Global attitude certainty consists of two subconstructs: attitude clarity—certainty that one is aware of one’s true attitudes—and attitude correctness, certainty that one’s attitudes are morally correct and valid. Attitude correctness is more often associated with group-related psychological and behavioral outcomes than attitude clarity. As such, we expected that attitude correctness, but not attitude clarity, would be associated with more negative attitudes toward outgroups when group boundaries are defined by attitudes. Across four studies, greater attitude correctness related to more negative attitudes toward attitudinal outgroups regardless of context (e.g., political, religious); attitude clarity’s relationship to prejudice was inconsistent (Studies 1a and 2: positive or no relationship; Study 3: negative; Studies 1b and 4: no relationship). In Studies 2 and 3, mediational analyses showed that greater attitude correctness was associated with stronger beliefs that group boundaries are sharp and distinct (i.e., discreteness beliefs), which in turn was associated with greater prejudice. Finally, Study 4 demonstrated that the attitude correctness–prejudice link was associated with greater intention to engage in competitive behaviors in a conflict resolution scenario with an outgroup member.
AbramsD.WetherellM.CochraneS.HoggM. A.TurnerJ. C. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 97–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00892.x
2.
AltemeyerB. (2002). Dogmatic behavior among students: Testing a new measure of dogmatism. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 713–721. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540209603931
3.
AltemeyerB.HunsbergerB. E. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2(2), 113–133. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr0202_5
4.
AltemeyerB.HunsbergerB. (2004). A revised religious fundamentalism scale: The short and sweet of it. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14, 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr1401
5.
BrandtM. J.ReynaC.ChambersJ. R.CrawfordJ. T.WetherellG. (2014). The ideological-conflict hypothesis: Intolerance among both liberals and conservatives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413510932
6.
BrandtM. J.van TongerenD. R. (2017). People both high and low on religious fundamentalism are prejudiced toward dissimilar groups. Personality and Individual Differences, 112, 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000076
7.
BurchM. (2016). Religion and scientism: A shared cognitive conundrum. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 80, 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-016-9571-4
8.
ByrneD. (1971). The attraction paradigm. Academic Press.
9.
CheathamL.TormalaZ. L. (2015). Attitude certainty and attitudinal advocacy: The unique roles of clarity and correctness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1537–1550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215601406
10.
ClarksonJ.SmithE.TormalaZ.DuganR. (2017). Group identification as a means of attitude restoration. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68, 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.07.001
11.
CoppockA.McClellanO. A. (2019). Validating the demographic, political, psychological, and experimental results obtained from a new source of online survey respondents. https://alexandercoppock.com/coppock_mcclellan_2019.html
12.
De DreuC. K. W.EversA.BeersmaB.KluwerE. S.NautaA. (2001). A theory-based measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 645–668. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.107
EdgellP.GerteisJ.HartmannD. (2006). Atheists as “other”: Moral boundaries and cultural membership in American society. American Sociological Review, 71, 211–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100203
GarrettK. N.BankertA. (2018). The moral roots of partisan division: How moral conviction heightens affective polarization. British Journal of Political Science, 50, 621–640. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712341700059X
19.
GervaisW. M.ShariffA. F.NorenzayanA. (2011). Do you believe in atheists? Distrust is central to anti-atheist prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1189–1206. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025882
20.
GrossS. R.HoltzR.MillerN. (1995). Attitude certainty. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 215–245). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
HaslamN.LevyS. R. (2006). Essentialist beliefs about homosexuality: Structure and implications for prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 471–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205276516
24.
HaslamN.RothschildL.ErnstD. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466600164363
25.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. 2nd ed. The Guildford Press.
26.
HollandR. W.VerplankenB.van KnippenbergA. (2003). From repetition to conviction: Attitude accessibility as a determinant of attitude certainty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 594–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00038-6
27.
ItzchakovG.DeMarreeK. G.KlugerA. N.Turjeman-LeviY. (2018). The listener sets the tone: High-quality listening increases attitude clarity and behavior-intention consequences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 762–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217747874
28.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R.NosekB. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x
29.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
30.
