Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes.

By G. Maio, J. Olson. 2000

279 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Social psychological factors in lifestyle change and their relevance to policy (2007, background): “…least in part by moral considerations, though it is not yet clear whether this conclusion is better supported for some types of behavior (e.g., interpersonal behaviors) than for others (Godin, Conner, & Sheeran, 2005; Maio & Olson, 2000; Maio, Olson, Bernard, & Luke, 2003; Sparks & Manstead, 2006).”
A Rose by Any Name? The Values Construct (2000, background): “Already, this seems to be the convention in discussions of what are labeledvalue-expressive attitudes (e.g., see Maio & Olson, 2000a, 2000b).”
Communication and Attitude Change: Causes, Processes, and Effects (2005, result): “Similar to McGuire’s (1969) reception-yielding model, other variables can affect the likelihood of any particular stage promoting persuasion, meaning that some persuasion variables may have non-linear effects on persuasion.”
A functional-cognitive framework for attitude research (2013, methodology): “Specifically, the practice of using behaviour as a proxy for mental 1Note that we do not use the term functional in the sense of adaptive or something that serves a particular goal (e.g., Maio & Olson, 2000).”
Mental representations of social values (2010, background): “Indeed, values’ prediction of attitudes and behavioral intentions is significantly improved when people explicitly view their attitudes as being connected to their values (Maio & Olson, 1994, 1995, 2000).”