This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Krosnick, J. A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Krosnick, J. A. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Attitude Importance and Attitude Accessibility

Ohio State University

Across a range of settings, attitudes that people consider personally important have been shown to be more powerful determinants of perceptions of others' attitudes, of liking of others, and of social behavior than unimportant attitudes are. This article reports two studies that evaluate one possible explanation for this difference: the hypothesis that important attitudes may be more accessible in memory and may therefore come to mind more frequently in the course of social perception. In both studies, subjects reported the importance they attached to a series of political attitudes and reported those attitudes on a computer that measured response latencies. Important attitudes were reported more quickly than unimportant ones, even when subjects were instructed to report the first attitudinal cue that came to mind. This finding supports the accessibility hypothesis.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. K. Clark, D. T. Wegener, and L. R. Fabrigar Attitudinal Ambivalence and Message-Based Persuasion: Motivated Processing of Proattitudinal Information and Avoidance of Counterattitudinal Information Pers Soc Psychol Bull, April 1, 2008; 34(4): 565 - 577. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Karpinski, R. B. Steinman, and J. L. Hilton Attitude Importance as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Implicit and Explicit Attitude Measures Pers Soc Psychol Bull, July 1, 2005; 31(7): 949 - 962. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. R. Fabrigar, J. R. Priester, R. E. Petty, and D. T. Wegener The Impact of Attitude Accessibility on Elaboration of Persuasive Messages Pers Soc Psychol Bull, April 1, 1998; 24(4): 339 - 352. [Abstract]

				J. D. Vorauer and S.-D. Claude Perceived Versus Actual Transparency of Goals in Negotiation Pers Soc Psychol Bull, April 1, 1998; 24(4): 371 - 385. [Abstract]

				P. Goren Political Expertise and Issue Voting in Presidential Elections Political Research Quarterly, June 1, 1997; 50(2): 387 - 412. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. J. Monteith Affective Reactions to Prejudice-Related Discrepant Responses the Impact of Standard Salience Pers Soc Psychol Bull, January 1, 1996; 22(1): 48 - 59. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. P. Brown The Moderating Effects of Insupplier/Outsupplier Status on Organizational Buyer Attitudes Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, June 1, 1995; 23(3): 170 - 181. [Abstract]

				L. R. Fabrigar and J. A. Krosnick Attitude Importance and the False Consensus Effect Pers Soc Psychol Bull, May 1, 1995; 21(5): 468 - 479. [Abstract]

				A. S. Dick and K. Basu Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Conceptual Framework Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, March 1, 1994; 22(2): 99 - 113. [Abstract]

				J. P. Dillard The Current Status of Research on Sequential-Request Compliance Techniques Pers Soc Psychol Bull, June 1, 1991; 17(3): 283 - 288. [Abstract]