Much research has noted people's tendency toward extremity. This work has made it clear that some people prefer to hold extreme views and might leave the impression that when biases and preferences occur, they primarily favor extremity. In contrast, in the present work, we examine the possibility that some people prefer attitudinal neutrality across two pretesting samples, three main studies, and two supplementary studies (N-total = 1,873). The preference for neutrality is distinguished from low preference for extremity, as well as from an interest in collecting balanced information. We also show that the preference for neutrality is related to a sometimes uncritical and biased pursuit of attitudinal neutrality, paralleling effects found in the attitude extremity literature. The preference for neutrality is related to dispositional attitudinal neutrality and ambivalence, political centrism, a preference for other people with neutral versus extreme views, and biased responding to messages arbitrarily framed as "moderate" versus extreme. Implications for politically polarized attitudes, persuasion, and intellectual humility are discussed. The preference for neutrality may pose a substantial challenge for creating a shared understanding of the world and addressing pressing social issues.

Decades of research indicate that growth versus fixed mindsets can influence important outcomes. Some, however, have recently questioned this conclusion, documenting small to nonexistent effects. Inspired by attitudes research, we propose that some growth mindsets may be stronger-more impactful-than others. Specifically, this work examines whether mindsets held with higher certainty are more likely to influence responses. A field study, a high-powered preregistered experiment, and an integrative data analysis test whether mindset certainty influences interest and engagement in organizations that endorse fixed versus growth mindsets. These studies found that when students held their mindsets with high levels of certainty, their personal mindset beliefs were highly predictive of their relative interest in growth versus fixed classrooms, but when they held their mindsets with less certainty, their personal mindsets did not predict relative interest in growth versus fixed classrooms in this same manner. Broadly, these studies support that mindsets vary in strength, which should encourage researchers to identify "when" rather than "whether" growth mindsets predict outcomes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

Many mainstream organizations celebrate their historical successes. In their history, however, they often marginalized racial minorities, women, and other underrepresented groups. We suggest that when organizations celebrate their histories, even without mentioning historical marginalization, they can undermine belonging and intentions to join the organization among historically marginalized groups. Four experiments demonstrate that Black participants who were exposed to an organization that celebrated their history versus the present showed reduced belonging and intentions to participate in the organization. These effects were mediated by expectations of biased treatment in the organization. Further, when organizations had a history of Black people in power, celebrating history was no longer threatening, highlighting that the negative effects of celebrating history are most likely when organizations are or are assumed to be majority-White and have treated Black Americans poorly. Taken together, these findings suggest that emphasizing organizational history can be a source of social identity threat among Black Americans.

Stigmatized versus non-stigmatized people advocating on behalf of the stigmatized group are perceived as more biased, suggesting that they might be less effective advocates. Yet, research testing whether stigmatized or non-stigmatized advocates are more persuasive has yielded mixed results. The current work builds on previous research to clarify that this occurs because stigmatized advocates are also perceived as more expert on social justice issues. Six studies document these trade-offs in perceptions. Three studies demonstrate that stigmatized and non-stigmatized advocates seem not to differ in their effectiveness because while perceived expertise boosts the effectiveness of stigmatized advocates, perceived bias undermines it. This occurs both when people confront societal inequality and interpersonal prejudice. Despite the lack of difference in persuasiveness, people predict that the stigmatized advocate will be more effective, suggesting that observers may not recognize perceived bias's role in undermining effectiveness. The present findings differ not only from participants' lay theories, but also from conclusions commonly reached by reviews of the literature which suggest that stigmatized advocates may be less effective than their non-stigmatized counterparts. By examining a broader range of perceptions and effects on audience members' attitudes and intentions to behave consistently with advocacy, we provide a more complete view of these effects.

