The Effects of Need For Cognition and Topic Importance on the Latency and Extremity of Responses to Attitudinal Inquiries

Charles S. Areni, The University of Sydney
M. Elizabeth Ferrell, Southwestern Oklahoma State University
James B. Wilcox, Texas Tech University
ABSTRACT - University students responded to several questionnaire items regarding their attitudes toward contemporary social issues using seven-point response scales. As predicted, respondents reported more extreme positions when their need for cognition (NFC) was high rather than low, and when the specific issue was relatively important rather than unimportant. However, the results regarding the latency of response were not consistent with expectations. Respondents low in NFC answered more quickly when issues were relatively important as opposed to unimportant, but high NFC respondents answered more slowly when the issue was relatively important to them. For relatively important issues, high NFC respondents may have read the questionnaire items more carefully and/or reconsidered their positions prior to responding, thus increasing the latencies of their responses. These results suggest that response latency may not always capture attiude retrieval processes, particularly when high NFC individuals respond to verbal questionnaire items using seven-point response scales.
[ to cite ]:
Charles S. Areni, M. Elizabeth Ferrell, and James B. Wilcox (1999) ,"The Effects of Need For Cognition and Topic Importance on the Latency and Extremity of Responses to Attitudinal Inquiries", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 26, eds. Eric J. Arnould and Linda M. Scott, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 63-68.

Advances in Consumer Research Volume 26, 1999      Pages 63-68

THE EFFECTS OF NEED FOR COGNITION AND TOPIC IMPORTANCE ON THE LATENCY AND EXTREMITY OF RESPONSES TO ATTITUDINAL INQUIRIES

Charles S. Areni, The University of Sydney

M. Elizabeth Ferrell, Southwestern Oklahoma State University

James B. Wilcox, Texas Tech University

ABSTRACT -

University students responded to several questionnaire items regarding their attitudes toward contemporary social issues using seven-point response scales. As predicted, respondents reported more extreme positions when their need for cognition (NFC) was high rather than low, and when the specific issue was relatively important rather than unimportant. However, the results regarding the latency of response were not consistent with expectations. Respondents low in NFC answered more quickly when issues were relatively important as opposed to unimportant, but high NFC respondents answered more slowly when the issue was relatively important to them. For relatively important issues, high NFC respondents may have read the questionnaire items more carefully and/or reconsidered their positions prior to responding, thus increasing the latencies of their responses. These results suggest that response latency may not always capture attiude retrieval processes, particularly when high NFC individuals respond to verbal questionnaire items using seven-point response scales.

The attitude construct has occupied a focal point in the consumer behavior literature for the better part of three decades. The assumption that attitudes determine purchase behavior has served as the basis for measuring brand attitudes to assess the impact of marketing variables (Berger 1992). Yet, researchers have often found little or no relationship between attitudes and corresponding behavior (Fazio 1986). The status of the attitude construct as a useful basis for explaining consumer behavior has been questioned (Lastovicka and Bonfield 1982), and researchers have offered several explanations for the often observed lack of consistency between attitudes and corresponding behaviors (Ajzen and Fishbein 1977). A particularly fruitful approach for explaining this lack of consistency has been the identification of conditions under which attitudes are strongly predictive of behavior (Berger 1992).

Several studies have shown that attitudes are more predictive of subsequent behavior when they are easily accessible in memory (Fazio 1990a; Fazio et al. 1982; Fazio 1986). Importantly, attitude accessibility has typically been operationalized in terms of the latency with which individuals respond to an attitudinal inquiry; highly accessible attitudes are retrieved more quickly from memory, and hence, response latencies are relatively short (Houston and Fazio 1982; Kardes et al. 1986). Previous research has shown that attitudes are highly accessible (i.e., reported more quickly) when the focal topic is important (Krosnick 1989) and when respondents are high in need for cognition (Smith, Haugtvedt and Petty 1994).

