Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2006. 57:345-74 doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190034 Copyright (c) 2006 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved First published online as a Review in Advance on August 23, 2005
Attitudes and Persuasion
William D. Crano
Department of Psychology, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, California 91711; email: William.crano@cgu.edu
Radmila Prislin
Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, California 92182; email: rprislin @ sunstroke, sdsu. edu
Key Words   attitude formation, attitude change, majority and minority influence, attitude strength, affect, attitude-behavior consistency
■ Abstract Study of attitudes and persuasion remains a defining characteristic of contemporary social psychology. This review outlines recent advances, with emphasis on the relevance of today's work for perennial issues. We reiterate the distinction between attitude formation and change, and show its relevance for persuasion. Single- and dual-process models are discussed, as are current views on dissonance theory. Majority and minority influence are scrutinized, with special emphasis on integrative theoretical innovations. Attitude strength is considered, and its relevance to ambivalence and resistance documented. Affect, mood, and emotion effects are reviewed, especially as they pertain to fear arousal and (un)certainty. Finally, we discuss attitude-behavior consistency, perhaps the reason for our interest in attitudes in the first place, with emphasis on self-interest and the theory of planned behavior. Our review reflects the dynamism and the reach of the area, and suggests a sure and sometimes rapid accumulation of knowledge and understanding.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION..................................
ATTITUDE FORMATION............................
EVALUATIVE CONDITIONING AND MERE EXPOSURE ATTITUDE CHANGE...............................
346
347
347
348
348
349
349
350
350
351
351
352 352
Single- and Dual-Process Models
Source.....................
Message ...................
Dissonance..........................
MINORITY AND MAJORITY INFLUENCE
Social Consensus ........................
Minority Effects on Attitude Formation/Change
Cognitive Responses......................
Leniency...............................
0066-4308/06/0110-0345$20.00
345
346       CRANO ■ PRISLIN
Dynamics
353
354 354
354
355
356
357
358
358
359
360 360
360
361
362
363
ATTITUDE STRENGTH
Dimensionality
Processes.....
Resistance Ambivalence . .
AFFECT, MOOD, AND EMOTION
Fear........................
Information and Processing.....
Certainty and Carryover........
ATTITUDE-BEHAVIOR CONSISTENCY
Self-interest.......................
Assessment.......................
Theory of Planned Behavior..........
Habit............................
CONCLUDING REMARKS...........
INTRODUCTION
The study of attitudes and persuasion remains a vital feature of contemporary social psychology. Allport's (1935, p. 784) dictum that attitudes are our "most distinctive and indispensable concept" remains as true today as it was 70 years ago. It also is true that recent advances have incited even more activity than usual in this dynamic realm. Technological developments, including a growing appreciation for computer-mediated persuasion (McKenna & Bargh 2000, Postmes et al. 2001, Sassenberg & Boos 2003) and the use of virtual reality as a medium for study (Blascovich et al. 2002), have added heat to an already boiling pot.
Recent reviews (Ajzen 2001, Albarracin et al. 2005, Haddock & Zanna 1999, Olson & Maio 2003, Perloff 2003, Wood 2000) provide useful snapshots of the field, and distinctive subareas have attracted considerable attention. These subareas include the study of attitude functions (Maio & Olson 2000), attribute importance (van der Pligt et al. 2000), group norms (Terry & Hogg 2000), consensus and social influence (Prislin & Wood 2005), attitude representations (Lord & Lepper 1999), dual-process theories (Chaiken & Trope 1999), applied social influence (Butera & Mugny 2001b), media and persuasion (Bryant & Zillman 2002, Crano & Burgoon 2002), measurement and interpretation of implicit attitudes (Bassili & Brown 2005, Fazio & Olson 2003, Greenwald et al. 2002, Greenwald & Nosek 2001), and a long-overdue reconsideration of resistance (Knowles & Linn 2004). Special pleasures are provided readers of the proceedings of a Festschrift (Jost et al. 2004) held in honor of William J. McGuire (1966, 1969, 1985), author of arguably the finest reviews of attitudes and opinions to have graced the social psychological literature, and a retrospective of some of Robert B. Zajonc's studies, noteworthy both for their wondrous creativity and their impact (Bargh & Apsley 2001). With his Sydney symposium, Forgas and colleagues continue to contribute
ATTITUDES AND PERSUASION 347
to our understanding of attitudes and related constructs (Forgas & Williams 2000, Forgas etal. 2003).
In this review, we focus primarily on the literature published between 1999 and 2004. We opt for these boundaries to complement and update related reviews by Ajzen (2001), who covered the period up to 1999, by Fazio & Olson (2003), who were concerned with the use of implicit measures in social cognition, and by Wood (2000), whose focus was the interface between social influence and persuasion, with a strong emphasis on minority influence. Our focus, which is somewhat at variance with these earlier offerings, is on attitude formation; evaluative conditioning and mere exposure; attitude change; majority and minority influence; attitude strength; affect, mood, and emotion; and attitude-behavior consistency. Given the evident intensity of research, it is impossible even to note all of the important work in this area. We instead offer an integrative analysis that calls attention to emergent approaches to issues of long-standing concern.
ATTITUDE FORMATION
A prime factor that must be considered when reflecting on persuasion concerns the fundamental construct of attitude. Defining attitude has been ongoing at least since Thurstone's (1928) time. Today, most accept the view that an attitude represents an evaluative integration of cognitions and affects experienced in relation to an object. Attitudes are the evaluative judgments that integrate and summarize these cognitive/affective reactions. These evaluative abstractions vary in strength, which in turn has implications for persistence, resistance, and attitude-behavior consistency (Holland et al. 2002a, Petty et al. 2004).
EVALUATIVE CONDITIONING AND MERE EXPOSURE
Although sometimes confused, processes of attitude formation and change are not identical, nor are their outcomes. Attitude formation can occur in many ways, the principal distinction among them being the extent to which individuals consciously embrace or reject an attitude object. At the less aware end of the spectrum are the conditioning models. Olson & Fazio's (2001, 2002) implicit learning paradigm proposes that preferences can be learned below conscious awareness. Considerable research has backed this position (Hammerl 2000, Walther & Trasselli 2003; but see Field 2000, Priluck & Till 2004). Walther (2002) showed that the association of a valenced and a nonvalenced attitude object affects the evaluation of the latter, and this effect spreads to targets related to the initially nonvalenced object. Evaluative conditioning of this type is not dependent on strong temporal reinforcement contingencies, and so is unlikely to trigger awareness. Walther's spreading attitude effect suggests that evaluative conditioning is more than acquiescence to experimental demand (De Houwer et al. 2001, Dijksterhuis 2004).
348       CRANO ■ PRISLIN
Mere exposure to a stimulus also can influence attitude formation at below-conscious levels (Bargh 2001, Lee 2001), possibly because exposure frequency is experienced as affectively positive (Winkielman & Cacioppo 2004). It must be emphasized that mere exposure and conditioning are concerned with attitude formation, not change. Indeed, considerable evidence indicates that these "below conscious awareness" processes are unlikely to produce change (Cacioppo et al. 1992, Courbet 2003, Till & Priluck 2000, Walther 2002). This observation suggests that social marketing campaigns that associate positive role models with desirable behaviors (e.g., avoiding drugs or alcohol) might prove useful for those who hold neutral to positive initial attitudes toward the recommended actions, but they are unlikely to move the sinners to the inside of the church.
ATTITUDE CHANGE
Single- and Dual-Process Models
Factors that do affect attitude change have been a staple of social psychology from its earliest days. The standard models of change, which continue to garner considerable attention, take a number of different forms, but their basic understandings of the cause-effect patterns of attitude change are limited. In the classical models, messages are presented, processed, and if successful, move recipients' attitudes toward the advocated position. The revised attitude, in turn, may influence subsequent behavior under appropriate conditions. The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) and the heuristic/systematic model (HSM) are exemplars of dual-process models that embody this general process of message reception, attitude change, (and perhaps) behavior change (Chen & Chaiken 1999, Petty & Wegener 1999, Wegener & Carlston 2005). Dual-process models hold that if receivers are able and properly motivated, they will elaborate, or systematically analyze, persuasive messages. If the message is well reasoned, data based, and logical (i.e., strong), it will persuade; if it is not, it will fail. Auxiliary features of the context will have little influence on these outcomes. However, if message targets are unmotivated (or unable) to process a message, they will use auxiliary features, called "peripheral cues" (e.g., an attractive source), or heuristics (e.g., "Dad's usually right") to short-circuit the more effortful elaboration process in forming an attitudinal response. Such attitudes are less resistant to counterpressures, less stable, and less likely to impel behavior than are those formed as a result of thorough processing.
Without question, the dual-process models remain today's most influential persuasion paradigms, as they have been since their inception. In these models, source and message may play distinct roles that, in concert with motivation and ability to process information, determine the outcomes of persuasive interactions. Kruglanski and colleagues (Kruglanski & Thompson 1999a,b; Thompson et al. 2000) have challenged the dual-process view in their unimodel, which accepts the importance of motivation and ability in persuasion, but describes a single cognitive process that accounts for the effects of source and message in persuasion.
ATTITUDES AND PERSUASION 349
This position provoked a fascinating exchange of views in Psychological Inquiry [1999, Vol. 10(2)].
The cognition in persuasion model (Albarracin 2002, Albarracin & Wyer 2001) also takes a single-process perspective, but postulates a series of processing stages that occur in response to persuasive messages. The cognition in persuasion model has not amassed the comprehensive database of the dual-process models, but its interesting treatment of distraction, mood, and initial attitude variations suggests it may supply useful insights into fundamental persuasion processes.
Source
The bustle of research focused on persuasion processes has refocused attention on many unresolved issues. Nearly 20 years have passed since the initial ELM publications, but attempts still are underway to specify a theory-based model of message strength (Areni 2003, Hosman et al. 2002). Another old chestnut, the sleeper effect, also has come under renewed scrutiny. Consistent with ELM/HSM-based expectations, discounting before or after a message is elaborated, as a consequence of source status or other instructional manipulations, moderates the sleeper effect (Kumkale & Albarracin 2004).
