Theoretical and Empirical Implications of Attitude Strength

Attitude strength is defined as the extent to which an attitude is stable, resistant to change, impacts information processing, and guides behavior. Several concepts, such as accessibility, ambivalence, and importance relate to the broader concept of strength. For many years, both social psychology and political science ignored the differences across these various concepts, though in different ways. Social psychologists treated them as interchangeable, as indicators of the same latent concept. Political scientists treated them in isolation, focusing on one type of strength and ignoring the other, possibly relevant types. Recent research in both fields, however, challenges these approaches. Indicators of attitude strength are distinct concepts, and these differences are important empirically and theoretically. In this essay, we review the developments in both disciplines and make suggestions for how scholars should use and operationalize these concepts.

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

[2]  A Comparison of Three Measures of Attitude Intensity , 1959 .

[3]  J. Krosnick,et al.  Attitude intensity, importance, and certainty and susceptibility to response effects. , 1988 .

[4]  S. Iyengar,et al.  News That Matters: Television and American Opinion , 1987 .

[5]  J. Hochschild.  What's Fair: American Beliefs about Distributive Justice , 1981 .

[6]  Jeffrey Levine,et al.  Election Campaigns, Social Communication, and the Accessibility of Perceived Discussant Preference , 1998 .

[7]  George Y. Bizer,et al.  Exploring the structure of strength-related attitude features: the relation between attitude importance and attitude accessibility. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  David E. RePass.  Issue Salience and Party Choice , 1929, American Political Science Review.

[9]  J. N. Bassili,et al.  Editor's Introduction: Reflections on Response Latency Measurement in Telephone Surveys , 2000 .

[10]  Robert Y. Shapiro,et al.  The New American Voter , 1980 .

[11]  J. Simmons,et al.  Distinguishing the cognitive and behavioral consequences of attitude importance and certainty: A new approach to testing the common-factor hypothesis , 2003 .

[12]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Flexible corrections of juror judgments: Implications for jury instructions. , 2000 .

[13]  F. Kokkinaki.  Attitudes towards European Monetary Union in Greece: Antecedents, strength and consequences , 1998 .

[14]  Philip E. Converse,et al.  A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice , 1979, American Political Science Review.

[15]  James M. Enelow,et al.  A New Approach to Voter Uncertainty in the Downsian Spatial Model , 1981 .

[16]  S. Feldman,et al.  A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences , 1992 .

[17]  Michael A. Maggiotto,et al.  Issue Publics and Voter Choice , 1978 .

[18]  J. N. Bassili,et al.  Response-time measurement in survey research: A method for CATI and a new look at nonattitudes. , 1991 .

[19]  J. Krosnick.  The role of attitude importance in social evaluation: a study of policy preferences, presidential candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[20]  Nicholas A. Valentino,et al.  Cues that Matter: How Political Ads Prime Racial Attitudes During Campaigns , 2002, American Political Science Review.

[21]  J. N. Bassili,et al.  On the Representation of Strong and Weak Attitudes About Policy in Memory , 1998 .

[22]  R. Prislin,et al.  Attitude stability and attitude strength: one is enough to make it stable , 1996 .

[23]  George Y. Bizer,et al.  Exploring the Latent Structure of Strength‐related Attitude Attributes , 2006 .

[24]  Robert Huckfeldt,et al.  Political Consequences of Inconsistency: The Accessibility and Stability of Abortion Attitudes , 2000 .

[25]  Shanto Iyengar,et al.  Experimental Demonstrations of the “Not-So-Minimal” Consequences of Television News Programs , 1982 .

[26]  R. Michael Alvarez,et al.  Speaking in Two Voices: American Equivocation about the Internal Revenue Service , 1998 .

[27]  Kenneth Mulligan,et al.  Response Latency Methodology for Survey Research: Measurement and Modeling Strategies , 2003, Political Analysis.

[28]  John H. Aldrich,et al.  A Method of Scaling with Applications to the 1968 and 1972 Presidential Elections , 1977, American Political Science Review.

[29]  Jeffrey Levine,et al.  The Dynamics of Collective Deliberation in the 1996 Election: Campaign Effects on Accessibility, Certainty, and Accuracy , 2000, American Political Science Review.

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

[31]  Elliot Aronson,et al.  Hypocrisy, Misattribution, and Dissonance Reduction , 1995 .

[32]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  News Media Impact on the Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: Politically Knowledgeable Citizens Are Guided by a Trusted Source , 2000 .

[33]  Dennis Chong.  How People Think, Reason, and Feel about Rights and Liberties , 1993 .