The research reported below examined the joint effects of need for cognition (NFC) and topic importance on the latency and extremity of responses to attitudinal inquiries. Specifically, it tested the general prediction that attitudes will be more extreme and reported more quickly when individuals are high rather than low in need for cognition (NFC), and when topics are important as opposed to unimportant. The results regarding extremity of responses were generally consistent with expectations, but the results regarding the latency of responses suggested that, under certain conditions, response latency was capturing processes other than attitude accessibility.

ATTITUDE ACCESSIBILITY

Fazio has conceptualized attitude accessibility as the strength of the association between the attitude object and the evaluation of that object in memory. Research examining attitude accessibility has demonstrated that highly accessible attitudes: (1) are retrieved from memory and reported more quickly (Powell and Fazio 1984; Fazio, Herr and Olney 1984), (2) have a stronger influence on perceptions of attitudinally relevant information (Fazio, Herr and Olney 1984; Roskos-Ewoldsen & Fazio, 1992), (3) are more predictive of behavior (Fazio et al. 1982; Fazio, Powell and Williams 1989), and (4) are more extreme (Powell and Fazio 1984; Krosnick and Schuman 1988; Downing, Judd and Brauer 1992) than are relatively inaccessible attitudes. This latter effect occurs because highly accessible attitudes are generally preceded by careful consideration of the focal topic. Extensive topic-relevant thinking tends to polarize attitudes, leading to more extreme reported attitude scores (Powell and Fazio 1984; Krosnick and Schuman 1988; Downing, Judd and Brauer 1992; Smith et al. 1994).

In previous studies, the strength of the association between the attitude object and the evaluation of that object has frequently been indexed by the latency of response to questions regarding the attitude object (Powell ad Fazio 1984; Fazio 1989; Roskos-Ewoldsen and Fazio 1992). The reasoning is that the stronger the association in memory, the more quickly the attitude can be retrieved in response to an attitudinal inquiry. Subsequent research has shown that attitudes are more accessible (i.e., more quickly reported) when respondents: (1) have recently expressed their attitudes toward the focal topic (Fazio et al. 1982; Powell and Fazio 1984; Houston and Fazio 1989; Smith, Haugtvedt and Petty 1994), (2) expect to interact with the attitude object in some way (Fazio et al. 1982), (3) consider past topic-relevant behavior (Fazio, Herr and Olney 1984), and (4) are low rather than high in self-monitoring behavior (Kardes et al. 1986). Most importantly, previous research has shown that attitudes are more accessible when respondents are high rather than low in need for cognition (Smith, Haugtvedt and Petty) and when the topic is important rather than unimportant (Krosnick 1989).

NEED FOR COGNITION

Cacioppo and Petty (1982) define need for cognition (NFC) as the "tendency to engage in and enjoy thinking" (p. 119). Research has found that high NFC individuals: (1) search for more information when making decisions (Verplanken, Hazenberg and Palenewen 1992), (2) engage in more effortful processing of persuasive communications (Cacioppo et al. 1986; Haugtvedt, Petty and Cacioppo 1992), (3) are more open-minded (Cacioppo and Petty 1982; Berzonsky and Sullivan 1992), (4) enjoy more effortful cognitive tasks (Cacioppo and Petty 1984), and (5) hold attitudes that are more persistent over time and resistant to persuasion attempts (Haugtvedt and Petty 1992), than do low NFC individuals.

Though numerous studies have found that high NFC individuals tend to devote more thought to persuasive communications than do low NFC individuals (see Cacioppo and Petty 1984), Smith, Haugtvedt, and Petty (1994) found that NFC influenced the latency with which individuals responded to questionnaire items regarding attitudes toward environmental issues. High NFC respondents answered more quickly than did low NFC respondents. Moreover, consistent with the results of Powell and Fazio (1984) and Krosnick and Schuman (1988), high NFC respondents reported more extreme positions on the focal topics. These results suggest the following hypotheses:

H1:  Respondents high in NFC will respond to attitudinal inquiries more quickly than will respondents low in NFC.

