Carryover Effects in Attitude Surveys

Tourangeau, Roger; Rasinski, Kenneth A.; Bradburn, Norman M.; D’Andrade, Roy G.

doi:10.1086/269169

Cited by 131 publications

(111 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

107

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the more ambivalence one experiences regarding an object, the less functional one's attitude becomes in orienting one's behavior (Armitage & Conner, 2000;Sparks, Harris, & Lockwood, 2004). Consistent with this idea, people with ambivalent (versus univalent) attitudes tend to be slower to report their attitudes (Bargh, Chaiken, Govender, & Pratto, 1992), are more sensitive to context effects in attitude expression (Tourangeau, Rasinski, Bradburn, & D'Andrade, 1989), and are less extreme in their evaluations (Kaplan, 1972). Because ambivalence tends to be a negative state, people often attempt to reduce it.…”

Section: Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 93%

Wanting other attitudes: Actual–desired attitude discrepancies predict feelings of ambivalence and ambivalence consequences

DeMarree

Wheeler

Briñol

et al. 2014

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Esta es la versión de autor del artículo publicado en: This is an author produced version of a paper published in: El acceso a la versión del editor puede requerir la suscripción del recurso Access to the published version may require subscription ACTUAL-DESIRED ATTITUDE DISCREPANCIES 2 AbstractFeelings of attitudinal ambivalence (subjective ambivalence) are important because they predict key consequences of attitudes (e.g., attitude-behavior correspondence, attitude stability).However, the field's understanding of the antecedents of subjective ambivalence is still developing. We explore a previously unexamined antecedent of subjective ambivalence.Specifically, we examined discrepancies between participants' actual attitudes and their desired attitudes as antecedents of subjective ambivalence and ambivalence consequences. Six studies using a variety of attitude objects were conducted to test these ideas. The first four studies demonstrated that actual-desired attitude discrepancies predicted subjective ambivalence over its previously documented antecedents. Critically, two additional studies showed that actual-desired attitude discrepancies predicted important consequences of ambivalence. As actual-desired attitude discrepancies increased, participants' attitude-behavior correspondence decreased (Study 5), and desire to reduce attitudinal conflict increased (Study 6). Process data in these latter studies revealed indirect effects through subjective ambivalence that held after controlling for the objective presence of evaluative conflict.

show abstract

Section: Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 93%

Wanting other attitudes: Actual–desired attitude discrepancies predict feelings of ambivalence and ambivalence consequences

DeMarree

Wheeler

Briñol

et al. 2014

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Before expressing their views on these issues, participants first answered a series of questions designed to bring to mind considerations that supported either liberal or conservative stands on the target issues. These kinds of question order effects seem likely to have occurred because the weights attached to various considerations in deriving the target attitudes were altered by the context questions (see Tourangeau et al, 1989;Tourangeau & Rasinski, 1988). That would suggest that this particular type of question order manipulation leads to real changes, at least temporarily, in people's evaluations of the target attitude object.…”

Section: Moderators Of Response Effects In Attitude Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Latent Structure of Strength‐related Attitude Attributes