Communicators commonly present two-sided messages to avoid being perceived as biased. This approach equates bias with one-sidedness rather than divergence from the position supported by available data. Messages often concern topics with mixed qualities: a product is exceptional but expensive; a politician is inexperienced but ethical. For these topics, providing a two-sided message should reduce perceived bias according to both views of bias as one-sidedness and divergence from available data. However, if perceived bias follows divergence from available data, for topics viewed as one-sided (univalent), a two-sided message should not reduce perceived bias. Across five studies, acknowledging two sides reduced perceived bias for novel topics. In two of the studies, two-sidedness no longer reduced perceived bias for topics viewed as univalent. This work clarifies that people conceptualize bias as a divergence from available data, not simply one-sidedness. It also clarifies when and how to leverage message-sidedness to reduce perceived bias.

Growth mindsets are beliefs that abilities, like intelligence, are mutable. Although most prior work has focused on people's personal mindset beliefs, a burgeoning literature has identified that organizations also vary in the extent to which they communicate and endorse growth mindsets. Organizational growth mindsets have powerful effects on belonging and interest in joining organizations, suggesting that they may be a productive way to intervene to improve individual and societal outcomes. Yet, little is known about for whom organizational mindset interventions might be more or less effective, a critical question for effective implementation and theory. We examine whether people's personal mindset beliefs might determine the effect of organizational growth mindsets, and if so, whether this moderation reflects a matching or mismatching pattern. Three experiments manipulated the espoused mindset of an organization and found that organizational growth mindsets primarily increased belonging and interest in joining among participants who personally endorsed matching growth mindset beliefs. An additional field study provided ecological validity to these findings, replicating them with students' experiences of belonging in classrooms. This study also revealed a divergent mismatching pattern on grades: rather than bolstering the grades of students with growth mindsets, growth mindset classroom contexts primarily enhanced the grades of students with more fixed mindsets. By clarifying for whom organizational growth mindsets are beneficial and in what manner, the current work provides theoretical and practical insight into the psychological dynamics of organizational growth mindsets. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

This study investigated whether political endorsements from in- versus out-group political elites would influence likelihood of COVID-19 vaccination. In March 2021, we ran an experiment with Democrats and Republicans in the United States to examine whether they would be more likely to get vaccinated following endorsements by former Presidents Obama or Trump. Participants reported greater likelihood of getting vaccinated if the vaccine was endorsed by an elite from their own rather than the opposing party. This effect was driven by Trump, who increased vaccination likelihood among Republicans but decreased it among Democrats. We also investigated the mechanisms underlying this persuasion effect and found that perceived bias and liking were plausible mediators, whereas perceived trustworthiness and expertise were not. This study highlights the potential of having endorsements from both Democrat and Republican political elites to increase support for health behaviors in a politically charged climate.

Understanding when people are likely to feel ambivalent is important, as ambivalence is associated with key attitude outcomes, such as attitude-behavior consistency. Interestingly, the presence of conflicting positive and negative reactions (objective ambivalence) is weakly related to feeling conflicted (subjective ambivalence). We tested a novel situation that can influence the correspondence between objective and subjective ambivalence: whether a message and a recipient's topic match in affective versus cognitive orientation. When a person encounters a message with an affective or cognitive match to the topic, conflicting reactions may be more accessible, increasing feelings of ambivalence. Across five studies, greater objective-subjective ambivalence correspondence occurred with an affective-cognitive match between message and topic orientation. Studies 4 and 5 also demonstrated that this primarily occurred when the message was counterattitudinal. This work contributes to the literature explaining the gap between measures of objective and subjective ambivalence as well as how messages can influence attitude strength properties.

Many mainstream organizations celebrate and emphasize their historical successes. In their history, however, they often marginalized racial minorities, women, and other underrepresented groups. We suggest that when organizations celebrate their histories, even without mentioning historical marginalization, they can undermine belonging and intentions to participate in the organization among historically marginalized groups. Three experiments (N’s = 198, 651, 811) demonstrate that Black participants who were exposed to an organization that celebrated their history versus the present showed reduced belonging and intentions to participate in the organization. These effects were mediated by expectations of biased treatment from coworkers in the organization. However, this negative effect of celebrating history no longer occurred when it was clear that the organization had a history of diversity and inclusion. Taken together, these findings suggest that emphasizing organizational history is a source of social identity threat among marginalized groups.