H2:  Respondents high in NFC will report more extreme positions in response to attitudinal inquiries than will respondents low in NFC.

TOPIC IMPORTANCE

Unlike NFC, an individual difference variable, the importance of various questionnaire topics varies within individual respondents. An individual high in NFC may exhibit a general tendency to consider issues important, but some issues will, nevertheless, be more important than others. Likewise, a given issue may generally be perceived as important, but some respondents will rate it as more important than will others. Hence, it is possible that topic importance interacts with, or operates independently of, NFC to influence attitude accessibility and extremity, but the two are not likely to be redundant.

The results of Krosnick (1989) suggest a main effect of topic importance on attitude accessibility. He measured the importance of various social issues related to women’s rights, and, in a second study, the importance of defense spending. Regression analyses revealed that the latency of response to attitudinal inquiries regarding the various topics was negatively correlated with attitude importance; respondents answered more quickly when the issue was important to them. Krosnick accounted for this finding by suggesting that individuals frequently think about issues that are important to them, making relevant attitudes more accessible, and thus, more easily retrieved in response to a questionnaire item. This suggests the following hypothesis:

H3:  Respondents will respond more quickly to attitudinal inquiries about important rather than unimportant topics.

Unfortunately, research regarding the relationship between topic importance and attitude extremity is equivocal, with some researchers reporting a positive relationship (McClendon and Alwin 1993), and others reporting little or no relationship (Krosnick and Schuman 1988; Krosnick 1989). It is difficult to advance and definitive prediction based on the results of previous research. Accordingly, the following two research hypotheses are tested against one another:

H40:  Topic importance and attitude extremity will be unrelated.

H41:  Respondents will report more extreme positions in response to attitudinal inquiries about important rather than unimportant topics.

METHOD

Procedure

Respondents were solicited from two large sections of an introductory business course, offered primarily to first year students who have chosen business as a major. All students were asked to complete an opinion survey concerning a variety of topics. They were told that they would receive class credit for participation, but only if all three data collection stages were completed. There were 518 students who started the project, but only 367 completed all three phases.

This research had to meet the following requirements: 1) a significant number of topics having varying levels of importance within respondents, 2) a sample large enough to assure variance in importance for each topical area across respondents and, 3) computer administration in order to efficiently collect response latency data. Reliance on branded consumer products may not have generated the requisite level of variability in topic importance. Instead, several social issues relevant to various aspects of consumer behavior were selected as focal topics. Respondents expressed their attitudes toward: a future rise in oil prices, requiring manufacturers to install airbags in new automobiles, a national health care plan, the right to legalized abortions, violence on television, mandatory recycling, handgun control, the rights of cigarette smokers, the use of live animals in the testing of cosmetic products, and finally, security measures taken by airlines and airport administrations in airports.

For each of these ten topics, items were developed to measure attitude toward the focal topic, and the importance of that topic to each respondent. The final scales for measuring the attitudes toward national health care, abortion, and animal testing each consisted of twelve items with six scale reversals; attitude scales for each of the other topics consisted of either six or seven items, three of which were scale reversals. All items used in this analysis were administered using a 7-point response scale anchored by "strongly disagree" (1) and "strongly agree" (7). In order to simplify the administration and avoid potential respondent fatigue over such a long questionnaire, the topical areas were divided into three separate administration periods.

The questionnaire items were administered by computer. The program presented each item individually; the response scale was displayed under the item and each alternative was labelled with one of the function keys. Verbal anchors were provided with each presentation of the response alternatives at each end of the scale. The computer program began the internal clock when the information (or item) appeared on the screen. When the respondent depressed a response key, the program recorded the keystroke, the latency associated with it, and reset the timer for the next item.