Source effects also have received considerable attention over the past two decades in minority influence research, the study of the ways in which a minority faction can persuade the majority to accept its (counterattitudinal) position. Majority sources typically produce immediate change related to the focus of their persuasive messages. Such change, however, often is transitory. Minority sources, on the other hand, often produce change on issues related to, but not identical to, the topic of their persuasive message (indirect change). When minorities do effect focal change, it usually occurs after a temporal delay (Crano 2001b). Minority influence findings pose problems for dual-process theories, as source status ordinarily is considered a peripheral (heuristic) cue, and thus long-term changes in response to minority sources are theoretically incomprehensible. Attempts at integrating these anomalous findings (Crano 2000, 2001b) have drawn on social identity theory to illustrate how apparently peripheral cues can motivate systematic processing.
Message
Message effects have come under increased scrutiny owing to recent research on the unimodel. Kruglanski and colleagues have proposed that a need for closure might result in primacy effects in persuasion (Pierro et al. 2004), as might the cognitive load of the persuasion context (Kruglanski & Stroebe 2005). In addition, the unexpectedness of a source/message pairing has been found to amplify a message's persuasive muscle (Erb et al. 2002). Apparently, source/message inconsistencies increase message scrutiny, resulting in greater effects—assuming high message quality (Petty et al. 2001b).
350       CRANO ■ PRISLIN
Dissonance
An alternative to the "attitudes cause behavior" paradigm posits that attitudes may be a consequence as well as a cause of behavior. One of the most long-lived expressions of this approach is dissonance theory, advanced by Festinger (1957), who undoubtedly would be astonished to find controversy still attending his classic study with Carlsmith (Festinger & Carlsmith 1959, Harmon-Jones 2000b), and active research on free choice (Kitayama et al. 2004), postdecision regret (Brownstein et al. 2004), and even selective exposure to (in)consistent data (Jonas et al. 2001). Joule & Azdia (2003) have supported their "radical model," which argues for a return to the original version of dissonance theory, and rejects the many alternatives that have developed over the years (also see Beauvois & Joule 1999). Harmon-Jones et al.'s (2003) action-oriented model, which posits that cognitive discrepancies generate dissonance because they interfere with efficient belief-consistent actions, also is compatible with the fundamental premises of dissonance, as is recent research that demonstrates vicarious dissonance arousal (Monin et al. 2004, Norton et al. 2003). In a useful integration, Stone & Cooper's (2001, 2003) self-standards model posits that inconsistent dissonance results might be attributed to dissimilar standards people had set for themselves, and the consequences of variations in self-esteem for discrepancies between these standards and actions (Cesario et al. 2004, Olson & Stone 2005). Discrepancies could cause disparities in dissonance arousal as a consequence of varying self-standards.
Matz & Wood (2005) showed that disagreement with group members mediates the effects of dissonance arousal mechanisms, and McKimmie et al. (2003) suggest that group support attenuates dissonance, consistent with social identity-based expectations. Spillover from research on implicit attitude measures (Fazio & Olson 2003) is evident in Gawronski & Strack's (2004) finding that a standard dissonance manipulation affected explicitly measured, but not implicitly measured, attitudes. Their explicit measure produced clear dissonance effects, but their implicit measure did not. The authors suggest that dissonance will occur on judgments that involve explicit propositional syllogistic reasoning, but not on affective, association-based (implicit) beliefs. This analysis suggests a dual-process approach in which associative versus propositional processes respond differently to persuasion pressures.
MINORITY AND MAJORITY INFLUENCE
Attitude change induced by a minority source represents a special case in persuasion. Minority influence researchers focus on intraindividual processes that are activated in response to opinion-based minority advocacy. These processes include cognitive reactions or thoughts recipients generate to minority appeals (Wood 2000). A hallmark of the prevailing information-processing approach is the examination of cognitive responses, either in their own right or as mediators of change. Responses generated to minority and majority advocacy are compared, and social conditions, usually represented by group membership, are treated as
ATTITUDES AND PERSUASION 351
part of the information to be processed (El-Alayli et al. 2002, Prislin & Wood 2005).
Social Consensus
An emerging focus in the information-processing approach concerns the role of social consensus (Erb & Bohner 2001). Because level of consensus is the defining feature of majority and minority status, it presumably is crucial to understanding social influence. Some hold that mere consensus has evaluative implications, i.e., positions are valued proportional to the level of support they receive. These va-lenced inferences bias the processing of attitude-relevant information, which in turn determines ultimately the positions that are adopted. In a test of this idea, Erb & Bohner (2001) documented that consensus did bias information processing; it did not operate merely as a peripheral cue that fostered heuristic adoption of a position (Martin et al. 2002). This view resonates with Mackie's (1987) objective consensus approach to social influence, which postulates systematic processing of consensually advocated positions because of their presumed validity, greater likelihood of adoption, and positive identity implications. Disagreements with consensually advocated positions violate expectations, and thus motivate systematic processing to facilitate understanding. The important role of consensus also was recognized in a recently proposed attributional model of persuasion (Ziegler et al. 2004), which posits that minority and majority messages, which reflect different levels of consensus, are elaborated under different conditions. Ziegler et al. showed that a nonconsensual (minority) message was elaborated when it was consistently advocated and highly distinctive; a consensual (majority) message was elaborated when it was inconsistently advocated and not distinctive.
Minority Effects on Attitude Formation/Change
It appears that incongruence with consensus-implied expectations activates message processing to the extent that consistent advocacy of a nonconsensual (minority) position, and inconsistent advocacy of a consensual (majority) position, violates expectations. This proposition seems most likely in contexts involving attitude formation (versus attitude change). The formation versus change distinction has received increased attention in minority influence research (Crano 2001a, Crano & Alvaro 1998, Crano & Hannula-Bral 1994) and may prove useful in disentangling earlier inconsistencies.
Further evidence that degree of attitude formation may moderate processing was supplied by Erb et al. (2002), who found greater elaboration of minority (versus majority) messages when they challenged well-formed attitudes, but more elaboration of majority messages when they targeted ill-formed attitudes. This line of research is consistent with Moscovici's (1980) proposition that conflict is a necessary precondition for minority-induced attitude change, although the change may be indirect or delayed. Normative support based on majority
352       CRANO ■ PRISLIN
consensus, conversely, which is championed by the mere (and objective) consensus approaches, may function more powerfully in attitude formation contexts. A variable that might interact with the attitude formation/change distinction concerns the perceived subjective or objective nature of the issue or decision under investigation. Models of minority and majority influence that deal comprehensively with attitude formation or change, the objective or subjective nature of the issue, focal versus indirect attitude change, and the transitory or persistent nature of this change are not common, but their development is a hopeful sign of progress (Butera & Mugny 2001a, Crano & Alvaro 1998, Crano & Hannula-Bral 1994, Gordijn et al. 2002).
Cognitive Responses
Cognitive responses to minority and majority influence need not be limited to message processing and resultant attitudinal reactions. The scope and quality of thought also may affect problem solving. Supporting Nemeth's (1995) model of convergent-divergent thought, De Dreu & West (2001) found that minority dissent stimulated innovation in organizational teams by inspiring critical, divergent problem analyses. Active discussion and participatory decision making encouraged minority dissent and processing of the minority's message (De Dreu 2001). Added benefits of minority dissent included improved integrative complexity (Antonio et al. 2004), an enlarged range of unshared information considered by group members, and superior problem solving (Brodbeck et al. 2002, Choi & Levine 2004). Authentic minority dissent proved more efficient than simulated ("devil's advocate") minority dissent in generating superior thought processes (Nemeth et al. 2001). In an extension of this orientation, De Dreu et al. (1999) demonstrated that minority-induced indirect attitude change was caused by divergent thought, whereas majority-induced focal change was caused by convergent thought. The causal link was established by independent manipulations of consensual support and processing mode.
Leniency
Arguing that consensual support derives its meaning from group membership, a thriving line of research highlights the link between size of support for attitudinal positions and social identification (Crano 2000, David & Turner 1999, Falomir et al. 2000, Gordijn et al. 2001, Mackie & Hunter 1999, Phillips 2003). Integrating insights of social identification and the information-processing approaches, Crano's (2001b) leniency contract postulates that in-group minorities exert influence because of the lenient, open-minded evaluation afforded members of the same social category. The counterattitudinal nature of minority advocacy precludes its direct acceptance by the majority. Although not directly accepted, minority advocacy is nevertheless elaborated by the majority as they attempt to understand the unexpected position held by their in-group members. Shared in-group membership allows for relatively open-minded elaboration, which ultimately creates pressure for change on related attitudes. If sufficiently great, such change puts pressure on
ATTITUDES AND PERSUASION 353
the focal issue, which consequently is modified to restore cognitive consistency. Empirical tests have supported the model and documented that changes on related attitudes persist long enough to trigger changes on the focal issues to reestablish balance within the attitudinal system (Crano & Chen 1998). Together with findings that attitudes changed in response to minority advocacy are resistant to subsequent persuasive attacks (Martin et al. 2003), these results suggest that minority-inspired attitudes may be especially strong.
Shared group membership may affect reactions to social influence not only through motivated reasoning about in-group (minority) members but also through social cognition processes (Mackie & Hunter 1999). In-group status may contribute to an individuated representation of minority arguments, whereby each minority member is perceived as an independent information source. Perceived independence of judgment, considered a prerequisite for the validity of advocacy (Asch 1952), may enhance the persuasive power of in-group minorities. These minorities may capitalize on the effects of individuated representation of arguments by employing communication strategies that emphasize an active (Kerr 2002), consistent advocacy (Myers et al. 2000), while appealing to a shared superordinate belief system within the group (Smith et al. 2000).
