Attitude strength has been the focus of a huge volume of research in psychology and related sciences for decades. The insights offered by this literature have tremendous value for understanding attitude functioning and structure and for the effective application of the attitude concept in applied settings. This is the first article on the topic, and it offers a review of theory and evidence regarding one of the most researched strength-related attitude features: attitude importance. Personal importance is attached to an attitude when the attitude is perceived to be relevant to self-interest, social identification with reference groups or reference individuals, and values. Attaching personal importance to an attitude causes crystallizing of attitudes (via enhanced resistance to change), effortful gathering and processing of relevant information, accumulation of a large store of well-organized relevant information in long-term memory, enhanced attitude extremity and accessibility, enhanced attitude impact on the regulation of interpersonal attraction, energizing of emotional reactions, and enhanced impact of attitudes on behavioral intentions and action. Thus, important attitudes are real and consequential psychological forces, and their study offers opportunities for addressing behavioral change.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Abramowitz AI. 1995. It's abortion, stupid: policy voting in the 1992 presidential election. J. Polit. 57:176–86 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ajzen I, Fishbein M. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall [Google Scholar]
  3. Ajzen A, Timko C, White JB. 1982. Self-monitoring and the attitude-behavior relation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 42:426–35 [Google Scholar]
  4. Anand S, Krosnick JA. 2003. The impact of attitudes toward foreign policy goals on public preferences among presidential candidates: a study of issue publics and the attentive public in the 2000 US presidential election. Pres. Stud. Q. 33:31–71 [Google Scholar]
  5. Anderson CA. 1983. Imagination and expectation: the effect of imagining behavioral scripts on personal intentions. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 45:293–305 [Google Scholar]
  6. Ansolabehere S, Rodden J, Snyder JM. 2008. The strength of issues: using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint, and issue voting. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 102:2215–32 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bassili JN. 1996. Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: the case of measures of attitude strength. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 71:4637–53 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bassili JN, Krosnick JA. 2000. Do strength-related attitude properties determine susceptibility to response effects? New evidence from response latency, attitude extremity, and aggregate indices. Polit. Psychol. 21:1107–32 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bem DJ. 1972. Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology L Berkowitz 1–62 San Diego, CA: Academic [Google Scholar]
  10. Berent MK, Krosnick JA. 1995. The relation between political attitude importance and knowledge structure. Political Judgment: Structure and Process M Lodge, K McGraw 91–109 Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press [Google Scholar]
  11. Bishop GF. 1990. Issue involvement and response effects in public opinion surveys. Public Opin. Q. 54:209–18 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bizer GY, Krosnick JA. 2001. Exploring the structure of strength-related attitude features: the relation between attitude importance and attitude accessibility. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 81:4566–86 [Google Scholar]
  13. Blankenship KL, Wegener DT. 2008. Opening the mind to close it: Considering a message in light of important values increases message processing and later resistance to change. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 94:2196–213 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bolsen T. 2013. A light bulb goes on: norms, rhetoric, and actions for the public good. Polit. Behav. 35:11–20 [Google Scholar]
  15. Boninger DS, Krosnick JA, Berent MK. 1995a. Origins of attitude importance: self-interest, social identification, and value relevance. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 68:161–80 [Google Scholar]
