Predicting Attitude Extremity: The Interactive Effects of Schema Development and the Need to Evaluate and Their Mediation by Evaluative Integration

Research on attitude extremity suggests that schemas containing more information about a particular attitude domain are more likely to be associated with extreme attitudes toward objects in that domain when perceivers’ responses toward features of the domain are evaluatively integrated. The present study argues that a high need to evaluate may play an important role in determining when schema development will be associated with the integrated responses to different domain features necessary for extremity. Consistent with this argument, data from a nationally representative survey of political attitudes indicated that the need to evaluate was associated with increased extremity across two different indices of the latter; that it moderated the relationships between schema development (in the form of political expertise), on one hand, and increased extremity and integration, on the other; and that the moderating effects of the need to evaluate vis-à-vis extremity were mediated by integration.

[1]  Michael D. Martinez,et al.  Sometimes You Feel Like a Nut, Sometimes You Don't: Citizens' Ambivalence About Abortion , 2002 .

[2]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  Political Involvement and Attitude Structure in the General Public , 1981 .

[3]  Markus Brauer,et al.  Repetition and evaluative extremity. , 1995 .

[4]  Charles M. Judd,et al.  Knowledge structures and evaluative judgments: Effects of structural variables on judgmental extremity. , 1984 .

[5]  J. S. Long,et al.  Using Heteroscedasticity Consistent Standard Errors in the Linear Regression Model , 2000 .

[6]  Charles M. Judd,et al.  The Structure of Attitude Systems in the General Public: Comparisons of a Structural Equation Model , 1980 .

[7]  R. Petty,et al.  The need to evaluate. , 1996 .

[8]  Susan T. Fiske,et al.  On the Varieties and Utilities of Political Expertise , 1990 .

[9]  Paul N. Goren.  Core Principles and Policy Reasoning in Mass Publics: A Test of Two Theories , 2001, British Journal of Political Science.

[10]  S. Keeter,et al.  What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters , 1996 .

[11]  J. Zaller.  Political awareness, elite opinion leadership, and the mass survey response , 1990 .

[12]  R. Lau,et al.  Political sophistication and political deviance: a matter of context , 1989 .

[13]  Milton Lodge,et al.  A Partisan Schema for Political Information Processing , 1986, American Political Science Review.

[14]  C. Lance.  Residual Centering, Exploratory and Confirmatory Moderator Analysis, and Decomposition of Effects in Path Models Containing Interactions , 1988 .

[15]  Charles M. Judd,et al.  Political expertise and the structural mediators of candidate evaluations. , 1988 .

[16]  Larry E. Toothaker,et al.  Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions , 1991 .

[17]  Steven L. Neuberg,et al.  A Continuum of Impression Formation, from Category-Based to Individuating Processes: Influences of Information and Motivation on Attention and Interpretation , 1990 .

[18]  Jim Sidanius,et al.  Political sophistication and political deviance: A structural equation examination of context theory. , 1988 .

[19]  A. Kruglanski.  Motivated social cognition: Principles of the interface. , 1996 .

[20]  P. Linville,et al.  The complexity–extremity effect and age-based stereotyping. , 1982 .

[21]  Howard G. Lavine.  On-Line vs. Memory-Based Process Models of Political Evaluation , 2002 .

[22]  R. Petty,et al.  The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. , 1996, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[23]  Paul M. Sniderman,et al.  Reasoning and Choice: The principle–policy puzzle: the paradox of American racial attitudes , 1991 .

[24]  Vani K. Borooah,et al.  Logit and Probit , 2002 .

[25]  Milton Lodge,et al.  The Breadth, Depth, and Utility of Class, Partisan, and Ideological Schemata * , 1985 .

[26]  P. Converse.  The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics , 2004 .

[27]  Christopher Winship,et al.  Logit and Probit: Ordered and Multinomial Models , 2003 .

[28]  J. Sidanius,et al.  Racism, ideology, and affirmative action revisited: the antecedents and consequences of "principled objections" to affirmative action. , 2002, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[29]  Richard E. Petty,et al.  On-Line Versus Memory-Based Processing: The Role of “Need to Evaluate” in Person Perception , 2001 .

[30]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[31]  M. Zanna,et al.  Let's not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. , 1995 .

[32]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Value conflict and thought-induced attitude change , 1991 .

[33]  D. Mackinnon.  Contrasts in multiple mediator models. , 2000 .

[34]  D. Rucinski.  The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. , 1994 .

[35]  E. E. Jones,et al.  Polarized appraisals of out-group members. , 1980 .

[36]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  DISPOSITIONAL DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE MOTIVATION : THE LIFE AND TIMES OF INDIVIDUALS VARYING IN NEED FOR COGNITION , 1996 .

[37]  D. Myers,et al.  The group polarization phenomenon. , 1976 .

[38]  Abraham Tesser,et al.  Thought-induced attitude change: The effects of schema structure and commitment. , 1986 .

[39]  John L. Sullivan,et al.  On the Relationship Between Attitude Involvement and Attitude Accessibility: Toward a Cognitive-Motivational Model of Political Information Processing , 2000 .