Accessibility is one of the most basic structural properties of an attitude and an important factor to consider in attitude strength. Despite its importance, relatively little work has examined the role of attitude accessibility in an inter-attitudinal context, particularly as it relates to the strength of related attitudes in the network. The present research examines accessibility as a property of one attitude (toward an abstract goal or end-state, that is, a value) that might influence the strength of a different but related attitude (toward a social policy conceptually related to the value). In Study 1, a highly accessible evaluative component of a value increased resistance to change of attitudes and behavioral intentions toward a social policy related to that value. Similarly, a manipulation of value accessibility (Studies 2 and 3) led to increased resistance of attitudes and behavioral intentions toward a social policy related to that value. Implications for the role of accessibility in inter-attitudinal strength are discussed.
AbelsonR. P.RosenbergM. J. (1958). Symbolic psychologic: A model of attitudinal cognition. Behavioral Science, 3, 1-13.
2.
AjzenI. J. (2012). The theory of planned behavior. In LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 438-459). London, England: SAGE.
3.
BarghJ. A.ChaikenS.GovenderR.PrattoF. (1992). The generality of the automatic attitude activation effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 893-912.
4.
BassiliJ. N.FletcherJ. (1991). Response-time measurement in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 331-346.
5.
BernardM. M.MaioG. R.OlsonJ. M. (2003). The vulnerability of values to attack: Inoculation of values and value-relevant attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 63-75.
6.
BlankenshipK. L.WegenerD. T.MurrayR. A. (2010, February). Values and attitude change: Value accessibility can increase a related attitude’s resistance to change. Presented at the annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Las Vegas, NV.
7.
BlankenshipK. L.WegenerD. T.MurrayR. A. (2012). Circumventing resistance: Using values to indirectly change attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 606-621.
8.
ClarkJ. K.WegenerD. T.FabrigarL. R. (2008). Attitude accessibility and message processing: The moderating role of message position. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 354-361.
9.
ConverseP. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in the mass public. In ApterD. E. (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 201-261). New York, NY: Free Press.
10.
EaglyA. H.ChaikenS. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
11.
EaglyA. H.ChaikenS. (1995). Attitude strength, attitude structure and resistance to change. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 413-432). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
EaglyA. H.ChaikenS. (1998). Attitude strength and selectivity. In GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 287-296). New York: McGraw-Hill.
13.
FabrigarL. R.MacDonaldT. K.WegenerD. T. (2005). The origin and structure of attitudes. In AlbarracinD.JohnsonB. T.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 79-124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
FabrigarL. R.PriesterJ. R.PettyR. E.WegenerD. T. (1998). The impact of attitude accessibility on elaboration of persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 339-352.
15.
FazioR. H. (1990). A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. In HendrickC.ClarkM. S. (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 74-97). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
16.
FazioR. H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 247-282). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
FazioR. H. (2007). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations of varying strength. Social Cognition, 25, 603-637.
18.
FazioR. H.BlascovichJ.DriscollD. M. (1992). On the functional value of attitudes: The influence of accessible attitudes upon the ease and quality of decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 388-401.
19.
FazioR. H.ChenJ.McDonelE. C.ShermanS. J. (1982). Attitude accessibility, attitude-behavior consistency, and the strength of the object-evaluation association. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 339-357.
20.
FazioR. H.WilliamsC. J. (1986). Attitude accessibility as a moderator of the attitude-perception and attitude-behavior relations: An investigation of the 1984 presidential election. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 505-514.
21.
FestingerL. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
22.
HayesA. F.PreacherK. J.MyersT. A. (2011). Mediation and the estimation of indirect effects in political communication research. In BucyE. P.Lance HolbertR. (Eds.), Sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques (p. 434-465). New York: Routledge.
23.
HeiderF. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 21, 107-112.
24.
HeiderF. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.
25.
HertelG.KerrN. L. (2001). Priming in-group favoritism: The impact of normative scripts in the minimal group paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 316-324.
26.