Dynamics
The dynamic nature of social influence is evident not only in cognitive adjustments within an individual but also in structural adjustments within a group (Látané & Bourgeois 2001; Prislin et al. 2000, 2002; Vallacher et al. 2002b). According to Prislin and colleagues' dynamic gain-loss asymmetry model of change in minority and majority positions, movement from valued majority to devalued minority is experienced as loss; the opposite movement is experienced as gain. These movements have implications for influence because losses generally are experienced more intensely than gains. Empirical support for this postulated asymmetry was obtained in a series of studies that documented new minorities' dramatically negative reactions toward their groups, which were not offset by new majorities' mildly positive reactions toward theirs (Prislin et al. 2000, 2002). In the attitudinal domain, new minorities tended to agree with the newly emerging consensus (Prislin et al. 2000) and to interpret attitudinal differences among group members as diversity rather than deviance (Prislin et al. 2002). In contrast, new majorities strengthen their attitudes by enhancing attitudinal importance, broadening the latitudes of positions they find unacceptable, and expressing less tolerance of opposing views. These complementary attitudinal and group-reaction results suggest that the likely response of new majorities to new minorities is hostility or antagonism.
Dynamic changes in minority size also can affect influence, as expanding minorities become more influential as they gain converts (Clark 1999, 2001). Empirical investigations of the processes underlying this effect reveal that the increased power of expanding minorities stems from targets' increased elaboration of their
354       CRANO ■ PRISLIN
appeals, as they try to understand what drew others to the minority. Interestingly, expanding majorities seem to lose their capacity to influence. Their expansion apparently triggers reactance in targets who struggle to preserve freedom of thought (Gordijn et al. 2002).
Dynamic models of social influence have begun to capture the complexity of influence processes exchanged between real-life minorities and majorities. Pioneering attempts to examine these processes in organizational (De Dreu 2001), political (Levine & Kaarbo 2001, Smith & Diven 2002), cross-cultural (Ng & Van Dyne 2001), self-evaluative (Vallacher et al. 2002a), economic and other settings (Butera & Mugny 2001b) promise to enrich theory and to foster innovative methodological approaches. Particularly relevant theoretically is the issue of the motives that drive influence exchanges between minorities and majorities, and temporal changes in information processing strategies that mediate social influence (Prislin & Wood 2005). These issues likely will mark the next generation of social influence research.
ATTITUDE STRENGTH Dimensionality
Attitudes changed in response to minority influence generally are stronger than those that evolve in response to majority pressure (Martin et al. 2003). The study of attitude strength suggests why this might be so. Recent research on attitude strength has addressed the issue of latent structure, which involves the intercon-nectedness of various strength-related features and the processes that underlie their development. Factor-analytic studies documented the multidimensional structure of attitude strength, but findings regarding dimensionality have proved inconsistent (Bassili 1996, Krosnick et al. 1993, Prislin 1996). Recent studies have relied on experimental methods to examine dimensionality by focusing on the antecedents and consequences of various strength-related features. The logic guiding these studies is that to the extent that strength-related features signify the same latent dimension, they should have the same antecedents and produce the same consequences, but should not cause each other (Bizer & Krosnick 2001, Visser et al. 2003). Research based on this reasoning has demonstrated that attitude importance, though related to attitude accessibility and commitment, is a distinct construct. It was differentially affected by various aspects of subjective experience with the attitude object (Bizer & Krosnick 2001, Holland et al. 2003), and had distinct effects on information processing and behavior (Visser et al. 2003).
Processes
Findings about antecedents of strength features led to questions about the processes through which such features develop. Emerging evidence suggests a dual-process
ATTITUDES AND PERSUASION 355
mechanism. Supporting this possibility is the finding that attitude certainty may be inferred effortlessly from ease of attitude retrieval (accessibility) (Holland et al. 2003), or through an effortful analytic process of retrieving attitude-pertinent beliefs (Haddock et al. 1999). This latter analytic process also was suggested in the development of attitude accessibility from the elaboration of attitude-relevant information (Priester & Petty 2003). Future research would benefit from a unifying framework for addressing the issues of dimensionality and the development of attitude strength.
A related, emerging, theme concerns the social foundations of attitude strength. Indicating that not only attitudes but also meta-attitudinal characteristics (e.g., strength) are sensitive to social support, research demonstrates that attitudes are judged as more important (Prislin et al. 2000) and are expressed more quickly (Bassili 2003) when they are socially shared. Attitude certainty increases through projections of similarity with in-group and dissimilarity with out-group members (Holtz 2003, 2004). Increased attitude certainty and decreased ambivalence as a consequence of social support render attitudes resistant to persuasion (Visser & Mirabile 2004). Thus, attitude strength originates, at least in part, from the social context in which attitudes are held.
Resistance
Likely growing out of interest in features that make attitudes strong, research on resistance to persuasion is reviving an old and long-dormant interest (McGuire 1964). This revival has created an outburst of efforts to conceptualize resistance and understand its underlying processes (Knowles & Linn 2004). Numerous conceptualizations have been offered, with most defining resistance in terms of the outcome of a persuasive attempt (versus a process or motivation) (Jacks & O'Brian 2004, Quinn & Wood 2004, Tormala & Petty 2002). Resistance to persuasion can originate in cognitive and affective reactions to the appeal (Fuegen & Brehm 2004, Jacks & Devine 2000, Pfau et al. 2001). Negative cognitive and affective reactions can be combined in a number of specific resistance strategies, whose likelihood of use appears to vary with their social desirability. Apparently, socially desirable strategies that attack the appeal are more likely to be used than are those that derogate the appeal's source (Jacks & Cameron 2003). The impact of different strategies in resisting persuasion may vary over time. A rare longitudinal study of resistance revealed a relatively persistent effect of counterarguing over time, but only a delayed impact of strengthening of the existing attitude (Pfau et al. 2004).
Highlighting the role of metacognitive factors (people's perceptions and thoughts about their own cognitive states and processes) in resistance to persuasion, Tormala and collaborators argue that resistance does not necessarily leave initial attitudes intact (Tormala & Petty 2002). Rather, resistance strengthens initial attitudes to the extent that it is perceived as succeeding even in the face of strong messages (Tormala & Petty 2004a) emanating from expert sources (Tormala
356       CRANO ■ PRISLIN
& Petty 2004b). When resistance is perceived as effortful, or achieved through creation of mediocre counterarguments, initial attitudes, though preserved, may weaken (Petty et al. 2004). Activation of the resistance process depends on motives created by the persuasive context (Wood & Quinn 2004), thus allowing for interventions that may instigate defensive motivation to resist deceptive and potentially harmful persuasion (Sagarin et al. 2002).
Ambivalence
A related line of research experiencing a renaissance is concerned with attitudinal ambivalence (Conner & Sparks 2002, Jones et al. 2000). The current popularity of the construct first introduced almost four decades ago (Scott 1966) likely reflects its innovative conceptualization of attitudes. Allowing attitudes simultaneously to include both positive and negative evaluations opens the question of the operative (structural) or experiential (phenomenological) status of ambivalence. Newby-Clark et al. (2002) argue that structural coexistence of mutually opposite evaluations generates the experience of ambivalence if the evaluations are simultaneously accessible.
The theoretical value of the ambivalence construct lies in its novel definition of attitudes as two separate dimensions rather than a single bipolar dimension. In the empirical literature, however, ambivalence has been treated mostly as a distinct aspect of attitude strength (Armitage & Conner 2000, Maio et al. 2000a,b, van der Pligt et al. 2000), as is evident in research on the moderating role of ambivalence on information processing, attitude change, and attitude-behavior consistency. Not only is information processing more effortful at high levels of ambivalence (van Harreveld
et al. 2004, van der Pligt et al. 2000), it is qualitatively different (Broemer 2002). The well-documented moderator effects of ambivalence on attitude-behavior consistency (Armitage 2003, Armitage & Conner 2000, Conner et al. 2002, Costarelli & Colloca 2004, Sparks et al. 2004), attitude pliability (Armitage & Conner 2000), and decision making (Hanze 2001) provide additional evidence of strength properties. Higher levels of ambivalence are associated with weaker attitude-behavior relationships, greater attitudinal pliability, and elaboration-oriented versus action-oriented approaches to decision making.
In line with the emerging emphasis on the social foundations of attitudes, there is growing evidence about the importance of social factors in generating and alleviating ambivalence. Priester & Petty (2001), extending research on antecedents of ambivalence from typically examined intrapersonal to interpersonal factors, demonstrated that perceptions of interpersonal attitudinal discrepancy contributed to subjective ambivalence beyond personal influence factors. The experience of ambivalence motivates the search for corrective information, making those with ambivalent attitudes especially susceptible to consensus influence (Hodson et al. 2001).
Ambivalence toward social targets appears especially important because of its role in forming social perceptions (Bell & Esses 2002, Maio et al. 2001) and
ATTITUDES AND PERSUASION 357
regulating social relations. At the group level, perhaps the strongest argument for the link between attitudinal ambivalence and social relations has been proposed in the theory of ambivalent sexism (Glick & Fiske 2001, Glick et al. 2004), which posits that simultaneously held hostile and benevolent attitudes toward men and women not only reflect, but support, gender inequality. Feather's (2004) alternative explanation sees the origin of ambivalent attitudes in contradictory values. Uniting these and other approaches to ambivalent attitudes toward social groups is the motivational position, within which ambivalence is understood as a compromise strategy of satisfying opposing social motives (Mucchi-Faina et al. 2002). Elucidating motivational conflicts underlying attitudinal ambivalence remains an important challenge.
AFFECT, MOOD, AND EMOTION
The study of affect or emotion in attitudes continues to generate research on attitude structure, wherein affect is examined as part of the holy affect-cognition-behavior trinity of attitude organization, as well as research on attitude change, where affect is examined as a determinant of the judgmental processes underlying reactions to persuasive messages. Affect as a distinct component of attitude structure is assumed to have primacy in responses to attitude objects (Cervellon & Dube 2002, Huskinson & Haddock 2004). According to the affective primacy hypothesis, emotional associations to an attitude object are activated more rapidly than are nonemotional (cognitive) associations. However, Giner-Sorolla (2001, 2004) suggests the primacy of affective (over cognitive) reactions only at high levels of extremity, and for affectively based (versus cognitively based) evaluations. Consistent with prevailing dual-process models, Giner-Sorolla (1999) theorizes that the affect associated with an attitude object varies along a continuum ranging from immediate to deliberate. Immediate affect is evident in evaluative bipolar feelings and emotions that are activated rapidly and effortlessly, whereas deliberate affect is evident in discrete, qualitatively different emotions that are activated gradually, over time. This distinction resonates with Ito & Cacioppo's (2001) evaluative space model, which postulates a multiplicity of evaluative mechanisms. The presumed independence of evaluative mechanisms allows for the lower level structures automatically to process attitude objects in terms of affective significance while higher level mechanisms direct attention to other features of the object. Evaluative processing at different levels ultimately may result in dual attitudes whose implicit (automatic, immediate) and explicit (deliberate, delayed) expressions are evalua-tively unharmonious.