  16. Boninger DS, Krosnick JA, Berent MK, Fabrigar L. 1995b. The causes and consequences of attitude importance. See Petty & Krosnick 1995 159–90
  17. Boyd RW, Wengrovitz SM. 2005. The elusive concept of issue publics: issue salience in American elections Presented at Annu. Meet. Int. Soc. Political Psychol., 28th, Toronto, Canada [Google Scholar]
  18. Brandt MJ, Wetherell GA. 2012. What attitudes are moral attitudes? The case of attitude heritability. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 3:2172–79 [Google Scholar]
  19. Britt TW, Millard MR, Sundareswaran PT, Moore D. 2009. Personality variables predict strength-related attitude dimensions across objects. J. Personal. 77:3859–82 [Google Scholar]
  20. Britt TW, Pusilo CL, McKibben ES, Kelley C, Baker AN, Nielson KA. 2011. Personality and strength-related attitude dimensions: between and within person relationships. J. Res. Personal. 45:6586–96 [Google Scholar]
  21. Cacioppo JT, Petty RE. 1981. Effects of extent of thought on the pleasantness ratings of P-O-X trials: evidence for three judgmental tendencies in evaluating social situations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 40:61000–9 [Google Scholar]
  22. Campbell JD. 1986. Similarity and uniqueness: the effects of attribute type, relevance, and individual differences in self esteem and depression. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 50:281–94 [Google Scholar]
  23. Carsey TM, Layman GC. 2006. Changing sides or changing minds? Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 50:2464–77 [Google Scholar]
  24. Charng HW, Piliavin JA, Callero PL. 1988. Role identity and reasoned action in the prediction of repeated behavior. Soc. Psychol. Q. 51:4303–17 [Google Scholar]
  25. Chen C, Petrick JF. 2014. The roles of perceived travel benefits, importance, and constraints in predicting travel behavior. J. Travel Res. 55:509–22 [Google Scholar]
  26. Ciuk DJ, Yost BA. 2016. The effects of issue salience, elite influence, and policy content on public opinion. Polit. Commun. 33:2328–45 [Google Scholar]
  27. Collins AM, Loftus EF. 1975. A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychol. Rev. 82:407–28 [Google Scholar]
  28. Costarelli S, Colloca P. 2007. The moderation of ambivalence on attitude-intention relations as mediated by attitude importance. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 37:5923–33 [Google Scholar]
  29. Cullum JG, Okdie BM, Harton HC. 2011. When my country is at war: Issue importance and interpersonal influence lead Iraq War attitudes to cluster within social networks. Soc. Influ. 6:4231–48 [Google Scholar]
  30. Dawson E, Gilovich T, Regan DT. 2002. Motivated reasoning and performance on the Wason selection task. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28:1379–87 [Google Scholar]
  31. DiClemente RJ, Forrest KA, Mickler S. 1990. College students’ knowledge and attitudes about AIDS and changes in HIV-preventive behaviors. AIDS Educ. Prev. 2:3201–12 [Google Scholar]
  32. Eaton AA, Visser PS. 2008. Attitude importance: understanding the causes and consequences of passionately held views. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2:41719–36 [Google Scholar]
  33. Fabrigar LR, Krosnick JA. 1995. Attitude importance and the false consensus effect. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 21:5468–79 [Google Scholar]
  34. Falk EB, Spunt RP, Lieberman MD. 2012. Ascribing beliefs to ingroup and outgroup political candidates: neural correlates of perspective-taking, issue importance and days until the election. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 367:731–43 [Google Scholar]
  35. Farc MM, Sagarin BJ. 2009. Using attitude strength to predict registration and voting behavior in the 2004 U.S. presidential elections. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 31:2160–73 [Google Scholar]
  36. Fazio RH. 1990. Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: the MODE model as an integrative framework. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 23:75–109 [Google Scholar]
  37. Festinger L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  38. Fisher JD, Fisher WA. 1992. Changing AIDS risk behavior. Psychol. Bull. 111:3455–74 [Google Scholar]
