Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-05
Saving versus deleting thoughts affects focal and lateral attitude change ( Guardar vs. eliminar los pensamientos influye en los cambios actitudinales focales y laterals )
Thought handling may affect the subsequent use of thoughts in evaluative judgements. Thus, a person’s attitudes are more influenced by thoughts about the attitude object when the person has saved (versus deleted) a representation of these thoughts. We examined if thought handling would affect not only focal attitude change but also lateral attitude change. Students (N = 200) listed positive thoughts about a focal object and later either saved or deleted a representation of their thoughts. Then their explicit and implicit attitudes towards the focal object, a lateral (= related) object and an unrelated object were assessed. Results showed that explicit focal attitudes were affected more by thoughts in the save conditions than in the delete conditions. These effects generalized to explicit lateral attitudes but not to explicit unrelated attitudes. Thought (handling) effects on implicit attitudes were generally weak. We discuss the results in terms of a self-validation approach and the lateral attitude change model.
BohnerG.CrowK.ErbH.-P.SchwarzN. (1992). Affect and persuasion: Mood effects on the processing of persuasive message content and context cues and on subsequent behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(6), 511–530. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420220602
3.
BohnerG.ElleringmannL.LinneR.BoegeR. M. J.GlaserT. (2020). Lateral attitude change: Does acceptance versus rejection of focal change cause generalization versus displacement? (Research Report). Bielefeld University. https://doi.org/10.4119/unibi/2941633
4.
BohnerG.ErbH.-P.SieblerF. (2008). Information processing approaches to persuasion: Integrating assumptions from the dual- and single-processing perspectives. In CranoW. D.PrislinR. (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 161–188). Psychology Press.
5.
BrannonS. M.DeJongA.GawronskiB. (2019). Determinants of lateral attitude change: The roles of object relatedness, attitude certainty, and moral conviction. Social Cognition, 37(6), 624–658. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2019.37.6.624
6.
BriñolP.GascóM.PettyR. E.HorcajoJ. (2013). Treating thoughts as material objects can increase or decrease their impact on evaluation. Psychological Science, 24(1), 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612449176
7.
BriñolP.ParedesB.GandarillasB. (2019). Introduction to meta-cognitive processes of thought separation: An illustrative overview. International Journal of Social Psychology, 34(3), 479–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2019.1651023
8.
BriñolP.PettyR. E. (2003). Overt head movements and persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1123–1139. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1123
9.
BriñolP.PettyR. E. (2009). Persuasion: Insights from the self-validation hypothesis. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 69–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00402-4
10.
ChaikenS.LibermanA.EaglyA. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In UlemanJ. S.BarghJ. A. (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). Guilford.
11.
CorneilleO.HütterM. (2020). Implicit? What do you mean? A comprehensive review of the delusive implicitness construct in attitude research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(4), 212–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868320911325
12.
CruzS. M. (2019). Lateral attitude change on environmental issues: Implications for the climate change debate. Climatic Change, 156(1–2), 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02474-x
13.
DeutschR.GawronskiB.StrackF. (2006). At the boundaries of automaticity: Negation as reflective operation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(3), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.3.385
14.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
15.
GawronskiB.BodenhausenG. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 692–731. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.692
16.
GlaserT.DickelN.LierschB.ReesJ.SüssenbachP.BohnerG. (2015). Lateral attitude change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(3), 257–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314546489
17.
GlaserT.KuchenbrandtD. (2017). Generalization effects in evaluative conditioning: Evidence for attitude transfer effects from single exemplars to social categories. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(103). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00103
18.
HorcajoJ.BriñolP.PettyR. E. (2010). Consumer persuasion: Indirect change and implicit balance. Psychology & Marketing, 27(10), 938–963. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20367
19.
HorcajoJ.ParedesB.HigueroG.BriñolP.PettyR. E. (2019). The effects of overt head movements on physical performance after positive versus negative self-talk. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 41(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2018-0208
20.
KruglanskiA. W.ThompsonE. P. (1999). Persuasion by a single route: A view from the unimodel. Psychological Inquiry, 10(2), 83–109. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PL100201
21.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
22.
LinneR. (2021). Targeting one attitude to change another: Lateral attitude change as a mechanism to indirectly influence evaluations of products, policies, and values [Dissertation]. Bielefeld University.
23.
LinneR.GlaserT.PumK.BohnerG. (2020). Lateral attitude change: Stalking the elusive displacement effect. Social Cognition, 38(4), 324–353. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2020.38.4.324
24.
PayneB. K.ChengC. M.GovorunO.StewartB. D. (2005). An inkblot for attitudes: Affect misattribution as implicit measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.277
25.
PayneK.LundbergK. (2014). The affect misattribution procedure: Ten years of evidence on reliability, validity, and mechanisms. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(12), 672–686. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12148
26.
PettyR. E.BriñolP.TormalaZ. L.WegenerD. T. (2007). The role of metacognition in social judgment. In KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 254–284). Guilford Press.
27.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 124–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2
28.
PettyR. E.OstromT. M.BrockT. C. (Eds.). (1981). Cognitive responses in persuasion. Erlbaum.
29.
SpruytA.KlauerK. C.GastA.De SchryverM.De HouwerJ. (2014). Feature-specific attention allocation modulates the generalization of recently acquired likes and dislikes. Experimental Psychology, 61(2), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000228
30.
WänkeM.BohnerG.JurkowitschA. (1997). There are many reasons to drive a BMW: Does imagined ease of argument generation influence attitudes?Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2), 170–177. https://doi.org/10.1086/209502