The distinction between affect and cognition in attitude structure has implications for attitude change. According to the matching hypothesis, persuasive appeals are effective to the extent they match the structural (affective-cognitive) makeup of the targeted attitude (Edwards 1990). Revisiting this hypothesis, Fabrigar & Petty (1999) resolved methodological difficulties of previous research and found that
358       CRANO ■ PRISLIN
affective persuasion was more effective in changing attitudes based on affect than attitudes derived from cognitions, but the obverse, that cognitive persuasion was more effective in changing attitudes derived from cognitions, was not supported.
Fear
Affect has been examined not only as a distinct component of attitude structure but also as a contextual variable with implications for persuasion (Petty et al. 2001a). The contextual conceptualization is concerned with two types of feelings and emotions: those activated by the persuasive message, and general feelings and emotions unrelated to the persuasive appeal. The former, often operationalized as message-activated fear and studied in persuasive campaigns aimed at health-related attitudes, has produced conflicting results (Petty et al. 2003). Relying on dual-process models of persuasion, Das et al. (2003) examined information processing as well as attitude change in response to fear appeals. They found that fear appeals generated favorable cognitive responses and consequent attitude change if participants felt vulnerable to threat. Thus, vulnerability operated as a motivator that fostered positive evaluation of the arguments in the fear-arousing message and resultant attitude change.
Information and Processing
Associated research has investigated the manner in which affect that is unrelated to a persuasive appeal shapes reactions to the appeal and the processes through which such influence occurs. Conceptualizing extraneous, appeal-unrelated affect as information whose impact is best understood within the dual-process models of persuasion, Albarracin and colleagues (Albarracin 2002, Albarracin & Kumkale 2003, Albarracin & Wyer 2001) found that reliance on affect as information was determined by ability and motivation to process the persuasive appeal. Affect served as information in persuasion at moderate levels of processing, where it was identified as a potential criterion for judgment. At low levels of processing, affect was not identified, and at high processing levels, it was recognized as irrelevant for judgments about persuasive appeals. Thus, ability and motivation to process have a curvilinear impact on the influence of extraneous, appeal-unrelated affect (Albarracin & Kumkale 2003).
Attempts to understand how affect influences processing have focused on the disparate effects of valenced affective states on elaboration. Previous research strongly suggested supremacy of negative states in promoting argument elaboration. Recent research paints a more complex picture. Bohner & Weinerth (2001) observed the facilitative effects of negative affect on processing only when the persuasive appeal was considered legitimate. Negative affect triggered by a legitimate appeal presumably signaled potential threat and motivated careful scrutiny. In contrast, negative affect associated with an appeal judged illegitimate was interpreted as a reaction to the illegitimacy, which lowered motivation for careful message scrutiny.
ATTITUDES AND PERSUASION 359
In a demonstration of the opposite effect, Raghunatan & Trope (2002) showed that positive mood may serve as a resource when processing self-relevant appeals. According to the mood-as-resource hypothesis, positive moods serve as buffers, enabling a person to process potentially threatening but useful information about self-relevant issues. Supporting the hypothesis, the authors found that under conditions of high self-relevance, positive mood fostered careful scrutiny of negative information, which in turn led to attitude change. In contrast, under the conditions of low self-relevance, negative mood, which apparently served as information, led to more elaborate processing.
Certainty and Carryover
In addition to hedonic tone, affective states are characterized by a number of features stemming from the appraisal process. Much like meta-attitudinal characteristics of attitude strength (Bassili 1996), these meta-cognitive characteristics of affective states represent impressions of one's feelings and emotions (control, responsibility, certainty). Of these, the certainty associated with an emotion appears especially consequential for processing persuasive appeals. Tiedens & Linton (2001), drawing on previously documented congruency along appraisal dimensions between incidental emotional states and subsequent judgments (Lerner & Keltner 2000), reasoned that certainty associated with an emotion could spill over to subsequent judgments and ultimately determine processing intensity. In support, they found that both positive and negative emotions characterized by certainty fostered heuristic processing, whereas positive and negative emotions characterized by uncertainty promoted systematic processing. Moreover, the same emotion had different effects on processing, fostering elaboration when associated with uncertainty, but attenuating processing when associated with certainty. Thus, certainty associated with an emotion carries over to determine certainty about subsequent persuasive situations and resultant processing.
The carryover effect of emotional states is evident in research on emotion-induced biases in likelihood estimates (DeSteno et al. 2002). Using emotional states as information, people arrive at biased estimates of the likelihood of events, overestimating emotion-congruent events and underestimating emotion-incongruent ones (DeSteno et al. 2000). These emotion-induced biases in likelihood estimates imply that the persuasive impact of messages may depend on the match between emotions and the emotional framing of messages. In support of this hypothesis, DeSteno et al. (2004) found that participants reacted favorably to persuasive appeals to the extent that the emotional consequences mentioned in the appeal matched the emotions they experienced while receiving the appeal.
Contemporary research demonstrates that there is more to the affect-persuasion relationship than the mere valence of emotional states. Specific emotional states and their associated appraisal-related characteristics determine reactions to persuasive appeals through a matching process, which appears to be highly specific. In this process, emotional states function as signals that inform targets of
360       CRANO ■ PRISLIN
persuasive appeals about their environments. The biasing effect of emotional states, however, has been demonstrated under a restricted range of conditions. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume a multiplicity of mechanisms responsible for emotional states' effects. Future research should establish the boundary conditions of such effects and identify the mechanisms implicated in their operation.
ATTITUDE-BEHAVIOR CONSISTENCY
Because attitudes predict behavior, they are considered the crown jewel of social psychology. Sparked by LaPierre's (1934) pioneering study, research on the predictive power of attitudes and the moderation of attitude-behavior bonds remains vital, vigorous, and continuous. Moderators of attitude-behavior consistency (ABC) fall into three categories: meta-attitudinal, self-interest, and assessment-related. Cook & Sheeran's (2004) meta-analysis of 44 studies that examined meta-attitudinal characteristics indicative of attitude strength (accessibility, involvement, certainty, ambivalence, affective-cognitive consistency, and temporal stability) revealed that all the characteristics except involvement moderated ABC, with temporal stability being the strongest. Extending these findings, Holland et al. (2002b) demonstrated that strong (versus weak) attitudes not only were more predictive of behavior, but also were less sensitive to behavioral feedback. Strong attitudes remained stable irrespective of the behavior exhibited between two attitude assessments, whereas weak attitudes were significantly affected by behavior.
Self-interest
However strong, attitudes may not be manifested behaviorally if the manifestation violates the norm of self-interest. Ratner & Miller (2001) showed that the fear of publicly supporting favored causes in which one had no stake prevented nonvested individuals from acting on their attitudes. Self-interest moderates ABC, as shown in research on the effect of vested interest across a range of policy-relevant decisions (Lehman & Crano 2002). In general, the more closely attitudes are tied to the self, the more likely they are to serve as a basis for attitude-consistent actions. Their potency in determining behavior likely stems from their stability, as self-defining attitudes are less sensitive to context (Sparks 2000).
Assessment
In a demonstration of the moderating roles of the mode of assessment, Neumann et al. (2004) showed that explicit measures of attitudes assessing deliberate, reflective evaluations (e.g., questionnaires) were better predictors of self-reported, deliberative behavioral intentions. In contrast, implicit measures assessing automatic, impulsive evaluations (e.g., Implicit Association Test; Greenwald et al. 1998) were
ATTITUDES AND PERSUASION 361
better predictors of automatic avoidance/approach tendencies in reactions toward people with AIDS. Taken together, these studies suggest that underlying, latent characteristics of evaluations reflected in different measures of attitudes may be largely unrelated functionally. As such, they may activate different processes that make unique contributions to behavior (Gawronski & Strack 2004, Vargas et al. 2004).
Theory of Planned Behavior
The MODE model (motivation and opportunity as determinants of spontaneous versus thoughtful information processing; Fazio & Towles-Schwen 1999) proposes that attitudes guide behavior either through deliberate or spontaneous (automatic) processes. The former are activated by strong motivation and the opportunity to engage in conscious deliberation; activation of the latter depends on accessibility. The most prominent of the deliberative processes models is the theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen 2001; Ajzen & Fishbein 2000, 2005), which postulates that behavior follows from intentions and perceived control over behavior. Intentions are derived from considerations of attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. A voluminous TPB-inspired literature testifies to the model's heuristic value. A meta-analysis of 185 studies revealed that the constitutive elements of the theory explained significant variance in intentions (18%) and subsequent behaviors (13%); subjective norms emerged as the weakest predictor (Armitage & Conner 2001).
Terry et al. (2000a) criticized the conceptualization of the normative component of the TPB and offered an alternative more in line with a social influence perspective. Drawing on social identity and social categorization theories, they argued that only attitudes supported by in-group norms would predict behavior. Support for this reasoning was found in a series of studies demonstrating stronger ABC in participants exposed to attitude-congruent (versus incongruent) in-group norms (Terry et al. 2000b, White et al. 2002), especially when participants strongly identified with the group (Smith & Terry 2003).
