing the impact of affective and cognitive information in predicting attitudes toward capital punishment. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 325 339.
15. Hatsukami, D. Hecht, S. (2005). Hope or hazard? What research tells us about "potentially reduced-exposure" tobacco products. Minneapolis, MN : University of Minnesota Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Center.
16. Hatsukami, D. K. Zeller, M. (2004). Tobacco harm reduction: The need for research to inform policy. Psychological Science Agenda, 18, 5 8.
17. Hodge, J. G., Jr. Eber, G. B. (2004). Tobacco control legislation: Tools for public health improvement. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, 32, 516 523.
18. Huskinson, T. L. H Haddock, G. (2004). Individual differences in attitude structure: Variance in the chronic reliance on affective and cognitive information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 82 90.
19. Institute of Medicine 2001). Clearing the smoke: Assessing the science base for tobacco harm reduction. Washington, DC : Author.
20. Keeter, S., Miller, C., Kohut, A., Groves, R. M. Presser, S. (2000). Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 125 148.
21. MacCoun, R. (1998). Toward a psychology of harm reduction. American Psychologist, 53, 1199 1208.
22. Martin, A. (2007, February 16). Trying again for a bill to limit tobacco ads. New York Times, pp. B1, B6.
23. Millar, M. Millar, K. (1990). Attitude change as a function of attitude type and argument type. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 217 228.
24. Millar, M. Tesser, A. (1989). The effects of affective-cognitive consistency and thought on the attitude-behavior relation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 189 202.
25. Mooney, M., Leventhal, A. Hatsukami, D. (2006). Attitudes and knowledge about nicotine and nicotine replacement therapy. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 8, 435 446.
26. National Cancer Institute 2001). Risks associated with smoking cigarettes and low machine-measured yields of tar and nicotine (Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 13). Bethesda, MD : U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute.
27. Simons, J. Carey, K. (1998). A structural analysis of attitudes toward alcohol and marijuana use. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 727 735.
28. Slovic, P. (Ed. 2001). Smoking: Risk, perception, and policy. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
29. Stratton, K., Shetty, P., Wallace, R. Bondurant, S. (Eds. 2001). Clearing the smoke: Assessing the science base for tobacco harm reduction. Washington, DC : National Academy Press.
30. Warner, K. E. (2002). Tobacco harm reduction: Promise and perils. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 4, S89 S101.
31. Warner, K. E. Martin, E. G. (2003). The U.S. tobacco control community's view of the future of harm reduction. Tobacco Control, 12, 383 390.
32. Zanna, M. P. Rempel, J. K. (1988). Attitudes: A new look at an old concept. In D. Bar-Tal A. W. Kruglanski (Eds. Social psychology of knowledge (pp. 315 334). New York : Cambridge University Press.