Independent Variables

Need for cognition (NFC) was assessed using a subset of the 18-item scale developed by Cacioppo, Petty, and Kao (1984). Respondents answered a number of questions regarding their enjoyment of thinking (i.e., "Thinking is not my idea of fun," "I find satisfaction in deliberating hard and for long hours," "I only think as hard as I have to") on a 7-oint scale anchored by "strongly agree" and "strongly disagree." A confirmatory factor analysis revealed a single factor structure for the 18 items. However, given the concern about survey length and respondent fatigue, only the 10 items with loadings of .7 or higher were included in the questionnaire. The mean score across the 10 items served as the NFC measure. The median NFC score of 4.6 suggested that, as would be expected of college students, the sample was relatively high in NFC. Consistent with previous NFC research, those above the median were classified as "high" in NFC and those at or below as "low" (see Cacioppo and Petty 1982; Cacioppo et al. 1986). The NFC scale was completed during the first data collection period.

Three items were used to measure the importance of each of the ten topics. Respondents answered the first item, "How important is the position of a candidate on (the issue) to you when you decide how to vote in a congressional election?" using a 7-point scale anchored by "not at all important" (1) and "very important" (7). The second question, "How likely is it that you would write a letter to a public (or company) official expressing your opinion on (the issue)?" included a 7-point response scale anchored by "not at all likely" (1) and "very likely" (7). The final item, "When (the issue) is discussed in a news story, do you:" included category labels of "ignore it" (1) and "listen/read carefully" (7). The importance measure was the average of the responses to these three items, centered across topics within respondent. Thus, when a respondent’s importance score on a given topic was higher than his or her average for all ten topics, that topic was classified as "high," whereas when the importance of the topic was at or below average, that topic was classified as "low" for that respondent. The topic importance measure for each topic was completed during all three data collection periods after respondents completed the corresponding attitude scales.

Dependent Variables

The studies that Fazio and his colleagues have conducted measure attitude accessibility as the latency of response to a single indicant of the focal attitude. This study, as with most social science research, relied on multiple-item scales to measure attitudes. Since repeated expressions of a given attitude increase its accessibility, and hence shorten corresponding response latencies (Fazio 1990a; Tourangeau, Rasinski and Bradburn 1989), the dependent measure in this study was the latency of response to the first item in each topic.

In order to create an index for attitude extremity, the standard deviations of the responses to the attitude items were calculated across each scale on a within-respondent basis. Since half of the scales for each topic were reversed, standard deviations captured the extremity of respondents attitude scores. That is, extreme attitude scores of 7, 6, and 7 on three of the items would translate to 1, 2, and 1 on the items having reversed scales, thus inflating the standard deviation across all items. Hence, larger standard deviations corresponded to more extreme attitudes.

RESULTS

In order to test Hypotheses 1 and 3, an ANCOVA was performed with response latency as the dependent variable, and topic importance (within-respondents) and NFC (between-respondents) as the independent variables. Since each data collection period lasted approximately 15 minutes, there might be a tendency for respondents to answer more quickly near the end of each session as fatigue set in. Likewise, respondents may have answered more quickly during the second and third data collection periods, due to fatigue and the anticipation of the 15 minute completion time. Hence, the topic within each administration period and the administration period itself were used as covariates to remove both potential sources of variance.

Hypothesis 1 predicted that response latencies would be shorter when respondents were high rather than low in NFC, and Hypothesis 3 predicted that response latencies would be shorter when the topic was high rather than low in importance. The results of the ANCOVA indicated that the main effect of NFC implied by Hypothesis 1 was not significant (F1,3665<1). The main effect of topic importance predicted by Hypothesis 3 also failed to attain significance (F1,3665<1). However, the interaction of topic importance and NFC was significant (F1,3665=8.2, p<.004). As shown in Figure 1, low NFC respondents answered more quickly when the topic was important rather than unimportant (F1,1848=3.4, p<.06), as expected. However, respondents high in NFC answered more slowly to an attitudinal inquiry when the focal topic was important to them (F1,1818=4.8, p<.03). If attitudes toward important topics are more easily retrieved from memory than those concerning unimportant issues (Krosnick 1989), then the results for high NFC respondents cannot be interpreted in terms of attitude accessibility. This issue is discussed in detail below.