Behavioral intentions, the most immediate predictor of behavior in the TPB, represent plans to act toward desired goals. The impressive volume of research on the predictive validity of intentions allowed for several meta-analytical reviews, which recently were included as entries in an overarching synthesis. Sheeran's (2002) meta-analysis of 10 meta-analyses revealed that on average, intentions explained 28% of variance in subsequent behavior. Quite a sizeable portion of unexplained variance is problematic, regardless of whether intentions are conceptualized as causes of actions, as is the case in the TPB, or as focal constitutive conditions of actions (Greve 2001). Reasoning by analogy to attitude strength, Sheeran & Abraham (2003) argued that strong, but not weak, intentions predict behavior. Empirical evidence for this argument was found in studies showing that behavior was closely related to strong intentions indicated by high certainty, attitudinal rather than normative control, greater experience, self-relevance, and
362       CRANO ■ PRISLIN
anticipated regret for inaction (Abraham & Sheeran 2003, Sheeran & Orbell 2000). These properties made intentions stable over time (see also Conner et al. 2000), rendering them reliable predictors of behavior.
Alternatively, predictive validity of intentions may be improved by correcting for the hypothetical bias (Ajzen et al. 2004). This bias, evident in activation of unduly favorable beliefs and attitudes in the context of a hypothetical behavior (intention), was found responsible for inconsistency between intentions to make monetary donations and actual donations to a scholarship fund. When warned of the bias, participants corrected their overly optimistic intentions, making them better predictors of their later actual behavior (Ajzen et al. 2004).
In addition to interventions aimed at making intentions more realistic or strong, consistency between intentions and behavior may be increased by developing a plan for engaging in an intended behavior (Gollwizer 1999). Implementation intentions involve making decisions in advance about crucial aspects of behavior initiation and maintenance. The environmental cues contained in implementation intentions are thought to activate behavior automatically. The association between context and behavior should cue enactment of behavior upon every encounter with relevant contextual factors. In support of the hypothesis that implementation intentions promote performance of an intended behavior, Sheeran & Orbell (1999, 2000) found that individuals who specified in advance how, when, and where they would perform a behavior were more likely than those who did not make such plans to adhere to their intentions to regularly take vitamin C and to attend cervical cancer screening (also see Fishbein 2000, Fishbein et al. 2002).
Whereas implementation intentions establish conscious strategies for attaining desired goals, self-regulatory volitional efficiency contributes to goal attainment through conscious and nonconscious mechanisms that address operationally how behavior is achieved (Kuhl 2000). Orbell (2004) found that volitional efficiency, assessed as concentration on a goal and self-determination, moderated the effects of behavioral intentions on actual behavior; participants high on volitional efficiency were more likely than those low on volitional efficiency to act on their intentions. Moreover, volitional efficiency mediated the effect of perceived behavior control on behavior, supporting Ajzen's (2002) claim that a direct effect of controllability on behavior is as much attributable to internal, self-regulatory capacity as it is to external behavioral influences.
Habit
An aspect of the TPB that has generated lively exchanges among researchers is the role of habits or frequently performed past behaviors (Ouellette & Wood 1998) in predicting future behavior. In contrast to the TPB postulate that effects of any distal variable, including past behavior, are mediated by intentions, Verplanken & Aarts (1999) argue that intentions may lose their predictive power once strong habits are formed. In such cases, a reasoned process of deliberation presumably
ATTITUDES AND PERSUASION 363
is replaced by a spontaneous mode of operation, which is automatically activated upon encountering relevant cues. Criticizing the construct of habit on conceptual and operational grounds, Ajzen (2002) argues that residual effects of past behavior cannot be attributed to habit. Rather, he calls for further explorations of factors responsible for translations of beliefs into actions. Far from being settled, this debate on habits will likely generate new insight into automaticity versus reasoning in human action. James (1890), Tolman (1932), and Hull (1943) might be amused to discover that the focal issue of their times is still hotly debated in the twenty-first century.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
This review has pointed to some likely foci of attention and, hopefully, progress in the years to come. We expect that considerable efforts will continue to be made to understand the nature of attitudes that are measured via explicit versus implicit methods. Theories that make sense of overlaps and discontinuities in the constructs defined by standard and implicit measurement techniques are beginning to develop within specific subfields (e.g., dissonance, affect and persuasion), and more encompassing models may be anticipated. Hand in glove with this progression is a revitalized interest in attitude formation (versus change), which will help integrate basic social-psychophysical concerns with the less exotic pursuits of persuasion practitioners. Study of the effects of minority sources in influence, which helped rejuvenate persuasion research, likely will continue to feature prominently. Recent models that integrate dual process conceptions of attitude change with social identity approaches promise to contribute to a deeper understanding of the fundamental persuasion process in the social context. We anticipate that deliberative processes of change will be differentiated more precisely from more automatic processes, and this development should further advance understanding, as will study of the effects of incongruous pairings of source with message. Internal and external pressures will likely orient persuasion research more strongly toward applications; even fundamental theory-building research may be grounded more firmly in the problems of the real world. This progression is not to be shunned, as we may infer from the recommendations Campbell (1988) advanced so many years ago in his "Experimenting Society" homily. The requirements, indeed, demands, placed on persuasion researchers have never been greater, nor have been the opportunities to contribute meaningfully to science and society. It will be fascinating to see how, not whether, the field responds.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Preparation of this chapter was facilitated by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01-DA015957-02).
364       CRANO ■ PRISLIN
The Annual Review of Psychology is online at http://psych.annualreviews.org
LITERATURE CITED
Abraham C, Sheeran P. 2003. Acting on intentions: the role of anticipated regret. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 42:495-511
Ajzen 1.2001. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52:27-58
Ajzen I. 2002. Residual effects of past on late behavior: habituation and reasoned action perspectives. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 6: 107-22
Ajzen I, Brown TC, Carvajal F. 2004. Explaining the discrepancy between intentions and actions: the case of hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30:1108-21
Ajzen I, Fishbein M. 2000. Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes. In European Review of Social Psychology, ed. W Stroebe, M Hew-stone, pp. 1-33. Chichester, UK: Wiley
Ajzen I, Fishbein M. 2005. The influence of attitudes on behavior. See Albarracfn et al. 2005, pp. 173-221
Albarracfn D. 2002. Cognition in persuasion: an analysis of information processing in response to persuasive communications. InAd-vances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. MP Zanna, 34:61-130. San Diego, CA: Academic
Albarracfn D, Johnson BT, Zanna MP, eds. 2005. The Handbook of Attitudes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Albarracfn D, Kumkale GT. 2003. Affect as information in persuasion: a model of affect identification and discounting. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 84:453-69
Albarracfn D, Wyer RS. 2001. Elaborative and nonelaborative processing of a behavior-related communication. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27:691-705
Allport GW. 1935. Attitudes. In Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. C Murchison, pp. 798-884. Worcester, MA: Clark Univ. Press
Antonio AL, Change JJ, Hakuta K, Kenny DA, Levin S, Milem JF. 2004. Effects of racial
diversity on complex thinking in college students. Psychol. Sei. 15:507-10
Areni CS. 2003. The effects of structural and grammatical variables on persuasion: an elaboration likelihood model perspective. Psychol. Market. 20:349-75
Armitage CJ. 2003. Beyond attitudinal ambivalence: effects of belief homogeneity on attitude-intention-behavior relations. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 33:551-63
Armitage CJ, Conner M. 2000. Attitudinal ambivalence: a test of three key hypotheses. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26:1421-32
Armitage CJ, Conner M. 2001. Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: a meta-analytic review. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 40:471-99
Asch SE. 1952. Social Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Baker WE. 1999. When can affective conditioning and mere exposure directly influence brand choice? /. Advert. 28:31^6
Bargh JA. 2001. The psychology of the mere. See Bargh & Apsley 2001, pp. 25-37
Bargh JA, Apsley DK, eds. 2001. Unraveling the Complexities of Social Life: A Festschrift in Honor of Robert B. Zajonc. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
Bassiii JN. 1996. Meta-judgmental vs. operative indexes of psychological attributes: the case of measures of attitude strength. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 71:637-53
Bassili JN. 2003. The minority slowness effect: subtle inhibitions in the expression of views not shared by others. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 84:261-76
Bassili JN, Brown RD. 2005. Implicit and explicit attitudes: research, challenges, and theory. See Albarracfn et al. 2005, pp. 543-74
Beauvois JL, Joule RV. 1999. A radical point of view on dissonance theory. In Cognitive Dissonance: Progress on A Pivotal Theory of Social Psychology, ed. E Harmon-Jones, J Mills, pp. 43-70. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
ATTITUDES AND PERSUASION 365
Bell DW, Esses VM. 2002. Ambivalence and response amplification: a motivational perspective. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28: 1143-52
Bizer GY, Rrosnick J. 2001. Exploring the structure of strength-related attitude features: the relation between attitude importance and attitude accessibility. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 81:566-86
Blascovich J, Loomis J, Beall A, Swinth K, Hoyt C, Bailenson J. 2002. Immersive virtual environment technology as a research tool for social psychology. Psychol. Inq. 13:103-25
Bohner G, Weinerth T. 2001. Negative affect can increase or decrease message scrutiny: the affect interpretation hypothesis. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27:1417-28
Brodbeck FC, Kerschreiter R, Mojzisch A, Frey D, Schulz-Hardt S. 2002. The dissemination of critical, unshared information in decisionmaking groups: the effects of pre-discussion dissent. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32:35-56
Broemer P. 2002. Relative effectiveness of differently framed health messages: the influence of ambivalence. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32:685-703