KossowskaM.Czernatowicz-KukuczkaA.SekerdejM. (2016). Many faces of dogmatism: Prejudice as a way of protecting certainty against value violators among dogmatic believers and atheists. British Journal of Psychology, 108, 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12186
31.
KossowskaM.SekerdejM. (2015). Searching for certainty: Religious beliefs and intolerance toward value-violating groups. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 72–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.053
32.
LeeS. A.GibbonsJ. A.ThompsonJ. M.TimaniH. S. (2009). The Islamophobia Scale: Instrument development and initial validation. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 19, 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508610802711137
33.
LickD. J.JohnsonK. L.GillS. V. (2014). Why do they have to flaunt it? Perceptions of communicative intent predict antigay prejudice based upon brief exposure to nonverbal cues. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 927–935. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614537311
MayhewM. J.BowmanN. A.RockenbachA. N.SelznickB.Riggers-PiehlT. (2018). Appreciative attitudes toward Jews among non-Jewish U.S. college students. Journal of College Student Development, 59, 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2018.0005
36.
MiklikowskaM. (2018). Empathy trumps prejudice: The longitudinal relation between empathy and anti-immigrant attitudes in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 54, 703–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000474
37.
MonroeA. E.PlantE. A. (2019). The dark side of morality: Prioritizing sanctity over care motivates denial of mind and prejudice toward sexual outgroups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148, 342–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000537
38.
MontoyaR. M.HortonR. S. (2012). A meta-analytic investigation of the processes underling the similarity-attraction effect. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(1), 64–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512452989
39.
NiedbalaE. M.HohmanZ. P.EllebyJ. S. (2018). When I’m right you’re wrong: Attitude correctness facilitates anger and approach motivation toward opposing individuals. Social Influence, 13, 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2018.1491888
40.
PetrocelliJ. V.TormalaZ. L.RuckerD. D. (2007). Unpacking attitude certainty: Attitude clarity and attitude correctness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.30
41.
PlantA.DevineP. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 811–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.811
PrislinR.ShafferE.CrowderM. (2012). Populism vs. elitism: Social consensus and social status as bases of attitude certainty. The Journal of Social Psychology, 152, 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2011.610390
44.
RiosK.DeMarreeK. G.StatzerJ. (2014). Attitude certainty and conflict style: Divergent effects of correctness and clarity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 819–830. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214528991
45.
RuckerD. D.PettyR. E. (2004). When resistance is futile: Consequences of failed counterarguing for attitude certainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.219
46.
SherifM. (1936). The psychology of social norms. Harper & Row.
47.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043
48.
SimpsonA.RiosK.CowgillC. M. (2017). Godless in essence? Psychological essentialism, meta-beliefs, and anti-atheist prejudice. Personality and Individual Differences, 119, 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.06.029
SkitkaL. J.BaumanC. W.SargisE. G. (2005). Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(6) 895–917. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.895
51.
SwannW. B.PelhamB. W.ChidesterT. R. (1988). Change through paradox: Using self-verification to alter beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 268–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.268
52.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In WorchelS.AustinW. G. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
53.
TormalaZ. L.PettyR. E.BriñolP. (2002). Ease of retrieval effects in persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1700–1712. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616702237651
54.
TurnerJ. C.ReynoldsK. J. (2012). Self-categorization theory. In van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), The handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 399–417). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n46
55.
UzarevicF.SaroglouV.Muñoz-GarcíaA. (2019). Are atheists unprejudiced? Forms of nonbelief and prejudice toward antiliberal and mainstream religious groups. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000247
56.
VisserP. S.MirabileR. R. (2004). Attitudes in the social context: The impact of social network composition on individual-level attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 779–795. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.779
WestfallJ.van BovenL.ChambersJ. R.JuddC. M. (2015). Perceiving political polarization in the United States: Party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615569849
59.
WetherellG. A.BrandtM. J.ReynaC. (2013). Discrimination across the ideological divide: The role of value violations and abstract values in discrimination by liberals and conservatives. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 658–667. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613476096
60.
WuC.ShafferD. R. (1987). Susceptibility to persuasive appeals as a function of source credibility and prior experience with the attitude object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 677–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.4.677