To test Hypotheses 2 and 4, a similarly structured ANCOVA was run with the standard deviation of the attitude scores for each topic included as the dependent variable. Hypothesis 2 predicted that respondents high in NFC would report more extreme attitudes than would low NFC respondents. The main effect of NFC suggested by Hypothesis 2 was, indeed, significant (F1,3665=14.2, p<.0002). As predicted, high NFC respondents reported more extreme attitudes (s=1.47) than did low NFC respondents (s=1.42). The main effect of topic importance also easily attained significance (F1,3665=53.3, p<.0001). Respondents reported more extreme attitudes when the topic was important (s=1.49) rather than unimportant (s=1.40). The NFC x topic importance interaction effect failed to attain significance (F1,3665<1). As shown in Figure 2, the effect of topic importance was significant for both low NFC respondents (F1,1848=26.4, p<.0001) and high NFC respondents (F1,1818=27.7, p<.0001). Hence, Hypothesis 40 could clearly be rejected in favor of Hypothesis 41.

DISCUSSION

The importance of the topic has long been recognized as a significant facet of a questionnaire (McClendon and Alwin 1993). In some cases, previous research suggests that importance does not mitigate distributions of responses (Krosnick 1989; Krosnick and Schuman 1988), whereas other researchers have reported that importance does influence responses (McClendon and Alwin 1993). The research reported above found that tpic importance did, indeed, influence the extremity of responses to attitudinal inquiries; respondents reported more extreme positions when topics were important to them. Moreover, respondents high in NFC tended to report more extreme positions than did low NFC respondents. Although the effect of topic importance was substantially larger than the effect of NFC, reliance on a student sample may have concentrated the NFC scores toward the high end of the scale. This may have limited the effect of NFC, since the "high" vs. "low" dichotomy was based on a median split. The mean NFC scores in the high and low conditions were 5.9 and 3.3, respectively. Hence, "low" NFC respondents scored just below the mid-point of the scale.

With respect to response latency, the results for the low NFC respondents in the present study are consistent with previous research regarding the impact of topic importance on attitude accessibility. Low NFC respondents answered attitudinal inquiries more quickly when the topic was important rather than unimportant to them. However, high NFC respondents answered more slowly when the topic was important to them. If the topic importance measure served as a surrogate for the general tendency to think about the focal issue (Krosnick 1989), then previous research suggests that high NFC respondents should have responded more quickly when topics were important rather than unimportant to them. Why did the high NFC respondents answer more slowly when topics were important?

Although response latency may be used as an index of attitude accessibility, it may tap into other psychological processes as well (Fazio 1990b). Specifically, response latency has been used to assess attitude formation processes (Fazio, Lenn and Effrein 1984; Gilliland and Schmitt 1993). According to the MODE model, individuals can respond to attitudinal inquiries by either retrieving a previously formed attitude, or by forming an attitude "on-line" (Fazio 1990a; Herr and Fazio 1993). A respondent’s Motivation and Opportunity to think about the issue or object being evaluated DEtermine which of these two processes will likely occur. When the respondent’s motivation and opportunity are high, an attitude is computed "on-line," even if a previously formed attitude exists (Fazio, Lenn and Effrein 1984). Importantly, motivation is driven primarily by the individual’s desire to be accurate, and perhaps by a "fear of invalidity" (Herr and Fazio 1993). It is possible that, for high NFC respondents, responses to items concerning important topics were motivated by the desire to be accurate, thus leading them to reconsider, and possibly reformulate, existing attitudes. Based on the results of Fazio, Lenn, and Effrein (1984), reformulation would have led to longer rather than shorter response latencies for important topics, as observed.