Brownstein A, Read SJ, Simon D. 2004. Bias at the racetrack: effects of individual expertise and task importance on predecision reevalu-ation of alternatives. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30:891-904
Bryant J, Zillmann D. 2002. Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Butera F, Mugny G. 2001a. Conflicts and social influences in hypothesis testing. See De Dreu & De Vries 2001, pp. 160-82
Butera F, Mugny G. 2001b. Social Influence in Social Reality: Promoting Individual and Social Change. Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber
Cacioppo JT, Marshall-Goodell BS, Tassinary L, Petty R. 1992. Rudimentary determinants of attitudes: classical condition is more effective when prior knowledge about the attitude stimulus is low than high. /. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 28:207-33
Campbell DT. 1988. The experimenting society. In Methodology and Epistemology
for Social Science: Selected Papers, ed. S Overman, pp. 290-314. Chicago, IL: Univ. Chicago Press
Cervellon M-C, Dube L. 2002. Assessing the cross-cultural applicability of affective and cognitive components of attitude. /. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 33:346-57
Cesario J, Grant H, Higgins E. 2004. Regulatory fit and persuasion: transfer from "feeling right." J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 86:388-404
ChaikenS, Trope Y. 1999. Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford
Chen S, Chaiken S. 1999. The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. See Chaiken & Trope 1999, pp. 73-96
Choi HS, Levine IM. 2004. Minority influence in work teams: the impact of newcomers. /. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40:273-80
Clark RD III. 1999. Effects of number of majority defectors on minority influence. Group Dyn. 3:303-12
Clark RD III. 2001. Effects of majority defection and multiple minority sources on minority influence. Group Dyn. 5:57-62
Conner M, Sheeran P, Norman P, Armitage CI. 2000. Temporal stability as a moderator of relationships in the theory of planned behavior. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 39:449-93
Conner M, Sparks P. 2002. Ambivalence and attitudes. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 12:37-70
Conner M, Sparks P, Povey R, Shepherd IR, Armitage CI. 2002. Moderator effects of attitudinal ambivalence on attitude-behavior relations. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32:705-18
Cooke R, Sheeran P. 2004. Moderation of cognition-intention and cognition-behavior relations: a meta-analysis of properties of variables from the theory of planned behavior. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 43:159-86
Costarelli S, Colloca P. 2004. The effects of attitude ambivalence on pro-environmental behavioral intentions. /. Environ. Psychol. 23:279-88
Courbet D. 2003. L'influence publicitaire en l'absence de souvenir des messages: les ef-fets implicites de la simple exposition aux marques. Cah. Int. Psychol. Soc. 57:39-51
366       CRANO ■ PRISLIN
Crano WD. 1997. Vested interest, symbolicpol-itics, and attitude-behavior consistency. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 72:485-91
Crano WD. 2000. Milestones in the psychological analysis of social influence. Group Dy-nam. 4:68-80
Crano WD. 2001a. Directed social influence. In The Social Mind: Cognitive and Motivational Aspects of Interpersonal Behavior, ed. JP Forgas, KD Williams, pp. 389^05. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
Crano WD. 2001b. Social influence, social identity, and ingroup leniency. In Group Consensus and Minority Influence: Implications for Innovation, ed. CKW De Dreu, NK De-Vries, pp. 122^3. Oxford, UK: Blackwell
Crano WD, Alvaro EM. 1998. The context/comparison model of social influence: mechanisms, structure, and linkages that underlie indirect attitude change. In European Review of Social Psychology, ed. W Stroebe, M Hewstone, 8:175-202. Chichester, UK: Wiley
Crano WD, BurgoonM, eds. 2002. Mass Media and Drug Prevention: Classic and Contemporary Theories and Research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Crano WD, Chen X. 1998. The leniency contract and persistence of majority and minority influence. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 74: 1437-50
Crano WD, Hannula-Bral KA. 1994. Context/categorization model of social influence: minority and majority influence in the formation of a novel response norm. /. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 30:247-76
Das EHH, de Wit JBF, Stroebe W. 2003. Fear appeals motivate acceptance of action recommendations: evidence for a positive bias in the processing of persuasive messages. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29:650-64
David B, Turner JC. 1999. Studies in self-categorization and minority conversion: the in-group minority in intragroup and inter-group contexts. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 38:115-34
De Dreu CKW. 2001. Team innovation and team effectiveness: the importance of minor-
ity dissent and reflexivity. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 11:285-98
De Dreu CKW, De Vries NK, eds. 2001. Group concensus and minority influence: implications for innovation. Oxford, UK: Blackwell
De Dreu CKW, De Vries NK, Gordijn EH, Schuurman MS. 1999. Convergent and divergent processing of majority and minority arguments: effects of focal and related attitudes. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 29:329^8
De Dreu CKW, WestM. 2001. Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance of participation in decision making. /. Appl. Psychol. 86:1191-201
De Houwer J, Thomas S, Baeyens F. 2001. Associative learning of likes and dislikes: a review of 25 years of research on human evaluative conditioning. Psychol. Bull. 127:853-69
DeSteno D, Petty RE, Rucker DD, Wegener DT, Braveman J. 2004. Discrete emotions and persuasion: the role of emotion-induced expectancies. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 86:43-56
DeSteno D, Petty RE, Wegener DT, Rucker DD. 2000. Beyond valence in the perception of likelihood: the role of emotion specificity. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 78:397^16
DeSteno D, Petty RE, Wegener DT, Rucker DD. 2002. Emotion and persuasion: thoughts on the role of emotional intelligence. In The Wisdom of Feeling: Psychological Processes in Emotional Intelligence, ed. L Feldman Barrett, P Salovey, pp. 292-310. New York: Guilford
Dijksterhuis A. 2004. I like myself but I don't know why: enhancing implicit self-esteem by subliminal evaluative conditioning. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 86:345-55
Edwards K. 1990. The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and change. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 59:202-16
El-Alayli A, Park ES, Messe LA, Kerr NL. 2002. Having to take a stand: the interactive effects of task framing and source status. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 5:233^-8
Erb H-P, Bohner G. 2001. Mere consensus effects in minority and majority influence. In
ATTITUDES AND PERSUASION 367
Group Consensus and Minority Influence: Implications for Innovation, ed. CKW De Dreu, NK DeVries, pp. 40-59. Maiden, MA: Blackwell
Erb H-P, Bonner G, Rank S, Einwiller S. 2002. Processing minority and majority communications: the role of conflict and prior attitudes. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28:1172-82
Fabrigar LR, Petty RE. 1999. The role of affective and cognitive bases of attitudes in susceptibility to affectively and cognitively based persuasion. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 25:363-81
Falomir IM, Mugny G, Perez IA. 2000. Social influence and identity conflict. See Terry & Hogg 2000, pp. 245-64
Fazio RH, Olson MA. 2003. Implicit measures in social cognition research: their meaning and use. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 54:297-327
Fazio RH, Towles-Schwen T. 1999. The MODE model of attitude-behavior processes. See Chaiken & Trope 1999, pp. 97-116
Feather NT. 2004. Value correlates of ambivalent attitudes toward gender relations. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30:3-12
Festinger L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson
Festinger L, Carlsmith IM. 1959. Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. /. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 58:203-10
Field AP. 2000. "I like it, but I'm not sure why:" Can evaluative conditioning occur without conscious awareness? Conscious. Cogn. 9:13-36
Fishbein M. 2000. The role of theory in HIV prevention. AIDS Care 12:273-78
Fishbein M, Cappella I, Hornik R, Sayeed S, Yzer M, Ahern RK. 2002. The role of theory in developing effective anti-drug public service announcements. See Crano & Burgoon
2002, pp. 89-117
Forgas IP, Williams KD. 2000. Social Influence: Direct and Indirect Processes. Philadelphia, PA: Psychol. Press
Forgas IP, Williams KD, von Hippel W, eds.
2003. Social Judgments: Implicit and Ex-
plicitProcesses. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
Fuegen K, Brehm I. 2004. The intensity of affect and resistance to social influence. See Knowles & Linn 2004, pp. 39-64
Fuller LK, ed. 2003. Media-Mediated AIDS. Cresskill, NI: Hampton
Gawronski B, Strack F. 2004. On the prepositional nature of cognitive consistency: dissonance changes explicit, but not implicit attitudes. /. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40:535-42
Giner-Sorolla R. 1999. Affect in attitude: immediate and deliberative perspectives. See Chaiken & Trope 1999, pp. 441-56
Giner-Sorolla R. 2001. Affective attitudes are not always faster: the moderating level of extremity. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27: 666-77
Giner-Sorolla R. 2004. Is affective material in attitudes more accessible than cognitive material? The moderating role of attitude basis. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 34:761-80
Glick P, Fiske ST. 2001. Ambivalent sexism. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. MP Zanna, 33:115-88. San Diego, CA: Academic
Glick P, Lameiras M, Fiske ST, Eckes T, Masser B, et al. 2004. Bad but bold: ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 86:713-28
Gollwizer PM. 1999. Implementation intentions: strong effects of simple plans. Am. Psychol. 54:493-503
Gordijn EH, De Vries NK, De Dreu CKW. 2002. Minority influence on focal and related attitudes: change in size, attributions, and information processing. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28:1315-26
Gordijn EH, Postmes T, De Vries NK. 2001. Devil's advocate or advocate of oneself: effects of numerical support on pro- and coun-terattitudinal self-persuasion. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27:395^07
Greenwald AG, Banaji MR, Rudman LA, Farn-ham SD, Nosek BA, Meilott DS. 2002. A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes,
368       CRANO ■ PRISLIN
self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychol. Rev. 109:3-25
Greenwald AG, McGhee DE, Schwartz JL. 1998. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 73:1464— 80
Greenwald AG, Nosek BA. 2001. Health of the implicit association test at age 3. Z. Exp. Psychol. 48:85-93
Greve W. 2001. Traps and gaps in action explanation: theoretical problems of psychology of human action. Psychol. Rev. 108:435-57
Haddock G, Rotheman AJ, Reber R, Schwartz N. 1999. Forming judgments of attitude certainty, intensity, and importance: the role of subjective experience. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 25:771-82
Haddock G,Zanna MP. 1999. Affect, cognition, and social attitudes. In European Review of Social Psychology, ed. W Stroebe, M Hew-stone, pp. 75-100. Chichester, UK: Wiley
Hammerl M. 2000.1 like it, but only when I'm not sure why: evaluative conditioning and the awareness issue. Conscious. Cogn. 9:37^1-0
Hanze M. 2001. Ambivalence, conflict, and decision-making: attitudes and feelings in Germany toward NATO's intervention in the Kosovo war. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31:693-706
