We proposed that (a) processing interest for affective over cognitive information is captured by meta-bases (i.e., the extent to which people subjectively perceive themselves to rely on affect or cognition in their attitudes) and (b) processing efficiency for affective over cognitive information is captured by structural bases (i.e., the extent to which attitudes are more evaluatively congruent with affect or cognition). Because processing speed can disentangle interest from efficiency by being manifest as longer or shorter reading times, we hypothesized and found that more affective meta-bases predicted longer affective than cognitive reading time when processing efficiency was held constant (Study 1). In contrast, more affective structural bases predicted shorter affective than cognitive reading time when participants were constrained in their ability to allocate resources deliberatively (Study 2). When deliberation was neither encouraged nor constrained, effects for meta-bases and structural bases emerged (Study 3). Implications for affective–cognitive processing and other attitudes-relevant constructs are discussed.
BardenJ.PettyR. E. (2008). The mere perception of elaboration creates attitude certainty: Exploring the thoughtfulness heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 489-509.
2.
BarghJ. A.BondR. N.LombardiW. J.TotaM. E. (1986). The additive nature of chronic and temporary sources of construct accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 869-878.
3.
BassiliJ. N. (1996). Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: The case of measures of attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 637-653.
4.
BrecklerS. J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct components of attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1191-1205.
5.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
6.
CelsiR.OlsonJ. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 210-224.
7.
ChaikenS.PomerantzE. M.Giner-SorollaR. (1995). Structural consistency and attitude strength. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 387-412). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8.
ClarkJ. K.WegenerD. T. (2009). Source entitativity and the elaboration of persuasive messages: The roles of perceived efficacy and message discrepancy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 42-57.
9.
CritesS. L.FabrigarL. R.PettyR. E. (1994). Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 619-634.
10.
DavidsonA. R.YantisS.NorwoodM.MontanoD. E. (1985). Amount of information about the attitude object and attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1184-1198.
11.
EdwardsK. (1990). The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 202-216.
12.
EdwardsK.SmithE. E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 5-24.
13.
FabrigarL. R.MacDonaldT. K.WegenerD. T. (2005). The structure of attitudes. In AlbarracinD.JohnsonB. T.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 79-125). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
FabrigarL. R.PettyR. E. (1999). The role of the affective and cognitive bases of attitudes in susceptibility to affectively and cognitively based persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 363-381.
15.
FabrigarL. R.WegenerD. T.MacDonaldT. K. (2010). Distinguishing between prediction and influence: Multiple processes underlying attitude-behaviour consistency. In AgnewC. R.CarlstonD. E.GrazanioW. G.KellyJ. R. (Eds.), Then a miracle occurs: Focusing on behaviour in social psychological theory and research (pp. 162-185). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
16.
FazioR. H. (1995). Attitudes and object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 247-282). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17.
Giner-SorollaR. (2004). Is affective material in attitudes more accessible than cognitive material: The moderating role of attitude basis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 761-780.
18.
GraesserA. C.HoffmanN. L.ClarkL. F. (1980). Structural components of reading time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 135-151.
19.
HaddockG.MaioG. R.ArnoldK.HuskinsonT. L. (2008). Should persuasion be affective or cognitive? The moderating effects of need for affect and need for cognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 769-778.
20.
HaddockG.ZannaM. P. (1994). Assessing the impact of affective and cognitive information in predicting attitudes toward capital punishment. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 325-339.
21.
HigginsE. T. (1996). The “self digest”: Self-knowledge serving self-regulatory functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1062-1083.
22.
HofmannW.GawronskiB.GschwendnerT.LeH.SchmittM. (2005). A meta-analysis on the correlation between the implicit association test and explicit self-report measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1369-1385.
23.
HuskinsonT. L. H.HaddockG. (2004). Individual differences in attitude structure: Variance in chronic reliance on affective and cognitive information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 82-90.
24.
InskoC. A.SchoplerJ. (1967). Triadic consistency: A statement of affective-cognitive-conative consistency. Psychological Review, 74, 361-376.
25.
JacksonM. D.McClellandJ. L. (1979). Processing determinants of reading speed. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 151-181.
26.
KatzD.StotlandE. (1959). A preliminary statement to a theory of attitude structure and change. In KochS. (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science (Vol. 3): Formulations of the person and the social context (pp. 423-475). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
27.
KothandapaniV. (1971). Validation of feeling, belief, and intention to act as three components of attitude and their contribution to prediction of contraceptive behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 321-333.
28.
MaioG. R.EssesV. M. (2001). The need for affect: Individual differences in the motivation to approach or avoid emotions. Journal of Personality, 69, 583-615.
29.
MayerN.TormalaZ. L. (2010). “Think” versus “feel” framing effects in persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 443-454.