  39. Fiske ST, Taylor SE. 2013. Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications [Google Scholar]
  40. Forrest LN, Smith AR, Fussner LM, Dodd DR, Clerkin EM. 2016. Using implicit attitudes of exercise importance to predict explicit exercise dependence symptoms and exercise behaviors. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 22:91–97 [Google Scholar]
  41. Fournier P, Blais A, Nadeau R, Gidengil E, Nevitte N. 2003. Issue importance and performance voting. Polit. Behav. 25:51–67 [Google Scholar]
  42. Franc R. 1999. Attitude strength and the attitude-behavior domain: magnitude and independence of moderating effects of different strength indices. J. Soc. Behav. Personal. 14:2177–95 [Google Scholar]
  43. Garcia RL, Bergsieker HB, Shelton JN. 2015. Racial attitude (dis)similarity and liking in same-race minority interactions. Group Process. Intergr. Relat. 2015:1368430215612224 [Google Scholar]
  44. Glynn CJ, Park E. 1997. Reference groups, opinion intensity, and public opinion expression. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 9:3213–32 [Google Scholar]
  45. Gopinath M, Nyer PU. 2009. The effect of public commitment on resistance to persuasion: the influence of attitude certainty, issue importance, susceptibility to normative influence, preference for consistency and source proximity. Intern. J. Res. Market 26:160–68 [Google Scholar]
  46. Grube JA, Piliavin JA. 2000. Role identity, organizational experiences, and volunteer performance. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26:91108–19 [Google Scholar]
  47. Grynaviski JD, Corrigan BE. 2006. Specification issues in proximity models of candidate evaluation (with issue importance). Polit. Anal. 14:4393–420 [Google Scholar]
  48. Haddock G, Rothman AJ, Reber R, Schwarz N. 1999. Forming judgments of attitude certainty, intensity, and importance: the role of subjective experiences. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 25:771–82 [Google Scholar]
  49. Hart W, Albarracín D, Eagly AH, Brechan I, Lindberg MJ, Merrill L. 2009. Feeling validated versus being correct: a meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychol. Bull. 135:4555–88 [Google Scholar]
  50. Heider F. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations New York: Wiley [Google Scholar]
  51. Helweg-Larsen M, Collins BE. 1997. A social psychological perspective on the role of knowledge about AIDS in AIDS prevention. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 6:223–26 [Google Scholar]
  52. Hippler HJ, Schwarz N. 1986. Not forbidding isn't allowing: the cognitive basis of the forbid-allow asymmetry. Public Opin. Q. 50:87–96 [Google Scholar]
  53. Hofmann W, Gschwendner T, Schmitt M. 2005. On implicit-explicit consistency: the moderating role of individual differences in awareness and adjustment. Eur. J. Personal. 19:125–49 [Google Scholar]
  54. Holbrook AL, Berent MK, Krosnick JA, Visser PS, Boninger DS. 2005. Attitude importance and the accumulation of attitude-relevant knowledge in memory. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 88:749–69 [Google Scholar]
  55. Holbrook AL, Sterrett D, Johnson TP, Krysan M. 2016. Racial disparities in political participation across issues: the role of issue-specific motivators. Polit. Behav. 38:1–32 [Google Scholar]
  56. Holland RW, Verplanken B, van Knippenberg A. 2003. From repetition to conviction: attitude accessibility as a determinant of attitude certainty. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 39:6594–601 [Google Scholar]
  57. Honaken P, Verplanken B. 2004. Understanding attitudes towards genetically modified food: the role of values and attitude strength. J. Consum. Policy 4:401–20 [Google Scholar]
  58. Hübner G, Mohs A, Peterson LE. 2014. The role of attitude strength in predicting organ donation behavior by implicit and explicit attitudes. Open J. Med. Psychol. 3:5355–63 [Google Scholar]
  59. Jarvis B, Petty RE. 1996. The need to evaluate. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 70:172–94 [Google Scholar]
  60. Jett J, Thapa B, Swett R. 2013. Boater speed compliance in manatee zones: examining a proposed predictive model. Soc. Nat. Resour. 26:95–104 [Google Scholar]