COVID-19 mitigation strategies have largely relied on persuading populations to adopt behavioural changes, so it is critical to understand how such persuasive efforts can be made more effective. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) of persuasion allows for the integration of a variety of seemingly disparate effects into one overarching framework. This allows for prediction of which effects are more likely to lead to subsequent behaviour change than others and for generation of novel predictions. We review several recent investigations into persuasive effects of variables related to the source of a persuasive message, features of the message itself, the recipient, and interactive effects between variables across these categories. Each investigation is situated within the ELM framework, and future directions derived from the ELM perspective are discussed. Finally, the implications of each piece of research for COVID-19 persuasive messaging are unpacked and evidence-based recommendations are made.

The current research examined how people infer whether novel sources are biased based on their ability to justify their position. Across nine studies, when sources provided weak versus strong arguments, message recipients perceived the source as more biased. This effect held controlling for other possible inferences, such as lack of expertise or untrustworthiness. This research also examined whether perceived source bias on one message can carry over to ambiguously related future persuasive messages. Studies 6 to 8 demonstrated that perceivers use both the perceived bias from an initial message and the argument quality of the second message to determine a source's bias on the new topic. Finally, perceived bias carried over from an initial message can influence persuasion on a second topic (Study 9). Ultimately, the present work provides insight into factors that affect perceived bias and the dynamic consequences of those perceptions.

Anecdotally, attributions that others are biased pervade many domains. Yet, research examining the effects of perceptions of bias is sparse, possibly due to some prior researchers conflating bias with untrustworthiness. We sought to demonstrate that perceptions of bias and untrustworthiness are separable and have independent effects. The current work examines these differences in the persuasion domain, but this distinction has implications for other domains as well. Two experiments clarify the conceptual distinction between bias (skewed perception) and untrustworthiness (dishonesty) and three studies demonstrate that source bias can have a negative effect on persuasion and source credibility beyond any parallel effects of untrustworthiness, lack of expertise, and dislikability. The current work suggests that bias is an independent, but understudied source characteristic.

Individuals reliably feel more attracted to those with whom they share similar attitudes. However, this affective liking does not always predict affiliative behavior, such as pursuing a friendship. The present research examined factors that influence the extent to which similarity-based affective attraction increases willingness to affiliate (i.e., behavioral attraction) - one potential step toward engaging in affiliative behavior. Research on attitude strength has identified attitude properties, such as confidence, that predict when an attitude is likely to impact relevant outcomes. We propose that when one's attitudes possess these attitude strength-related properties, affective attraction to those who share that attitude will be more likely to spark willingness to affiliate. Across four studies on a variety of topics, participants (N= 428) reported their attitudes and various attitude properties regarding a topic. They were introduced to a target and learned the target's stance on the issue. Participants reported their affective attraction and willingness to pursue friendship with the target. Consistent with past research, attitude similarity predicted affective attraction. More importantly, the relation between affective attraction and willingness to affiliate with the target was moderated by the attitude strength-related properties. A mini meta-analysis found this effect to be consistent across the four studies.

Previous research on persuasion has used researcher-generated exemplars to manipulate source characteristics such as likeability, trustworthiness, expertise, or power. This approach has been fruitful, but it relies to some degree on an overlap between researcher understanding of these variables and lay understanding of these variables. Additionally, these exemplar manipulations may have unintentionally affected multiple characteristics and may be limited to certain topics or time periods. In the current work, we sought to provide persuasion researchers with a methodological tool to increase construct and potentially external validity by conducting a prototype analysis of the four traditional source characteristics: likeability, trustworthiness, expertise, and power. This bottom-up approach provided insight into the ways in which recipients perceive sources and allowed us to examine relations between the characteristics. Moving forward, a bottom-up understanding of source characteristics will allow researchers to more effectively develop manipulations that might transcend time and topic as well as isolate their effects to the intended source characteristic.