Harmon-Jones E. 2000a. Cognitive dissonance and experienced negative affect: evidence that dissonance increased experienced negative affect even in the absence of aversive consequences. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26:1490-501
Harmon-Jones E. 2000b. Reconsidering Festinger and Carlsmith's 1959 classic experiment testing cognitive dissonance theory. Rev. Int. Psychol. Soc. 13:193-201
Harmon-Jones E, Peterson H, Vaughn K. 2003. The dissonance-inducing effects of an inconsistency between experienced empathy and knowledge of past failures to help: support for the action-based model of dissonance. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 25:69-78
Hodson G, Maio GR, Esses VM. 2001. The role of attitudinal ambivalence in suscepti-
bility to consensus. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 23:197-205
Holland RW, Meertens RM, Van Vugt M. 2002a. Dissonance on the road: self esteem as a moderator of internal and external self-justification strategies. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28:1713-24
Holland RW, Verplanken B, van Knippenberg A. 2002b. On the nature of attitude-behavior relations: the strong guide, the weak follow. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32:869-76
Holland RW, Verplanken B, van Knippenberg A. 2003. From repetition to conviction: attitude accessibility as a determinant of attitude certainty. /. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 39:594-601
Holtz R. 2003. Intragroup or intergroup attitude projection can increase opinion certainty: Is there classism at college? /. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 33:1922^4
Holtz R. 2004. Group cohesion, attitude projection, and opinion certainty: beyond interaction. Group Dynam. 8:112-25
Hosman LA, Huebner TM, Siltanen SA. 2002. The impact of power-of-speech style, arguments, and need for cognition on impression formation, cognitive responses, and persuasion. /. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 21:361-79
Hull CL. 1943. Principles of Behavior: An Introduction to Behavior Theory. New York: Appleton-Century
Huskinson TLH, Haddock G. 2004. Individual differences in attitude structure: variance in the chronic reliance on affective and cognitive information. /. Exp. Soc. Psychol.40:82-90
Ito TA, Cacioppo JT. 2001. Affect and attitudes: a social neuroscience approach. In Affect and Social Cognition, ed. JP Forgas, pp. 50-74. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Jacks ZJ, Cameron KA. 2003. Strategies for resisting persuasion. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 25:145-61
Jacks ZJ, Devine P. 2000. Attitude importance, forewarning of message content, and resistance to persuasion. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 22:19-29
Jacks ZJ, O'Brian ME. 2004. Decreasing
ATTITUDES AND PERSUASION 369
resistance by affirming the self. See Knowles & Linn 2004, pp. 235-58
James W. 1890. The Principles of Psychology. London: Macmillan
Jonas E, Schulz-Hardt S, Frey D, Thelen N. 2001. Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: an expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure information. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 80:557-71
Jones K, Broemer P, Diehl M. 2000. Attitudinal ambivalence. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 11:35-74
Jost JT, Banaji MR, Prentice DA, eds. 2004. Perspectivism in Social Psychology: The Yin and Yang of Scientific Progress. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
Joule R-V, Azdia T. 2003. Cognitive dissonance, double forced compliance, and commitment. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 33:565-71
Kerr NL. 2002. When is a minority a minority? Active versus passive minority advocacy and social influence. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32: 471-83
Kitayama S, Snibbe AC, Markus HR, Suzuki T. 2004. Is there any "free" choice? Self and dissonance in two cultures. Psychol. Sei. 15:527-33
Knowles ES, Linn JA, eds. 2004. Resistance and Persuasion. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Krosnick J, Boninger DS, Chuan YC, Berent MK, CarnotCG. 1993. Attitude strength: one construct or many related constructs? /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 65:1132-51
Kruglanski AW, Stroebe W. 2005. The influence of beliefs and goals on attitudes: issues of structure, function, and dynamics. See Al-barracfn et al. 2005, pp. 323-68
Kruglanski AW, Thompson EP. 1999a. The illusory second mode or, the cue is the message. Psychol. Inq. 10:182-93
Kruglanski AW, Thompson EP. 1999b. Persuasion by a single route: a view from the uni-model. Psychol. Inq. 10:83-109
Kruglanski AW, Thompson EP, Spiegel S. 1999. Separate or equal? Bimodal notions of persuasion and a single-process "unimodel." See Chaiken & Trope 1999, pp. 293-313
Kühl J. 2000. A functional-design approach to motivation and self-regulation: the dynamics of personality systems interactions. In Self-Regulation: Directions and Challenges for Future Research, ed. M Boekaerts, PR Pin-trich, M Zeidner, pp. 111-69. New York: Academic
Kumkale GT, Albarracín D. 2004. The sleeper effect in persuasion: a meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 130:143-72
LaPierre RT. 1934. Attitudes vs. actions. Soc. Forces 13:230-37
Látané B, Bourgeois MJ. 2001. Successfully simulating dynamic social impact: three levels of prediction. In Social Influence: Direct and Indirect Processes. The Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology, ed. JP Forgas, KD Williams, pp. 61-76. Philadelphia, PA: Psychol. Press
Lee AY. 2001. The mere exposure effect: an uncertainty reduction explanation revisited. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27:1255-66
Lehman BJ, Crano WD. 2002. The pervasive effects of vested interest on attitude-criterion consistency in political judgment. /. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 38:101-12
Lerner JS, Keltner D. 2000. Beyond valence: toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgment and choice. Cogn. Emot. 81:146-59
Levine JM, Kaarbo J. 2001. Minority influence in political decision-making. In Group Consensus and Minority Influence: Implications for Innovation, ed. CKW De Dreu, NK De-Vries, pp. 229-57. Oxford, UK: Blackwell
Lord CG, Lepper MR. 1999. Attitude representation theory. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. MP Zanna, 31:265-343. San Diego, CA: Academic
Mackie DM. 1987. Systematic and nonsystem-atic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 43:41-52
Mackie DM, Hunter SB. 1999. Majority and minority influence: the interaction of social identity and cognition mediators. In Social Identity and Social Cognition, ed. D Abrams,
370       CRANO ■ PRISLIN
M Hogg, pp. 332-53. Maiden, MA: Blackwell
Maio GR, Esses V, Bell DW. 2000a. Examining conflict between components of attitudes: ambivalence and inconsistency are distinct construct. Can. J. Behav. Sei. 30:58-70
Maio GR, Fincham FD, Lycett EJ. 2000b. Attitudinal ambivalence toward parents and attachment style. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26:1457-64
Maio GR, Greenwald K, Bernard M, Esses VM. 2001. Effects of intergroup ambivalence on information processing: the role of physiological arousal. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 4:355-78
Maio GR, Olson J. 2000. Why We Evaluate: Functions of Attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Erl-baum
Martin R, Gardikiotis A, Hewstone M. 2002. Levels of consensus and majority and minority influence. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32:645-65
Martin R, Hewstone M, Martin PY. 2003. Resistance to persuasive messages as a function of majority and minority influence. /. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 39:585-93
Matz DC, Wood W. 2005. Cognitive dissonance in groups: the consequences of disagreement. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 88:22-37
McGuire WJ. 1964. Inducing resistance to persuasion: some contemporary approaches. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. L Berkowitz, 1:191-229. New York: Academic
McGuire WJ. 1966. Attitudes and opinions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 17:475-514
McGuire WJ. 1969. The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In The Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. G Lindzey, E Aronson, pp. 136-314. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
McGuire WJ. 1985. Attitudes and attitude change. In The Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. G Lindzey, E Aronson, pp. 233-346. New York: Random House
McKenna K, Bargh JA. 2000. Plan 9 from cyberspace: the implications of the Internet for personality and social psychology. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 4:57-75
McKimmie   BM,   Terry   DJ,   Hogg MA,
Manstead A. 2003. I'm a hypocrite, but so is everyone else: group support and the reduction of cognitive dissonance. Group Dynam. 71:214-24
Miller DT, Benoit M, Prentice DA. 2000. Pluralistic ignorance and inconsistency between private attitudes and public behaviors. See Terry & Hogg 2000, pp. 95-113
Monin B, Norton MI, Cooper J, Hogg MA. 2004. Reacting to an assumed situation vs. conforming to an assumed reaction: the role of perceived speaker attitude in vicarious dissonance. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 7: 207-20
Moscovici S. 1980. Toward a theory of conversion behavior. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. L Berkowitz, 13:209-39. San Diego, CA: Academic
Mucchi-Faina A, Costarelli S, Romoli C. 2002. The effects of intergroup context of evaluation on ambivalence toward the ingroup and the outgroup. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32:247-59
Myers RA, Brashers DA, Hanner J. 2000. Majority-minority influence: identifying argumentative patterns and predicting argument-outcome links. /. Commun. 50:3-30
Nemeth CJ. 1995. Dissent as driving cognitions, attitudes, and judgments. Soc. Cogn. 13:273-91
Nemeth CJ, Brown KS, Rogers JD. 2001. Devil's advocate versus dissent: stimulating quantity and quality. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31: 707-20
Neumann R, Hiilsenbeck K, Seibt B. 2004. Attitude toward people with AIDS and avoidance behavior: automatic and reflexive bases of behavior. /. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40:543-50
Newby-Clark IR, McGregor I, Zanna MP. 2002. Thinking and caring about cognitive inconsistency: When and from whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel uncomfortable? /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 82:157-66
Ng KY, Van Dyne L. 2001. Individualism-collectivism as a boundary condition for effectiveness of minority influence in decision making. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. 84:198-225
ATTITUDES AND PERSUASION 371
Norton MI, Monin B, Cooper J, Hogg MA. 2003. Vicarious dissonance: attitude change from the inconsistency of others. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 85:47-62
Olson JM, Stone J. 2005. The influence of behavior on attitudes. See Albarracfn et al. 2005, pp. 223-71
Olson MA, Fazio RH. 2001. Implicit attitude formation through classical conditioning. Psychol. Sci. 12:413-17
Olson MA, Fazio RH. 2002. Implicit acquisition and manifestation of classically conditioned attitudes. Soc. Cogn. 20:89-104
Olson MA, Maio G. 2003. Attitudes in social behavior. In Handbook of Psychology: Personality and Social Psychology, ed. TMillon, MJ Lerner, 5:299-325. New York: Wiley
Orbell S. 2004. Personality systems interactions theory and the theory of planned behavior: evidence that self-regulatory volition components enhance enactment of studying behavior. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 42:95-112
Ouellette JA, Wood W. 1998. Habit and intention in everyday life: the multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychol. Bull. 124:54-74
Perloff RM. 2003. The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the 21st Century. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 2nd ed.