30.
McClellandD. C.KoestnerR.WeinbergerJ. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ?Psychological Review, 96, 690-702.
31.
MillarM. G.MillarK. U. (1990). Attitude change as a function of attitude type and argument type. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 217-229.
32.
MillarM. G.TesserA. (1986). Effects of affective and cognitive focus on the attitude-behaviour relation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 270-276.
33.
MillarM. G.TesserA. (1989). The effects of affective-cognitive consistency and thought on attitude-behaviour relation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 189-202.
34.
NeubergS. L.FiskeS. T. (1987). Motivational influences on impression formation: Outcome dependency, accuracy-driven attention, and individuating processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 431-444.
35.
OsgoodC. E.SuciG. J.TannenbaumP. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
36.
OstromT. M. (1969). The relationship between the affective, behavioural, and cognitive components of attitude. Journal of Experiment Social Psychology, 5, 12-30.
37.
PalmerJ.MacLeodC. M.HuntE.DavidsonJ. E. (1985). Information processing correlates of reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 59-88.
38.
PayneB. K. (2009). Attitude misattribution: Implications for attitude measurement and the implicit-explicit relationship. In PettyR. E.FazioR. H.BriñolP. (Eds.), Attitudes: Insights from the new implicit measures (pp. 285-326). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
39.
PayneB. K.BurkleyM. A.StokesM. B. (2008). Why do implicit and explicit attitude tests diverge? The role of structural fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 16-31.
40.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915-1926.
41.
PettyR. E.FabrigarL. R.WegenerD. T. (2003). Emotional factors in attitudes and persuasion. In DavidsonR. J.SchererK.GoldsmithH. H. (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 752-772). London, England: Oxford University Press.
42.
PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (1995). Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
43.
PettyR. E.SchumannD. W.RichmanS. A.StrathmanA. J. (1993). Positive mood and persuasion: Different roles for affect under high- and low-elaboration conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 5-20.
44.
PettyR. E.WellsG. L.BrockT. C. (1976). Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding to propaganda: Thought disruption versus effort justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 874-884.
45.
PomerantzE. M.ChaikenS.TordesillasR. S. (1995). Attitude strength and resistance processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 408-419.
46.
RosenbergM. J.HovlandC. I. (1960). Cognitive, affective and behavioral components of attitudes. In RosenbergM. J.HovlandC. I.McGuireG. J.AbelsonR. P.BrehmJ. W. (Eds.), Attitude organization and change (pp. 1-14). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
47.
RudellA. P.HuaJ. (1997). The recognition potential, word difficulty, and individual reading ability: On using event-related potentials to study perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 1170-1195.
48.
SchultheissO. C. (2001). An information processing account of implicit motive arousal. In MaehrM. L.PintrichP. (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 1-41). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
49.
SeeY. H. M.KhooB. L. Z. (2011). Tailoring information to change attitudes: A meta-structural approach. In SalehI. M.KhineM. S. (Eds.), Attitudes research in science education: Classic and contemporary measurements (pp. 177-198). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
50.
SeeY. H. M.PettyR. E.EvansL. M. (2009). The impact of perceived message complexity and need for cognition on information processing and attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 880-889.
51.
SeeY. H. M.PettyR. E.FabrigarL. R. (2008). Affective and cognitive meta-bases of attitudes: Unique effects on information interest and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 938-955.
52.
ShermanJ. W.LeeA. Y.BessenoffG. R.FrostL. A. (1998). Stereotype efficiency reconsidered: Encoding flexibility under cognitive load. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 589-606.
53.
SmithM. B. (1947). The personal setting of public opinions: A study of attitudes toward Russia. Public Opinion Quarterly, 11, 507-523.
54.
SmithS. M.FabrigarL. R.PowellD. M.EstradaM. (2007). The role of information processing capacity and goals in attitude-congruent selective exposure effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 948-960.
55.
TetlockP. E. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. In ZannaM. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 331-376). New York, NY: Academic Press.
56.
ThompsonM. M.ZannaM. P.GriffinD. W. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361-386). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
57.
van den BergHMansteadA. S. R.van der PligtJ.WigboldusD. H. J. (2006). The impact of affective and cognitive focus on attitude formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 373-379.
58.
WegenerD. T.DowningJ.KrosnickJ. A.PettyR. E. (1995). Measures and manipulations of strength-related properties of attitudes: Current practice and future directions. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 455-487). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
59.
WoodW.RholesN.BiekM. (1995). Working knowledge and attitude strength: An information-processing analysis. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 283-313). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
60.
ZannaM. P.RempelJ. K. (1988). Attitudes: A new look at an old concept. In Bar-TalD.KruglanskiA. W. (Eds.), The social psychology of knowledge (pp. 315-334). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