HolbrookA. L.BerentM. K.KrosnickJ. A.VisserP. S.BoningerD. S. (2005). Attitude importance and the accumulation of attitude-relevant knowledge in memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 749-769.
27.
JuddC. M.KrosnickJ. A. (1982). Attitude centrality, organization, and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 436-447.
28.
JuddC. M.KrosnickJ. A. (1989). The structural bases of consistency among political attitudes: Effects of political expertise and attitude importance. In PratkanisA. R.BrecklerS. J.GreenwaldA. G. (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 99-128). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
KarremansJ. C. (2007). Considering reasons for a value influences behaviour that expresses related values: An extension of the value-as-truisms hypothesis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 508-523.
30.
KrosnickJ. A.PettyR. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 1-24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
LavineH.ThomsenC. J.GonzalesM. H. (1997). The development of inter-attitudinal consistency: The shared-consequences model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 735-749.
32.
MaioG. R. (2010). Mental representations of social values. In ZannaM. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 42, pp. 1-43). New York: Elsevier.
33.
MaioG. R.PakizehA.CheungW.ReesK. J. (2009). Changing, priming, and acting on values: Effects via motivational relations in a circular model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 699-715.
34.
McGuireW. J. (1960). A syllogistic analysis of cognitive relationships. In HovlandC. I.RosenbergM. J. (Eds.), Attitude organization and change: An analysis of consistency among attitude components (pp. 65-111). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
35.
McGuireW. J. (1981). The probabilogical model of cognitive structure and attitude change. In PettyR.OstromT.BrockT. (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 291-307). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36.
McGuireW. J. (1989). The structure of individual attitudes and attitude systems. In PratkanisA. R.BrecklerS. J.GreenwaldA. G. (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 37-69). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
McGuireW. J.McGuireC. V. (1991). The content, structure, and operation of thought systems. In WyerR. S.SrullT. K. (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 4, pp. 1-78). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
Newby-ClarkI. R.McGregorI.ZannaM. 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.
39.
NewcombT. M. (1968). Interpersonal balance. In HovlandC. I.RosenbergM. J. (Eds.), Attitude organization and change: An analysis of consistency among attitude components (pp. 28-51). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
40.
PakizehA.GebauerJ. E.MaioG. R. (2007). Basic human values: Inter-value structure in memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 458-465.
41.
PettyR. E.HaugtvedtC.SmithS. M. (1995). Elaboration as a determinant of attitude strength: Creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant, and predictive of behavior. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 93-130). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
42.
PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.). (1995). Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
43.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731.
44.
RokeachM. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
45.
SchwartzS. H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value systems. In SeligmanC.OlsonJ. M.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), The psychology of values: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 8, pp. 119-144). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
46.
ScottW. A. (1969). Structure of natural cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 261-278.
47.
ShroutP. E.BolgerN. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445.
48.
ThomsenC. J.LavineH.KouniosJ. (1996). Social value and attitude concepts in semantic memory: Relational structure, concept strength, and the fan effect. Social Cognition, 14, 191-225.
49.
TormalaZ. L.PettyR. E. (2002). What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger: The effects of resisting persuasion on attitude certainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1298-1313.
50.
TourangeauR.RasinskiK. A.D’AndradeR. (1991). Attitude structure and belief accessibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 48-75.
51.
VerplankenB.HollandR. W. (2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 434-447.
52.
WegenerD. T.DowningJ.KrosnickJ. A.PettyR. E. (1995). Strength-related properties of attitudes: Measures, manipulations, and future directions. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 455-487). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
53.
WegenerD. T.PettyR. E.SmoakN. D.FabrigarL. R. (2004). Multiple routes to resisting attitude change. In KnowlesE. S.LinnJ. A. (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 13-38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
54.
ZannaM. P.CooperJ. (1974). Dissonance and the pill: An attribution approach to studying the arousal properties of dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 703-709.
55.
ZannaM. P.FazioR. H.RossM. (1994). The persistence of persuasion. In SchankR. C.LangerE. (Eds.), Beliefs, reasoning, and decision making: Psycho-logic in honor of Bob Abelson (pp. 347-362). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