  61. Judd CM, Krosnick JA. 1989. The structural bases of consistency among political attitudes: the effects of political expertise and attitude importance. Attitude Structure and Function AR Pratkanis, SJ Breckler, AG Greenwald 99–128 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  62. Karpinski A, Steinman RB, Hilton JL. 2005. Attitude importance as a moderator of the relationship between implicit and explicit attitude measures. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 31:7949–62 [Google Scholar]
  63. Kemmelmeier M, Burnstein E, Peng K. 1999. Individualism and authoritarianism shape attitudes toward physician-assisted suicide. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 29:122613–31 [Google Scholar]
  64. Klar S. 2013. Identity and engagement among political independents in America. Polit. Psychol. 35:4577–91 [Google Scholar]
  65. Klar S. 2014. A multidimensional study of ideological preferences and priorities among the American public. Public Opin. Q. 78:S1344–59 [Google Scholar]
  66. Knobloch-Westerwick S, Johnson BK, Westerwick A. 2015. Confirmation bias in online searches: impacts of selective exposure before an election on political attitude strength and shifts. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 20:2171–87 [Google Scholar]
  67. Knobloch-Westerwick S, Meng J. 2009. Looking the other way: selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counter-attitudinal political information. Commun. Res. 36:3426–48 [Google Scholar]
  68. Kokkinaki F, Lunt P. 1997. The relationship between involvement, attitude accessibility, and attitude-behavior consistency. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 36:4497–509 [Google Scholar]
  69. Krosnick JA. 1988. Attitude importance and attitude change. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 24:240–55 [Google Scholar]
  70. Krosnick JA. 1989. Attitude importance and attitude accessibility. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 15:3297–308 [Google Scholar]
  71. Krosnick JA. 1990. Government policy and citizen passion: a study of issue publics in contemporary America. Polit. Behav. 12:59–92 [Google Scholar]
  72. Krosnick JA. 1992. The impact of cognitive sophistication and attitude importance on response order effects and question order effects. Order Effects in Social and Psychological Research N Schwartz, S Sudman 203–18 New York: Springer-Verlag [Google Scholar]
  73. Krosnick JA, Berent MK, Boninger DS. 1994. Pockets of responsibility in the American electorate: findings of a research program on attitude importance. Polit. Commun. 11:4391–411 [Google Scholar]
  74. Krosnick JA, Boninger DS, Chuang YC, Berent MK, Carnot CG. 1993. Attitude strength: one construct or many related constructs?. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 65:61132–51 [Google Scholar]
  75. Krosnick JA, Petty RE. 1995. Attitude strength: an overview. See Petty & Krosnick 1995 1–24
  76. Krosnick JA, Schuman H. 1988. Attitude intensity, importance, and certainty and susceptibility to response effects. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 54:6940–52 [Google Scholar]
  77. Krosnick JA, Telhami S. 1995. Public attitudes toward Israel: a study of the attentive and issue publics. Int. Stud. Q. 39:4535–54 [Google Scholar]
  78. LaPiere RT. 1934. Attitudes versus action. Soc. Forces 13:2230–37 [Google Scholar]
  79. Lavine H, Borgida E, Sullivan J. 2000. On the relationship between attitude involvement and attitude accessibility: toward a cognitive-motivational model of political information processing. Polit. Psychol. 21:181–106 [Google Scholar]
  80. Lavine H, Borgida E, Sullivan J, Thomsen C. 1996. The relationship of national and personal issue salience to attitude accessibility on foreign and domestic policy issues. Polit. Psychol. 17:2293–316 [Google Scholar]
  81. Lavine H, Huff JW, Wagner SH, Sweeney D. 1998. The moderating influence of attitude strength on the susceptibility to context effects. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 75:2359–73 [Google Scholar]
  82. Lecheler S, de Vreese CH, Slothuus R. 2009. Issue importance as a moderator of framing effects. Commun. Res. 36:3400–25 [Google Scholar]
  83. Leeper TJ. 2014. The informational basis for mass polarization. Public Opin. Q. 78:127–46 [Google Scholar]
  84. Levendusky MS, Druckman JN, McLain A. 2016. How group discussions create strong attitudes and strong partisans. Res. Polit. 3:1–6 [Google Scholar]