Consumer research has examined whether perceptions of ulterior motives behind marketing result in greater consumer skepticism and reduced persuasion. Yet skepticism could stem from perceiving a message source as untrustworthy or as biased. The possibility of source bias has been relatively overlooked or conflated with untrustworthiness. Yet recent research has demonstrated that consumers perceive source bias and untrustworthiness differently. Sources are viewed as biased when they have a skewed perception but as untrustworthy when they are dishonest. Bias and untrustworthiness can serve as independent reasons to view a source as lacking credibility and thus can undermine persuasiveness. However, when sources switch positions, perceived bias and untrustworthiness can have different influences on surprise and different downstream consequences for the persuasiveness of the new message. Unique and common antecedents of bias versus untrustworthiness are discussed, as well as implications for consumer research.

Previous work has reliably demonstrated that when people experience more subjective ambivalence about an attitude object, their attitudes have less impact on strength-related outcomes such as attitude-related thinking, judging, or behaving. However, previous research has not considered whether the amount of perceived knowledge a person has about the topic might moderate these effects. Across eight studies on different topics using a variety of outcome measures, the current research demonstrates that perceived knowledge can moderate the relation between ambivalence and the impact of attitudes on related thinking, judging, and behaving. Although the typical Attitude × Ambivalence effect emerged when participants had relatively high perceived knowledge, this interaction did not emerge when participants were lower in perceived knowledge. This work provides a more nuanced view of the effects of subjective ambivalence on attitude impact and highlights the importance of understanding the combined impact of attitude strength antecedents.

Research and theory has suggested that moral conviction is distinct from other attitude strength antecedents. Yet, many attitude features conceptually overlap with features considered definitional to moral conviction. In order to place moral conviction within the broader landscape of attitude properties, we examined the factor analytic structure of a set of attitude strength antecedents that seemed conceptually related to moral basis. Participants reported attitudes toward the topic of GMOs (Study 1) or toward a topic they identified as important to them (Studies 2–6) and various subjective properties of their attitudes. We also examined the ability of each attitude feature to predict advocacy intentions (Studies 3–6). In Studies 1–3, exploratory factor analyses revealed that the various strength antecedents reflected a two-factor structure that differentiated properties relating to an attitude's embeddedness in one's core values from properties reflecting a consistency or entrenchment in an attitude. In Studies 4–6, confirmatory factor analyses determined that, in addition to the over-arching two-factor structure, including “minor factors” reflecting each attitude property further improved model fit. We therefore propose a hybrid model, wherein the various attitude properties form an over-arching two-factor structure in which each major factor includes additional “minor” constructs. Across studies, moral basis loaded highly on an embeddedness factor along with values basis (all studies), importance (Studies 4–6), affective and cognitive meta-bases (Studies 5–6), centrality, and extremity (Study 6). The consistency factor was composed of subjective ambivalence (all studies), correctness, clarity (Studies 1–4), attitude-relevant knowledge (Studies 4–6), and certainty (Studies 5–6). Embeddedness and consistency (as latent variables) each independently predicted advocacy intentions. These findings provide insight into how moral basis relates to a broad set of attitude features and has implications for how future work might define moral conviction.

Self-reported religious service attendance has been linked with longevity. However, previous work has largely relied on self-report data and volunteer samples. Here, mention of a religious affiliation in obituaries was analyzed as an alternative measure of religiosity. In two samples (N = 505 from Des Moines, IA, and N = 1,096 from 42 U.S. cities), the religiously affiliated lived 9.45 and 5.64 years longer, respectively, than the nonreligiously affiliated. Additionally, social integration and volunteerism partially mediated the religion–longevity relation. In Study 2, exploratory analyses suggested that the religion–longevity association was moderated by city-level religiosity and city-level personality. In cities with low levels of trait openness, the nonreligiously affiliated had reduced longevity in highly religious cities relative to less religious cities, consistent with the religion-as-social-value hypothesis. Conversely, in cities with high levels of openness, the opposite trend was observed, suggesting a spillover effect of religion. The religiously affiliated were less influenced by these cultural factors.