When trying to predict the behavior of a single individual, the most useful information will be:

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.

Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1991;50:179–211. [Google Scholar]

Ajzen I. The directive influence of attitudes on behavior. In: Gollwitzer PM, Bargh JA, editors. The psychology of action: Linking motivation and cognition to behavior. New York: Guilford Press; 1996. pp. 385–403. [Google Scholar]

Ajzen I. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology. 2000;52:27–58. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

* Ajzen I, Fishbein M. The prediction of behavior from attitudinal and normative variables. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1970;6:466–487. [Google Scholar]

* Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Factors influencing intentions and the intention-behavior relation. Human Relations. 1974;27:1–15. [Google Scholar]

Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Attitude–behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin. 1977;84:888–918. [Google Scholar]

Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1980. [Google Scholar]

Ajzen I, Fishbein M. The influence of attitudes on behavior. In: Albarracín D, Johnson BT, Zanna MP, editors. Handbook of attitudes and attitude change. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 2005. pp. 173–221. [Google Scholar]

Ajzen I, Madden TJ. Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1986;22:453–474. [Google Scholar]

Ajzen I, Sexton J. Depth of processing, belief congruence, and attitude-behavior correspondence. In: Chaiken S, Trope Y, editors. Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press; 1999. pp. 117–138. [Google Scholar]

Albarracín D. Cognition in persuasion: An analysis of information processing in response to persuasive communications. In: Zanna MP, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 34. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2002. pp. 61–130. [Google Scholar]

Albarracín D, Johnson BT, Fishbein M, Muellerleile P. Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 2001;127:142–161. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

* Albarracín D, Kumkale GT. Affect as information in persuasion: A model of affect identification and discounting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003;84:453–469. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

* Albarracín D, McNatt PS. Attitude change maintenance and decay: The longitudinal influence of advocacy-inconsistent knowledge. 2002 Unpublished manuscript. [Google Scholar]

Albarracín D, McNatt PS, Findley-Klein C, Ho R, Mitchell A, Kumkale GT. Persuasive communications to change actions: An analysis of behavioral and cognitive impact in HIV prevention. Health Psychology. 2003;22:166–177. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Albarracín D, Wallace HM, Glasman LR. Survival and change of attitudes and other social judgments: A model of judgment activation and comparison. In: Zanna MP, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 36. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2004. pp. 251–315. [Google Scholar]

* Albarracín D, Wyer RS., Jr The cognitive impact of past behavior: Influences of beliefs, attitudes, and future behavioral decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2000;79:5–22. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

* Albarracín D, Wyer RS., Jr Elaborative and nonelaborative processing of a behavior-related communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2001;27:691–705. [Google Scholar]

* Alleman TL. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ohio University; 1998. Accountability as a moderator of the disruptive effect of analyzing reasons. [Google Scholar]

Allport GW, Postman LJ. The psychology of rumor. New York: Holt; 1947. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Armitage CJ, Conner M. Attitudinal ambivalence: A test of three key hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2000;26:1421–1432. [Google Scholar]

Armitage CJ, Conner M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2001;40:471–499. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Armitage CJ, Conner M. Reducing fat intake: Interventions based on the theory of planned behaviour. In: Rutter D, Quine L, editors. Changing health behaviour: Intervention and research with social cognition models. Buckingham, England: Open University Press; 2002. pp. 87–104. [Google Scholar]

Bagozzi RP. Attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A test of some key hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1981;41:607–627. [Google Scholar]

Bargh JA, Chen M, Burrows L. Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype priming on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996;71:230–244. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Bassili JN. Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: The case of measures of attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996;71:637–653. [Google Scholar]

Bem DJ. Self-perception theory. In: Berkowitz L, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 6. New York: Academic Press; 1972. pp. 1–62. [Google Scholar]

Bentler PM, Speckart G. Attitudes “cause” behaviors: A structural equation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1981;40:226–238. [Google Scholar]

Bentler PM, Wu EJC. EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software; 1995. [Google Scholar]

* Berger IE. The nature of attitude accessibility and attitude confidence: A triangulated experiment. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 1992;1:103–123. [Google Scholar]

* Berger IE. The influence of advertising frequency on attitude-behavior consistency: A memory based analysis. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality. 1999;14:547–568. [Google Scholar]

* Berger IE, Mitchell AA. The effect of advertising repetition on attitude accessibility, attitude confidence/certainty and the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Consumer Research. 1989;16:269–279. [Google Scholar]

Berning CA, Jacoby J. Patterns of information acquisition in new product purchases. Journal of Consumer Research. 1974;1:18–22. [Google Scholar]

Blessum KA, Lord CG, Sia TL. Cognitive load and positive mood reduce the typicality effects in the attitude-behavior consistency. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1998;24:496–504. [Google Scholar]

Borgida E, Campbell B. Belief relevance and attitude–behavior consistency: The moderating role of personal experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1982;42:239–247. [Google Scholar]

Cacioppo JT, Petty RE. The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1982;42:116–131. [Google Scholar]