  85. Liu C, Lee H, Huang P, Chen H, Sommers S. 2016. Do incompatible arguments cause extensive processing in the evaluation of arguments? The role of congruence between argument compatibility and argument quality. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 107:179–98 [Google Scholar]
  86. Liu J, Latane B. 1998a. The catastrophic link between the importance and extremity of political attitudes. Polit. Behav. 20:2105–26 [Google Scholar]
  87. Liu J, Latane B. 1998b. Extremization of attitudes: Does thought and discussion-induced polarization cumulate?. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 20:2103–10 [Google Scholar]
  88. Lo V, Wei R, Lu H, Hou H. 2015. Perceived issue importance, information processing, and third-person effect of news about the imported U.S. beef controversy. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 27:3341–60 [Google Scholar]
  89. MacInnis B, Krosnick JA. 2016. The impact of candidates’ statements about global warming on electoral success in 2008 to 2015: evidence using five methodologies. Explorations in Political Psychology JA Krosnick, IC Chiang, T Stark New York: Psychol. Press. In press [Google Scholar]
  90. Malhotra N, Tahk AM. 2011. Specification issues in assessing the moderating role of issue importance: a comment on Grynaviski and Corrigan 2006. Polit. Anal. 19:3342–50 [Google Scholar]
  91. Mann J, Tarantola DJM, Netter TW. 1992. The HIV pandemic: status and trends. AIDS in the World J Mann, D Tarantola 11–108 Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  92. Matthes J, Rios Morrison K, Schemer C. 2010. A spiral of silence for some: attitude certainty and the expression of political minority opinions. Commun. Res. 37:6774–800 [Google Scholar]
  93. Miller JM, Krosnick JA, Holbrook AL, Tahk A, Dionne A. 2016. The impact of policy change threat on financial contributions to interest groups. Explorations in Political Psychology JA Krosnick, IC Chiang, T Stark New York: Psychol. Press. In press [Google Scholar]
  94. Mokdad AH, Marks JS, Stroup DF, Gerberding JL. 2004. Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 291:101238–45 [Google Scholar]
  95. Morrison KR, Matthes J. 2011. Socially motivated projection: Need to belong increases perceived opinion consensus on important issues. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 41:6707–19 [Google Scholar]
  96. Nederhof AJ. 1989. Self-involvement, intention certainty and attitude-intention consistency. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 28:123–33 [Google Scholar]
  97. Nosek B. 2005. Moderators of the relationship between implicit and explicit evaluation. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 134:4565–84 [Google Scholar]
  98. Olson JM, Vernon PA, Harris JA, Jang KL. 2001. The heritability of attitudes: a study of twins. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 80:6845–60 [Google Scholar]
  99. Perloff RM. 2013. The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the 21st Century New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  100. Petty RE, Krosnick JA. 1995. Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  101. Pfau M, Roskos-Ewoldsen D, Wood M, Yin S, Cho J. et al. 2003. Attitude accessibility as an alternative for how inculation confers resistance. Commun. Monogr. 70:139–51 [Google Scholar]
  102. Pomerantz EM, Chaiken S, Tordesillas RS. 1995. Attitude strength and resistance processes. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 69:3408–19 [Google Scholar]
  103. Pryor JB, Gibbons FX, Wicklund RA, Fazio RH, Hood R. 1977. Self-focused attention and self-report validity. J. Personal. 45:513–27 [Google Scholar]
  104. Roese NJ, Olson T. 1994. Attitude importance as a function of repeated attitude expression. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 30:139–51 [Google Scholar]
  105. Rogers TF, Singer E, Imperio J. 1993. The polls: poll trends. AIDS—an update. Public Opin. Q. 57:92–114 [Google Scholar]
  106. Ross L, Greene D, House P. 1977. The “false consensus effect”: an egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 13:279–301 [Google Scholar]
  107. Sanbonmatsu DM, Uchino BN, Birmingham W. 2011. On the importance of knowing your partner's views: Attitude familiarity is associated with better interpersonal functioning and lower ambulatory blood pressure in daily life. Ann. Behav. Med. 41:131–37 [Google Scholar]
