Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:41:46.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Attitudinal Advocacy

from 1 - Consumer Psychology of Individuals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2023

By
Mohamed A. Hussein  and
Zakary L. Tormala
Edited by
Cait Lamberton ,
Derek D. Rucker  and
Stephen A. Spiller
Cait Lamberton
Affiliation:
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Derek D. Rucker
Affiliation:
Kellogg School, Northwestern University, Illinois
Stephen A. Spiller
Affiliation:
Anderson School, University of California, Los Angeles
Get access

Summary

People regularly advocate on behalf of their attitudes. They post online reviews of hotels and restaurants, they recommend new apps and movies to friends, and they share their opinions on political candidates and social issues. What drives advocacy behavior? In this chapter, we review a fast-growing literature on the antecedents of advocacy – including attitude strength, compensatory motives, perceived efficacy, emotions, attitude framing, and more – and we consolidate this literature into a set of core insights. In addition, we discuss two promising directions for ongoing work. First, when people advocate, what do they say or do? Second, what other actions do people undertake to advance their views (e.g., censorship)? We review the nascent literature on these topics and chart new directions for research in this area.

Keywords

attitudesattitudinal advocacyboycottingcensorshipconsumer psychology
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Psychology , pp. 7 - 27
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abelson, R. P. (1988). Conviction. American Psychologist, 43(4), 267–275.Google Scholar
Akhtar, O., Paunesku, D., & Tormala, Z. L. (2013). Weak > strong: The ironic effect of argument strength on supportive advocacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(9), 1214–1226.Google Scholar
Akhtar, O., & Wheeler, S. C. (2016). Belief in the immutability of attitudes both increases and decreases advocacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 475–492.Google Scholar
Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1362–1377.Google Scholar
Ashokkumar, A., Talaifar, S., Fraser, W. T., et al. (2020). Censoring political opposition online: Who does it and why. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ayanian, A. H., Tausch, N., Acar, Y. G., Chayinska, M., Cheung, W. Y., & Lukyanova, Y. (2021). Resistance in repressive contexts: A comprehensive test of psychological predictors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(4), 912–939.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barden, J., & Petty, R. E. (2008). The mere perception of elaboration creates attitude certainty: Exploring the thoughtfulness heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(3), 489–509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bechler, C. J., & Tormala, Z. L. (2021). Misdirecting persuasive efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic: The targets people choose may not be the most likely to change. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 6(1), 187–195.Google Scholar
Bechler, C. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Rucker, D. D. (2019). Perceiving attitude change: How qualitative shifts augment change perception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 82, 160–175.Google Scholar
Bechler, C. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Rucker, D. D. (2020). Choosing persuasion targets: How expectations of qualitative change increase advocacy intentions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 86, 103911.Google Scholar
Berger, J. (2014). Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), 586–607.Google Scholar
Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 192–205.Google Scholar
Berger, J., Rocklage, M. D., & Packard, G. (2022). Expression modalities: How speaking versus writing shapes word of mouth. Journal of Consumer Research, 49(3), 389–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bizer, G. Y., Larsen, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (2011). Exploring the valence-framing effect: Negative framing enhances attitude strength. Political Psychology, 32(1), 59–80.Google Scholar
Boch, A. (2020). The limits of tolerance: Extreme speakers on campus. Social Problems, spaa019.Google Scholar
Briñol, P., McCaslin, M. J., & Petty, R. E. (2012). Self-generated persuasion: Effects of the target and direction of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 925–940.Google Scholar
Carlsmith, J. M., Collins, B. E., & Helmreich, R. L. (1966). Studies in forced compliance: The effect of pressure for compliance on attitude change produced by face-to-face role playing and anonymous essay writing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
Catapano, R., & Tormala, Z. L. (2021). Do I support that it’s good or oppose that it’s bad? The effect of support-oppose framing on attitude sharing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(1), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Catapano, R., Tormala, Z. L., & Rucker, D. D. (2019). Perspective taking and self-persuasion: Why “putting yourself in their shoes” reduces openness to attitude change. Psychological Science, 30(3), 424–435.Google Scholar
Cheatham, L. B., & Tormala, Z. L. (2017). The curvilinear relationship between attitude certainty and attitudinal advocacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(1), 3–16.Google Scholar