FIGURE 1

RESPONSE LATENCIES BY NEED FOR COGNITION AND TOPIC IMPORTANCE

FIGURE 2

ATTITUDE EXTREMITY BY NEED FOR COGNITION AND TOPIC IMPORTANCE

Another possibility is that the response latencies reflected reading processes as well as attitude retrieval processes. Centering the latencies within respondent should have eliminated the effect of a general tendency to read questionnaire items slowly or quickly, but reading speed could have been affected by the importance of the topic. It is plausible that high NFC respondents read questionnaire items more carefully when the topic was important to them, thus increasing their response latencies. This explanation is bolstered by the fact that half of the items for each topic were reverse-scaled, and half were positively worded while the other half were negatively worded. Under these circumstances, high NFC respondents may have been more careful in performing the mental tranformations necessary to answer each item accurately. Indeed, more careful reading of important questionnaire items may have unconsciously prompted a "fear of invalidity" in high NFC respondents, causing them to reconsider their attitudes prior to responding.

When using response latency to measure attitude accessibility, Fazio (1990b) recommends using: (1) dichotomous "yes/no" response scales, (2) simple prompts, and (3) instructions to respond as quickly as possible. His concern is the elimination of "noise" factors (i.e., hand-eye coordination, reading processes, uncertainty regarding the response scale, etc.) other than the simple retrieval of the attitude. The research reported above did not utilize instructions to respondents to answer as quickly as possible. Moreover, it relied on detailed questionnaire items concerning complicated social issues, and seven-point response scales typical of attitude research. Studies that have not included instructions to respond quickly (Fazio et al. 1982; Powell and Fazio 1984; Bassili 1993), and studies based on response categories outside of of Fazio’s recommended range (Krosnick 1989; Smith, Haugtvedt and Petty 1994) have, nevertheless, produced results consistent with an attitude accessibility explanation. However, there may be a limit to the amount of "noise" that can be tolerated. Response latency may be of little value for indexing attitude accessibility in contexts where the "prompt" involves detailed information (c.f., Smith et al. 1994) and/or more than five response categories (c.f., Krosnick 1989).

REFERENCES

Ajzen, Icek, and Martin Fishbein (1977), "Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Theoretical Analysis and Review of Empirical Research," Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918.

Bassili, John N. (1993), "Response Latency Versus Certainty As Indexes of the Strength of Voting Intentions in a CATI Survey," Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 54-61.

Berger, Ida E. (1992), "The Nature of Attitude Accessibility and Attitude Confidence: A Triangulated Experiment," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, 103-124.

Berzonsky, Michael D. and Colleen Sullivan (1992), "Social-Cognitive Aspects of Identity Style," Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 140-155.

Cacioppo, John T. and Richard E. Petty (1982), "The Need for Cognition," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.

Cacioppo, John T. and Richard E. Petty (1984), "The Need for Cognition: Relationship to Attitudinal Processes," In Richard P. McGlynn et al. (Eds.), Interfaces in Psychology: Social Perception in Clinical and Counseling Psychology, Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press, 113-140.

Cacioppo, John T., Richard E. Petty, and Chuan Feng Kao (1984), "The Efficient Assessment of Need for Cognition," Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307.

Cacioppo, John T., Richard E. Petty, Chuan Feng Kao, and Regina Rodriguez (1986), "Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion: An Individual Differences Perspective," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1032-1043.

Downing, James W., Charles M. Judd, and Markus Brauer (1992), "Effects of Repeated Expressions on Attitude Extremity," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63-17-29.

Fazio, Russell H. (1986), "How Do Attitudes Guide Behavior?," In R.M. Sorrentino & E.T. Higgins Eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition, New York: The Guilford Press, 204-239.

Fazio, Russell H. (1989), "On the Power and Functionality of Attitudes: The Role of Attitude Accessibility," In A.R. Pratkanis, S.J. Breckler & Anthony G. Greenwald (Eds.) Attitude Structure and Function, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 153-179.

