Theoretical and empirical implications of attitude strength

被引:69
作者
Miller, JM [1 ]
Peterson, DAM
机构
[1] Univ Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA
[2] Texas A&M Univ, College Stn, TX 77843 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1111/j.1468-2508.2004.00279.x
中图分类号
D0 [政治学、政治理论];
学科分类号
0302 ; 030201 ;
摘要
Attitude strength is defined as the extent to which an attitude is stable, resistant to change, impacts information processing, and guides behavior. Several concepts, such as accessibility, ambivalence, and importance relate to the broader concept of strength. For many years, both social psychology and political science ignored the differences across these various concepts, though in different ways. Social psychologists treated them as interchangeable, as indicators of the same latent concept. Political scientists treated them in isolation, focusing on one type of strength and ignoring the other, possibly relevant types. Recent research in both fields, however, challenges these approaches. Indicators of attitude strength are distinct concepts, and these differences are important empirically and theoretically. In this essay, we review the developments in both disciplines and make suggestions for how scholars should use and operationalize these concepts.
引用
收藏
页码:847 / 867
页数:21
相关论文
共 82 条
[61]   Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance [J].
Nelson, TE ;
Clawson, RA ;
Oxley, ZM .
AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW, 1997, 91 (03) :567-583
[62]  
Neuman W.R., 1986, The paradox of mass politics
[63]   NEW MEASURES OF ISSUE SALIENCE - AN EVALUATION [J].
NIEMI, RG ;
BARTELS, LM .
JOURNAL OF POLITICS, 1985, 47 (04) :1212-1220
[64]   Certainty or accessibility: Attitude strength in candidate evaluations [J].
Peterson, DAM .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 2004, 48 (03) :513-520
[65]   The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: Relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence [J].
Priester, JR ;
Petty, RE .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1996, 71 (03) :431-449
[66]  
Prislin R, 1996, EUR J SOC PSYCHOL, V26, P447, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199605)26:3<447::AID-EJSP768>3.3.CO
[67]  
2-9
[68]   SALIENCE AS A FACTOR IN THE IMPACT OF ISSUES ON CANDIDATE EVALUATION [J].
RABINOWITZ, G ;
PROTHRO, JW ;
JACOBY, W .
JOURNAL OF POLITICS, 1982, 44 (01) :41-63
[69]   ISSUE SALIENCE AND PARTY CHOICE [J].
REPASS, DE .
AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW, 1971, 65 (02) :389-&
[70]   HETEROGENEITY IN MODELS OF ELECTORAL CHOICE [J].
RIVERS, D .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 1988, 32 (03) :737-757