Cheatham, L., & Tormala, Z. L. (2015). Attitude certainty and attitudinal advocacy: The unique roles of clarity and correctness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(11), 1537–1550.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B. (1971). Attitudinal advocacy in the verbal conditioner. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17(3), 350–358.Google Scholar
Crites, S. L., Fabrigar, L. R., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(6), 619–634.Google Scholar
Cutright, K. M., Wu, E. C., Banfield, J. C., Kay, A. C., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2011). When your world must be defended: Choosing products to justify the system. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 62–77.Google Scholar
Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2016). Dynamics of communicator and audience power: The persuasiveness of competence versus warmth. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(1), 68–85.Google Scholar
Eichstaedt, J. C., Kern, M. L., Yaden, D. B., et al. (2021). Closed- and open-vocabulary approaches to text analysis: A review, quantitative comparison, and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 26(4), 398–427.Google Scholar
Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, C. A. (1988). Shades of joy: Patterns of appraisal differentiating pleasant emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 2(4), 301–331.Google Scholar
Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When Prophecy Fails. University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, R., Lilie, S., Evans, C., et al. (1999). Political ideologies and support for censorship: Is it a question of whose ox is being gored? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(8), 1705–1731.Google Scholar
Gal, D., & Rucker, D. D. (2010). When in doubt, shout!: Paradoxical influences of doubt on proselytizing. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1701–1707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenwald, A. G., & Albert, R. D. (1968). Acceptance and recall of improvised arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(1, Pt.1), 31–34.Google Scholar
Hense, R., & Wright, C. (1992). The development of the attitudes toward censorship questionnaire. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(21), 1666–1675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janis, I. L., & King, B. T. (1954). The influence of role playing on opinion change. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49(2), 211–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jarvis, W. B. G., & Petty, R. E., (1996). The need to evaluate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 172–194.Google Scholar
Jost, J. T., Langer, M., & Singh, V. (2017). The politics of buying, boycotting, complaining, and disputing: An extension of the research program by Jung, Garbarino, Briley, and Wynhausen. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(3), 503–510.Google Scholar
Klandermans, B. (1984). Mobilization and participation: Social-psychological expansions of resource mobilization theory. American Sociological Review, 49(5), 583–600.Google Scholar
Klandermans, B., van der Toorn, J., & van Stekelenburg, J. (2008). Embeddedness and identity: How immigrants turn grievances into action. American Sociological Review, 73(6), 992–1012.Google Scholar
Klein, J. G., Smith, N. C., & John, A. (2004). Why we boycott: Consumer motivations for boycott participation. Journal of Marketing, 68(3), 92–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krosnick, J. A., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In Petty, R. E., & Krosnick, J. A. (Eds.). Ohio State University series on attitudes and persuasion: Vol. 4. Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences (pp. 1–24). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lambe, J. L. (2008). The structure of censorship attitudes. Communication Law and Policy, 13(4), 485–506.Google Scholar
Leach, C. W., Iyer, A., & Pedersen, A. (2006). Anger and guilt about ingroup advantage explain the willingness for political action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(9), 1232–1245.Google Scholar
Lodewijkx, H. F. M., Kersten, G. L. E., & van Zomeren, M. (2008). Dual pathways to engage in ‘Silent Marches’ against violence: Moral outrage, moral cleansing and modes of identification. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 18(3), 153–167.Google Scholar
Luminet, O., Bouts, P., Delie, F., Manstead, A. S. R., & Rimé, B. (2000). Social sharing of emotion following exposure to a negatively valenced situation. Cognition and Emotion, 14(5), 661–688.Google Scholar
Mallett, R. K., Huntsinger, J. R., Sinclair, S., & Swim, J. K. (2008). Seeing through their eyes: When majority group members take collective action on behalf of an outgroup. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11(4), 451–470.Google Scholar
Melumad, S., Inman, J. J., & Pham, M. T. (2019). Selectively emotional: How smartphone use changes user-generated content. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(2), 259–275.Google Scholar
Miller, D. T., & Morrison, K. R. (2009). Expressing deviant opinions: Believing you are in the majority helps. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 740–747.Google Scholar
Nguyen, P., Wang, X., Li, X., & Cotte, J. (2021). Reviewing experts’ restraint from extremes and its impact on service providers. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(5), 654–674.Google Scholar
Perlroth, N. (2021, September 3). Tiktok users and coders flood Texas abortion site with fake tips. The New York Times, www.nytimes.com/2021/09/03/technology/texas-abortion-law-website-tiktok.htmlGoogle Scholar
