Cited by 41Social and Intergroup PsychologyPsychology of Social InfluenceOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence

The Curvilinear Relationship Between Attitude Certainty and Attitudinal Advocacy

Cheatham, Lauren B., Tormala, Zakary L.·2017·Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Abstract

Do people advocate more on behalf of their own attitudes and opinions when they feel certain or uncertain? Although considerable past research suggests that people are more likely to advocate when they feel highly certain, there also is evidence for the opposite effect-that people sometimes advocate more when they experience a loss of certainty. The current research seeks to merge these insights. Specifically, we explore the possibility that the relationship between attitude certainty and attitudinal advocacy is curvilinear. Consistent with this hypothesis, we find evidence for a J-shaped curve: Advocacy intentions (and behavior) peak under high certainty, bottom out under moderate certainty, and show an uptick under low (relative to moderate) certainty. We document this relationship and investigate its potential mechanisms in three studies by examining advocacy intentions and the actual advocacy messages participants write when they feel high, moderate, or low certainty.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0146167216673349

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Those seeking to mobilize may be overconfident in their messaging acumen, leading to messages that impose more objectivity and expressions of morals and judgment.

    “First, those seeking to mobilize (e.g., organizations) may be overconfident in their messaging acumen.Such certainty leads to messages that impose more objectivity and expressions of morals (moralization) and judgment (Cheatham & Tormala, 2017).”

    From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Cheatham & Tormala, 2017

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Aiken L. S., 1991, Multiple regression
  2. Gal D., 2010, Psychological Science, 20, 1
  3. Hayes A. F., 2013, Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach
  4. Krosnick J. A., 1995, Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cheatham, L. B., & Tormala, Z. L.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Cheatham, Lauren B.
Venue
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Published
2016-11-12
Volume
43
Issue
1
Pages
3-16
ISSN
  • 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7433
OpenAlex
W2418227039
Cited by
41
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 1
FWCI
20.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ACR North American Advances
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
Keywords
attitude certainty, advocacy intentions, curvilinear relationship, J-curve, loss of certainty
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude, Female, Humans, Male, Persuasive Communication, Intention, Uncertainty

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review