  108. Schoenefeld JJ, McCauley MR. 2015. Local is not always better: the impact of climate information on values, behavior, and policy support. J. Env. Stud. Sci. 2015. doi: 10.1007/s13412-015-0288-y [Google Scholar]
  109. Schuman H, Presser S. 1981. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  110. Sevelius J, Stake J. 2003. The effect of prior attitudes and attitude importance on attitude change and class impact in women's and gender studies. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 33:112341–53 [Google Scholar]
  111. Starzyk KB, Fabrigar LR, Soryal AS, Fanning JJ. 2009. A painful reminder: the role of level and salience of attitude importance in cognitive dissonance. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 35:1126–37 [Google Scholar]
  112. Stephenson MT, Benoit WL, Tschida DA. 2001. Testing the mediating role of cognitive responses in the elaboration likelihood model. Commun. Stud. 52:4324–37 [Google Scholar]
  113. Tesser A. 1978. Self-generated attitude change. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology L Berkowitz 298–338 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  114. Tesser A, Martin L, Mendolia M. 1995. The impact of thought on attitude extremity and attitude-behavior consistency. See Petty & Krosnick 1995 73–92
  115. Thomsen C, Lavine H, Kounios J. 2006. Social value and attitude concepts in semantic memory: relational structure, concept strength, and the fan effect. Soc. Cogn. 14:3191–225 [Google Scholar]
  116. Uchino BN, Sanbonmatsu DM, Birmingham W. 2013. Knowing your partner is not enough: Spousal importance moderates the link between attitude familiarity and ambulatory blood pressure. J. Behav. Med. 36:6549–55 [Google Scholar]
  117. van Herreveld F, van der Pligt J. 2004. Attitudes as stable and transparent constructions. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40:5666–74 [Google Scholar]
  118. van Herreveld F, van der Pligt J, de Vries NK, Andreas S. 2000. The structure of attitudes: attribute importance, accessibility and judgment. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 39:3363–80 [Google Scholar]
  119. Visser PS, Krosnick JA. 1998. Development of attitude strength over the life cycle: surge and decline. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 75:61389–410 [Google Scholar]
  120. Visser PS, Krosnick JA, Norris CJ. 2016. Attitude importance and attitude-relevant knowledge: motivator and enabler. Explorations in Political Psychology JA Krosnick, IC Chiang, T Stark New York: Psychol. Press. In press [Google Scholar]
  121. 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 hypothesis. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 39:2118–41 [Google Scholar]
  122. Visser PS, Mirabile RR. 2004. Attitudes in the social context: the impact of social network composition on individual-level attitude strength. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 87:6779–95 [Google Scholar]
  123. Westerwick A, Kleinman SB, Knobloch-Westerwick S. 2013. Turn a blind eye if you care: impacts of attitude consistency, importance, and credibility on seeking of political information and implications for attitudes. J. Commun. 63:3432–53 [Google Scholar]
  124. Ziegler R, Schlett C. 2016. An attitude strength and self-perception framework regarding the bi-directional relationship of job satisfaction with extra-role and in-role behavior: the doubly moderating role of work certainty. Front. Psychol. 7:1–17 [Google Scholar]
  125. Zuwerink Jacks J, Cameron KA. 2003. Strategies for resisting persuasion. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 25:2145–61 [Google Scholar]
  126. Zuwerink Jacks J, Devine PG. 1996. Attitude importance and resistance to persuasion: It's not just the thought that counts. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 70:5931–44 [Google Scholar]
  127. Zuwerink Jacks J, Devine PG. 2000. Attitude importance, forewarning of message content, and resistance to persuasion. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 22:119–29 [Google Scholar]
  128. Zuwerink Jacks J, Lancaster LC. 2015. Fit for persuasion: the effects of nonverbal delivery style, message framing, and gender on message effectiveness. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 45:203–13 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error