Petrocelli, J. V., Clarkson, J. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Hendrix, K. S. (2010). Perceiving stability as a means to attitude certainty: The role of implicit theories of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 874–883.Google Scholar
Petrocelli, J. V., Tormala, Z. L., & Rucker, D. D. (2007). Unpacking attitude certainty: Attitude clarity and attitude correctness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 30–41.Google Scholar
Philipp-Muller, A. Z., Wallace, L. E., & Wegener, D. T. (2020). Where does moral conviction fit? A factor analytic approach examining antecedents to attitude strength. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 86.Google Scholar
Radke, H. R. M., Kutlaca, M., Siem, B., Wright, S. C., & Becker, J. C. (2020). Beyond allyship: Motivations for advantaged group members to engage in action for disadvantaged groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(4), 291–315.Google Scholar
Rathje, S., Van Bavel, J. J., & van der Linden, S. (2021). Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(26), e2024292118.Google Scholar
Rios, K. (2012). Minority opinions: Antecedents and benefits of expression. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(5), 392–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rios, K., Wheeler, S. C., & Miller, D. T. (2012). Compensatory nonconformity: Self-uncertainty and low implicit self-esteem increase adoption and expression of minority opinions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(6), 1300–1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rios, K., DeMarree, K. G., & Statzer, J. (2014). Attitude certainty and conflict style: Divergent effects of correctness and clarity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(7), 819–830.Google Scholar
Rocklage, M. D., Rucker, D. D., & Nordgren, L. F. (2018). Persuasion, emotion, and language: The intent to persuade transforms language via emotionality. Psychological Science, 29(5), 749–760.Google Scholar
Rocklage, M. D., Rucker, D. D., & Nordgren, L. F. (2021). Emotionally numb: Expertise dulls consumer experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 48(3), 355–373.Google Scholar
Sen, S., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Morwitz, V. (2001). Withholding consumption: A social dilemma perspective on consumer boycotts. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 399–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skitka, L. J., & Bauman, C. W. (2008). Moral conviction and political engagement. Political Psychology, 29(1), 29–54.Google Scholar
Skitka, L. J., Hanson, B. E., & Wisneski, D. C. (2017). Utopian hopes or dystopian fears? Exploring the motivational underpinnings of moralized political engagement. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(2), 177–190.Google Scholar
Skitka, L. J., Washburn, A. N., & Carsel, T. S. (2015). The psychological foundations and consequences of moral conviction. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 41–44.Google Scholar
Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(4), 813–838.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P., Steel, G. D., & Schmidt, P. W. (1994). Political ideology and attitudes toward censorship. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(9), 765–781.Google Scholar
Tausch, N., Becker, J. C., Spears, R., et al. (2011). Explaining radical group behavior: Developing emotion and efficacy routes to normative and nonnormative collective action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 129–148.Google Scholar
Teeny, J. D., & Petty, R. E. (2018). The role of perceived attitudinal bases on spontaneous and requested advocacy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 175–185.Google Scholar
Tiedens, L. Z., & Linton, S. (2001). Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 973–988.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tormala, Z. L., & Rucker, D. D. (2018). Attitude certainty: Antecedents, consequences, and new directions. Consumer Psychology Review, 1(1), 72–89.Google Scholar
van Stekelenburg, J., & Klandermans, B. (2013). The social psychology of protest. Current Sociology, 61(5–6), 886–905.Google Scholar
van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Bettache, K. (2011). Can moral convictions motivate the advantaged to challenge social inequality? Extending the social identity model of collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(5), 735–753.Google Scholar
van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., & Leach, C. W. (2008). Exploring psychological mechanisms of collective action: Does relevance of group identity influence how people cope with collective disadvantage? British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(2), 353–372.Google Scholar
Visser, P. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Simmons, J. P. (2003). Distinguishing the cognitive and behavioral consequences of attitude and certainty: A new approach to testing the common-factor hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(2), 118–141.Google Scholar
Westbrook, R. A. (1987). Product/consumption-based affective responses and postpurchase processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 258–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolley, K., & Sharif, M. A. (2021). Incentives increase relative positivity of review content and enjoyment of review writing. Journal of Marketing Research, 58(3), 539–558.Google Scholar
Xu, M., Petty, R. E., Wright, N., & Briñol, P. (2021). Individual differences in three aspects of evaluation: The motives to have, learn, and express attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(2), 257–284.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×