Petty RE, Krosnick J, eds. 1995. Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Petty RE, DeSteno D, Rucker DD. 2001a. The role of affect in attitude change. In Affect and Social Cognition, ed. JP Forgas, pp. 212-33. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Petty RE, Fabrigar LR, Wegener D. 2003. Emotion factors in attitudes and persuasion. In Handbook of Affective Sciences, ed. RJ Davidson, KR Scherer, HH Goldsmith, pp. 752-72 . Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
Petty RE, Fleming MA, Priester JR, Feinstein AH. 2001b. Individual versus group interest violation: surprise as a determinant of argument scrutiny and persuasion. Soc. Cogn. 19: 418^2
Petty RE, Tormala ZL, Rucker DD. 2004. Resisting persuasion by counterarguing: an atti-
tude strength perspective. See Jost et al. 2004, pp. 37-51
Petty RE, Wegener DT. 1999. The elaboration likelihood model: current status and controversies. See Chaiken & Trope 1999, pp. 37-72
Pfau M, Compton JA, Parker KA, Wittenberg EM, Ferguson M, et al. 2004. The traditional explanation for resistance versus attitude accessibility: Do they trigger distinct or overlapping processes of resistance? Hum. Comm. Res. 30:329-60
Pfau M, Roskos-Ewoldes D, Wood M, Yin S, Cho J, et al. 2003. Attitude accessibility as an alternative explanation for how inoculation confers resistance. Commun. Monogr. 70:39-51
Pfau M, Szabo EA, Anderson J, Morrill J, Zubric J, Wan H-H. 2001. The role and impact of affect in the process of resistance to persuasion. Hum. Comm. Res. 27:216-52
Phillips KW. 2003. The effects of categorically based expectation on minority influence: the importance of congruence. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29:3-13
Pierro A, Mannetti L, Kruglanski AW, Sleeth-Keppler D. 2004. On the reduced impact of "cues" under high-motivation conditions of persuasion studies. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 86:251-64
Postmes T, Spears R, Sakhel K, de Groot D. 2001. Social influence in computer-mediated groups: the effects of anonymity on group behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27:1243-54
Priester JR, Petty RE. 2001. Extending the bases of subjective attitudinal ambivalence: interpersonal and intrapersonal antecedents of evaluative tension. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 80:19-34
Priester JR, Petty RE. 2003. The influence of spokesperson trustworthiness on message elaboration, attitude strength, and advertising effectiveness. /. Consum. Psychol. 13:408-21
Priluck RL, Till BD. 2004. The role of contingency awareness, involvement, and need
372       CRANO ■ PRISLIN
for cognition on attitude formation. /. Acad. Market. Sci. 32:329-44
Prislin R. 1996. Attitude stability and attitude strength: One is enough to make it stable. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 26:447-77
Prislin R, Brewer M, Wilson DJ. 2002. Changing majority and minority positions within a group versus an aggregate. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28:504-11
Prislin R, Limbert W, Bauer E. 2000. From majority to minority and vice versa: the asymmetrical effects of gaining and losing majority position within a group. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 79:385-95
Prislin R, Wood W. 2005. Social influence: the role of social consensus in attitude and attitude change. See Albarracfn et al. 2005, pp. 671-706
Quinn JM, Wood W. 2004. Forewarnings of influence appeals: inducing resistance and acceptance. See Knowles & Linn 2004, pp. 193-213
Raghunatan R, Trope Y. 2002. Walking the tightrope between feeling good and being accurate: mood as a resource in processing persuasive messages. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 83:510-25
Ratner RK, Miller DT. 2001. The norm of self-interest and its effects on social action. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 81:5-16
Sagarin BJ, Cialdini RB, Rice WE, Serna SB. 2002. Dispelling the illusion of invulnerability: the motivations and mechanisms of resistance to persuasion. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 83:526^1
Sassenberg K, Boos M. 2003. Attitude change in computer-mediated communication: effects of anonymity and category norms. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 6:405-22
Scott WA. 1966. Measures of cognitive structure. Multivar. Behav. Res. 1:391-95
Sheeran P. 2002. Intention-behavior relations: a conceptual and empirical review. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 12:1-36
Sheeran P, Abraham C. 2003. Mediator of moderators: temporal stability of intention and the intention-behavior relation. Persoanl. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29:205-15
Sheeran P, Orbell S. 1999. Implementation intentions and repeated behavior: augmenting the predictive validity of the theory of planned behavior. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 29: 349-69
Sheeran P, Orbell S. 2000. Using implementation intentions to increase attendance for cervical cancer screening. Health Psychol. 19: 283-89
Smith CM, Diven PI. 2002. Minority influence and political interest groups. In The Social Psychology of Politics, ed. V Ot-tati, R Tindale, I Edwards, F Bryant, L Heath, DC O'Connell, Y Suarez-Balcazar, E Posavac, pp. 175-92. New York: Kluwer Acad./Plenum
Smith CM, Dykema-Engblade A, Walker A, Niven T, McGough T. 2000. Asymmetrical social influence in freely interacting groups discussing death penalty: a shared representation interpretation. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 3:387-401
Smith IR, Terry DI. 2003. Attitude-behavior consistency: the role of group norms, attitude accessibility, and mode of behavioral decision-making. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 33: 591-608
Sparks P. 2000. Subjective expected utility-based attitude-behavior models: the utility of self-identity. See Terry & Hogg 2000, pp.31-46
Sparks P, Harris PR, Lockwood N. 2004. Predictors and predictive effects of ambivalence. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 43:371-83
Stone I. 2003. Self-consistency for low self-esteem in dissonance processes: the role of self-standards. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29:846-58
Stone I, Cooper 1.2001. A self-standards model of cognitive dissonance. /. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 37:228^3
Stone I, Cooper I. 2003. The effect of self-attribute relevance on how self-esteem moderates attitude change in dissonance processes. /. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 39:508-15
Terry DI, Hogg MA, eds. 2000. Attitudes, Behavior, and Social Context: The Role of
ATTITUDES AND PERSUASION 373
Norms and Group Membership. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Terry DJ, Hogg MA, McKimmie BM. 2000a. Attitude-behavior relations: the role of in-group norms and mode of behavioral decision-making. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 39:337-61
Terry DJ, Hogg MA, White KM. 2000b. Attitude-behavior relations: social identity and group membership. See Terry & Hogg 2000, pp.67-93
Thompson EP, Kruglanski AW, Spiegel S. 2000. Attitudes as knowledge structures and persuasion as a specific case of subjective knowledge acquisition. See Maio & Olson 2000, pp. 59-95
Thurstone LL. 1928. Attitudes can be measured. Am. /. Sociol. 33:529-54
Tiedens LZ, Linton S. 2001. Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: the effects of specific emotions on information processing. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 81:973-88
Till BD, Priluck RL. 2000. Stimulus generalization in classical conditioning: an initial investigation and extension. Psychol. Market. 17:55-72
Tolman EC. 1932. Purposive Behavior in Animals and Men. New York: Appleton
Tormala ZL, Petty R. 2002. What does not kill me makes me stronger: the effects of resisting persuasion on attitude certainty. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 83:1298-313
Tormala ZL, Petty R. 2004a. Resistance to persuasion and attitude certainty: the moderating role of elaboration. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30:1446-57
Tormala ZL, Petty R. 2004b. Source credibility and attitude certainty: a metacognitive analysis of resistance to persuasion. /. Consum. Psychol. 14:427^2
Vallacher RR, Nowak A, Froehlich M, Rockloff M. 2002a. The dynamics of self-evaluation. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 6:370-79
Vallacher RR, Read SJ, Nowak A. 2002b. The dynamical perspective in personality and social psychology. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 6:264-73
van der Pligt J, De Vries NK, Manstead A, van
Harreveld F. 2000. The importance of being selective: weighing the role of attribute importance in attitudinal judgment. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. MP Zanna, 32:135-200. San Diego, CA: Academic
van Harreveld F, van der Pligt J, de Vries NK, Wenneker C, Verhue D. 2004. Attitudinal ambivalence and information integration in attitudinal judgment. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 43:431^7
Vargas PT, von Hippel W, Petty RE. 2004. Using partially structured attitude measures to enhance the attitude-behavior relationship. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30:197-211
Verplanken B, Aarts H. 1999. Habit, attitude, and planned behavior: Is habit an empty construct or an interesting case of goal-directed automaticity? Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 10:101-34
Visser PS, Krosnick JA, Simmons JP. 2003. Distinguishing the cognitive and behavioral consequences of attitude importance and certainty: a new approach to testing the common-factor model. /. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 39: 118^1
Visser PS, Mirabile RR. 2004. Attitudes in the social context: the impact of social network composition on individual-level attitudes strength. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 87: 779-95
Walther E. 2002. Guilty by mere association: evaluative conditioning and the spreading attitude effect. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 82: 919-34
Walther E, Trasselli C. 2003.1 like her, because I like myself: self-evaluation as a source of interpersonal attitudes. Exp. Psychol. 50:239-46
Wegener DT, Carlston DE. 2005. Cognitive processes in attitude formation and change. See Albarracfn et al. 2005, pp. 493-542
White KM, Hogg MA, Terry DJ. 2002. Improving attitude-behavior correspondence through exposure to normative support from a salient group. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 24:91-103
Winkielman P, Cacioppo JT. 2004. Mind at ease
374       CRANO ■ PRISLIN
puts a smile on the face: psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. /. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 81:989-1000 Wood W. 2000. Attitude change: persuasion and social influence. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 51: 539-70
Wood W, Quinn JM. 2004. Forewarned and forearmed? Two meta-analytic syntheses of forewarning of influence appeals. Psychol. Bull. 129:119-38
Wood W, Rhodes N, Biek M. 1995. Working knowledge and attitude strength: an information processing analysis. In Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, ed. R Petty, J Krosnick, pp. 283-313. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Ziegler R, Diehl M, Zigon R, Fett T. 2004. Source consistency distinctiveness and consensus: the three dimensions of the Kelley ANOVA model of persuasion. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30:352-64