Fazio, Russell H. (1990a), "Multiple Processes by Which Attitudes Guide Behavior: The MODE Model as an Integrative Framewrk," In Mark P. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, New York: Academic Press, 75-109.

Fazio, Russell H. (1990b), "A Practical Guide to the Use of Response Latency in Social Psychological Research," In Clyde H. Hendrick & Margaret S. Clark (Eds.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 74-97.

Fazio, Russell H., Jeuw-Mei Chen, Elizabeth C. McDonel, and Steven J. Sherman (1982), "Attitude Accessibility, Attitude-Behavior Consistency, and the Strength of the Object-Evaluation Association," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 339-357.

Fazio, Russell H., Paul M. Herr, and Timothy J. Olney (1984), "Attitude Accessibility Following a Self-Perception Process, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 277-286.

Fazio, Russell H., Tracy M. Lenn, and Edwin A. Effrein (1984), "Spontaneous Attitude Formation," Social Cognition, 2, 217-234.

Fazio, Russell H., Martha C. Powell, and Williams, C.J. (1989), "The Role of Attitude Accessibility in the Attitude-to-Behavior Process," Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 280-288.

Gilliland, Stephen W. and Neal Schmitt (1993), "Information Redundancy and Decision Behavior: A Process Tracing Investigation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 157-180.

Haugtvedt, Curtis P. and Richard E. Petty (1992), "Personality and Persuasion: Need for Cognition Moderates the Persistence, and Resistance of Attitude Changes," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 308-319.

Haugtvedt, Curtis P., Richard E. Petty, and John T. Cacioppo (1992), "Need for Cognition and Advertising: Understanding the Role of Personality Variables in Consumer Behavior," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, 239-260.

Herr, Paul M. and Russell H. Fazio (1993), "The Attitude-to-Behavior Process: Implications for Consumer Behavior," In Andrew A. Mitchell (Ed.), Advertising Exposure, Memory and Choice, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 119-140.

Houston, David A. and Russell H. Fazio (1989), "Biased Processing as a Function of Attitude Accessibility: Making Objective Judgments Subjectively," Social Cognition, 7, 51-66.

Kardes, Frank R., David M. Sanbonmatsu, Richard T. Voss, and Russell H. Fazio (1986), "Self-Monitoring and Attitude Accessibility," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 468-474.

Krosnick, Jon A. (1989), "Attitude Importance and Attitude Accessibility," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 297-308.

Krosnick, Jon A. and Howard Schuman (1988), "Attitude Intensity, Importance, and Certainty and Susceptibility to Response Effects," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 940-952.

Lastovicka, John L. and E. H. Bonfield (1982), "Do Consumers Have Brand Attitudes?," Journal of Economic Psychology, 2, 57-75.

McClendon, McKee J. and Duane F. Alwin (1993), "No-Opinion Filters and Attitude Measurement Reliability," Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 438-464.

Powell, Martha C. and Russell H. Fazio (1984), "Attitude Accessibility as a Function of Repeated Attitudinal Expression," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 139-148.

Roskos-Ewoldsen, David R. and Russell H. Fazio (1992), "On the Orienting Value of Attitudes: Attitude Accessibility as a Determinant of an Object’s Attraction of Visual Attention," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 198-211.

Smith, Stephen M., Curtis P. Haugtvedt, and Richard E. Petty (1994), "Need for Cognition and the Effects of Repeated Expression on Attitude Accessibility and Extremity," In Chris T. Allen and Deborah Roedder-John (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 21, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 234-237.

Tourangea, Roger, Kenneth A. Rasinski, Norman Bradburn, and Roy D’Andrade (1989), "Belief Accessibility and Context Effects in Attitude Measurement," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 401-421.

Verplanken, Bas, Pieter T. Hazenberg, and Grace R. Palenewen (1992), "Need for Cognition and External Information Search Effort," Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 128-136.

----------------------------------------