Visser¹,

Bizer²,

Krosnick³

2006

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology

154

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[or she] will do…They draw lines about, and segregate, an otherwise chaotic environment; they are our methods for finding our way about in an ambiguous universe." Gordon W. Allport, 1935, p. 806 It has been nearly 70 years since Gordon Allport famously declared the attitude "the most distinctive and indispensable concept in contemporary American social psychology" (Allport, 1935, p. 798). In the decades since this bold claim, a large literature has accumulated generally reinforcing the notion that attitudes often do, as Allport (1935) suggested, profoundly influence perception, cognition, and behavior. Equally clear from this literature, however, is that attitudes do not always do so. That is, although some attitudes exert a powerful impact on thinking and on behavior, others are largely inconsequential. Similarly, whereas some attitudes are tremendously durable, resisting change in the face of a persuasive appeal and remaining stable over long spans of time, others are highly malleable and fluctuate greatly over time.The term "attitude strength" is often used to capture this distinction, and researchers have identified roughly a dozen attributes of attitudes that are associated with their strength (see .These strength-related attitude attributes include attitude importance, knowledge, elaboration, certainty, ambivalence, accessibility, intensity, extremity, structural consistency, and others. A large literature now exists documenting the relations of these attitude attributes with the four defining features of strong attitudes (i.e., resistance to change, stability over time, and a powerful impact on thought and on behavior; . For example, attitudes to which people attach more personal importance are better predictors of behavior (e.g., Budd, 1986;Parker, Perry, & Gillespie, 1974;Rokeach & Kliejunas, 1972), more resistant to change (Fine, 1957;Gorn, 1975;Zuwerink & Devine, 1996), and more powerfully influence liking of other people (Byrne, London, & Griffitt, 1968;Clore & Baldridge, 1968;Granberg & Holmberg, 1986;Krosnick, 1988b;McGraw, Lodge, & Stroh, 1990), inferences about others' personality traits (Judd & Johnson, 1981), and many other cognitive processes. Similar sorts of relations have been documented between other strength-2 related attitude attributes and the four defining features of strong attitudes (for a review, see . But considerably less is known about the relations among the strength-related attitude attributes themselves. In fact, a controversy has emerged in the attitude literature in recent years regarding the underlying structure of these attributes.In this chapter, we review this controversy and the empirical evidence and conceptual assumptions that have fueled it. We then draw on a diverse set of recent studies to shed new light on the conceptual and practical utility of the competing perspectives. Finally, we consider the implications of our findings for the conceptualization of attitude strength and for the methods by which it is studied. We begin below by defining each strength-rela...

show abstract

“…We were well aware that responses to attitudinal questions vary depending on preceding items in surveys (Krosnick & Alwin, 1987;Tourangeau, Rasinski, Bradburn, & D'Andrade, 1989). This is known as response-order effect or context effect (Rockwood, Sangster, & Dillman, 1997), where answers to specific questions are produced in stages, and outcomes of the different stages can be affected by previous items (Krosnick & Alwin, 1987).…”

Section: Sequence Of Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Makes Journalism “Excellent”? Criteria Identified by Judges in Two Leading Awards Programs

Shapiro

Albanese

Doyle

2006

Canadian Journal of Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What does "excellence" mean in journalism? The literature reveals no universally agreed set of standards, and awards guidelines are often unclear. We interviewed judges in two leading Canadian print journalism awards programs, using a sequence of open-ended and ranking questions to probe their criteria of excellence in a way calculated to elicit not just the standards they felt should be applied but the standards they actually did apply. Judges mentioned a wide variety of criteria, including the social importance and impact of works of journalism. But only two values were affirmed consistently: writing style and reporting rigour.Résumé : Comment définit-on un « excellent » journalisme ? Un parcours de la bibliographie à ce sujet révèle que les règlements relatifs aux prix décernés aux journalistes sont souvent vagues et qu'il n'y a pas de standards d'évaluation unanimement établis. Pour ce projet de recherche, nous avons interviewé des juges de deux programmes de remise des prix dans le domaine du journalisme écrit au Canada. Nous avons posé des questions ouvertes et des questions fermées dans le but de recueillir non seulement les critères qui devraient être appliqués, mais aussi ceux que les juges ont déjà appliqués dans leur pratique. Les juges ont mentionné un vaste éventail de critères, y compris l'impact social des oeuvres journalistiques. Toutefois, seulement deux valeurs se sont imposées invariablement : le style d'écriture et la rigueur du reportage.

show abstract

Carryover Effects in Attitude Surveys

Cited by 131 publications

References 10 publications

Wanting other attitudes: Actual–desired attitude discrepancies predict feelings of ambivalence and ambivalence consequences

Wanting other attitudes: Actual–desired attitude discrepancies predict feelings of ambivalence and ambivalence consequences

Exploring the Latent Structure of Strength‐related Attitude Attributes

What Makes Journalism “Excellent”? Criteria Identified by Judges in Two Leading Awards Programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About