[34]  R. Michael Alvarez,et al.  Uncertainty and Political Perceptions , 1994, The Journal of Politics.

[35]  Howard G Lavine,et al.  The electoral consequences of ambivalence toward presidential candidates , 2001 .

[36]  R. Petty,et al.  Attitude strength: An overview. , 1995 .

[37]  Richard G. Niemi,et al.  New Measures of Issue Salience: An Evaluation , 1985, The Journal of Politics.

[38]  John H. Aldrich,et al.  The Measurement of Public Opinion about Public Policy: A Report on Some New Issue Question Formats* , 1982 .

[39]  John M. Brehm,et al.  Are Americans Ambivalent Towards Racial Policies , 1997 .

[40]  Larry M. Bartels.  Issue Voting Under Uncertainty: An Empirical Test , 1986 .

[41]  J. N. Bassili,et al.  RESPONSE LATENCY VERSUS CERTAINTY AS INDEXES OF THE STRENGTH OF VOTING INTENTIONS IN A CATI SURVEY , 1993 .

[42]  C. Franklin.  Eschewing Obfuscation? Campaigns and the Perception of U.S. Senate Incumbents , 1991, American Political Science Review.

[43]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  A model of dual attitudes. , 2000, Psychological review.

[44]  Nicholas V. Kroeze.  Presidential elections. , 1990, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[45]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  The Impact of the Gulf War on the Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: Multidimensional Effects of Political Involvement , 1993, American Political Science Review.

[46]  Michael J. Shapiro.  Rational Political Man: A Synthesis of Economic and Social-Psychological Perspectives , 1969, American Political Science Review.

[47]  Adam J. Berinsky,et al.  The Two Faces of Public Opinion , 1999 .

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

[49]  R. Michael Alvarez,et al.  American Ambivalence Towards Abortion Policy: Development of a Heteroskedastic Probit Model of Competing Values , 1995 .

[50]  K. Shepsle.  The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition , 1972, American Political Science Review.

[51]  J. N. Bassili.  Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: The case of measures of attitude strength. , 1996 .

[52]  A. W. Wicker.  Attitudes Versus Actions: The Relationship of Verbal and Overt Behavioral Responses to Attitude Objects. , 1969 .

[53]  John H. Aldrich,et al.  Foreign Affairs and Issue Voting: Do Presidential Candidates “Waltz Before a Blind Audience?” , 1989, American Political Science Review.

[54]  David A. M. Peterson.  Certainty or Accessibility: Attitude Strength in Candidate Evaluations , 2004 .

[55]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  Altering the Foundations of Support for the President Through Priming , 1990 .

[56]  J. Krosnick,et al.  Attitude strength: One construct or many related constructs? , 1993 .

[57]  Richard R. Lau,et al.  Construct accessibility and electoral choice , 1989 .

[58]  James E. Campbell.  Ambiguity in the Issue Positions of Presidential Candidates: A Causal Analysis , 1983 .

[59]  William G. Jacoby,et al.  Salience as a Factor in the Impact of Issues on Candidate Evaluation , 1982, The Journal of Politics.

[60]  D. Rivers.  Heterogeneity in Models of Electoral Choice , 1988 .

[61]  Mark P. Zanna,et al.  On the Primacy of Affect in the Determination of Attitudes and Behavior: The Moderating Role of Affective-Cognitive Ambivalence , 1998 .

[62]  R. Michael Alvarez,et al.  Information and elections , 1997 .

[63]  Thomas E. Nelson,et al.  Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance , 1997, American Political Science Review.

[64]  Howard G Lavine,et al.  The moderating influence of attitude strength on the susceptibility to context effects in attitude surveys. , 1998 .

[65]  Michael B. Mackuen,et al.  More Than News: Media Power in Public Affairs , 1981 .

[66]  Russell H. Fazio,et al.  Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. , 1995 .

[67]  Richard Johnston.  Letting the people decide : dynamics of a Canadian election , 1992 .

[68]  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.

[69]  Gabriel A. Almond,et al.  The American people and foreign policy , 1950 .

[70]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  Do Strength‐Related Attitude Properties Determine Susceptibility to Response Effects? New Evidence From Response Latency, Attitude Extremity, and Aggregate Indices , 2000 .

[71]  Robert Axelrod,et al.  Schema Theory: An Information Processing Model of Perception and Cognition , 1973, American Political Science Review.

[72]  T. Tyler,et al.  Self-Interest vs. Symbolic Politics in Policy Attitudes and Presidential Voting , 1980, American Political Science Review.