Cacioppo JT, Petty RE, Kao C, Rodriguez R. Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1986;51:1032–1043. [Google Scholar]

Chaiken S. Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1979;37:1387–1397. [Google Scholar]

* Cohen GL. Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003;85:808–822. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press; 1977. rev. ed. [Google Scholar]

Conner M, Povey R, Sparks P, James R, Shepherd R. Moderating role of attitudinal ambivalence within the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2003;42:75–94. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Conner M, Sparks P, Povey R, James R, Shepherd R, Armitage CJ. Moderator effects of attitudinal ambivalence on attitude-behaviour relationships. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2002;32:705–718. [Google Scholar]

Cooke R, Sheeran P. Moderation of cognition-intention and cognition-behaviour relations: A meta-analysis of properties of variables from the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2004;43:159–186. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cooper H. Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998. [Google Scholar]

Davidson AR, Jaccard JJ. Variables that moderate the attitude–behavior relation: Results of a longitudinal survey. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1979;37:1364–1376. [Google Scholar]

* Doll J, Ajzen I. Accessibility and stability of predictors in the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1992;63:754–765. [Google Scholar]

* Doll J, Mallü R. Individuierte Einstellungsformation, Einstellungsstruktur und Einstellungs-Verhaltens-Konsistenz [Individuated attitude formation, attitude structure, and attitude–behavior consistency] Zeitschrift fuer Sozialpsychologie. 1990;21:2–14. [Google Scholar]

Eagly AH, Chaiken S. The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; 1993. [Google Scholar]

Echabe AE, Rovira DP, Garate JFV. Testing Ajzen and Fishbein’s attitudes model: The prediction of voting. European Journal of Social Psychology. 1988;18:181–189. [Google Scholar]

Eckes T, Six B. Fact and fiction in research on the relationship between attitude and behavior: A meta-analysis. Zeitschrift fuer Sozialpsychologie. 1994;25:253–271. [Google Scholar]

Erber MW, Hodges SD, Wilson TD. Attitude strength and attitude stability. In: Petty R, Krosnick J, editors. Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1995. pp. 433–454. [Google Scholar]

Farley JU, Lehmann DR, Ryan MJ. Generalizing from “imperfect” replication. Journal of Business. 1981;54:597–610. [Google Scholar]

Fazio RH. On the power and functionality of attitudes: The role of attitude accessibility. In: Pratkanis AR, Breckler SJ, Greenwald AG, editors. Attitude structure and function. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1989. pp. 153–179. [Google Scholar]

Fazio RH. Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. In: Zanna MP, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 23. New York: Academic Press; 1990. pp. 75–109. [Google Scholar]

* Fazio RH, Chen J, McDonel EC, Sherman SJ. Attitude accessibility, attitude-behavior consistency, and the strength of the object evaluation association. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1982;18:339–357. [Google Scholar]

Fazio RH, Powell MC, Herr PM. Toward a process model of the attitude–behavior relation: Accessing one’s attitude upon mere observation of the attitude object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1983;44:723–735. [Google Scholar]

Fazio RH, Powell MC, Williams CJ. The role of attitude accessibility in the attitude-to-behavior process. Journal of Consumer Research. 1989;16:280–288. [Google Scholar]

Fazio RH, Towles-Schwen T. The MODE model of attitude-behavior processes. In: Chaiken S, Trope Y, editors. Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press; 1999. pp. 97–116. [Google Scholar]

Fazio RH, Williams CJ. Attitude accessibility as a moderator of the attitude–perception and attitude–behavior relations: An investigation of the 1984 presidential election. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1986;51:505–514. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Fazio RH, Zanna MP. Attitudinal qualities relating to the strength of the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1978a;14:398–408. [Google Scholar]

* Fazio RH, Zanna MP. On the predictive validity of attitudes: The roles of direct experience and confidence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1978b;46:228–243. [Google Scholar]

* Fazio RH, Zanna MP, Cooper J. Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency: An information processing analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1978;4:48–51. [Google Scholar]

Glasman LR, Albarracín D. Models of health related behavior: A study of condom use in two cities of Argentina. AIDS and Behavior. 2003;7:783–793. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ha YW, Hoch SJ. Ambiguity, processing strategy, and advertising-evidence interactions. Journal of Consumer Research. 1989;16:354–360. [Google Scholar]

Hausenblas HA, Carron AV, Mack DE. Application of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior to exercise behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. 1997;19:36–51. [Google Scholar]

Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press; 1985. [Google Scholar]

Hedges LV, Vevea JL. Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods. 1998;3:486–504. [Google Scholar]

Hoch SJ, Ha YW. Consumer learning: Advertising and the ambiguity of the product experience. Journal of Consumer Research. 1986;13:221–233. [Google Scholar]

Holbrook AL, Berent MK, Krosnick JA, Visser PS, Boninger DS. Attitude importance and the accumulation of attitude-relevant knowledge in memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005;88:749–769. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Houston DA, Fazio RH. Biased processing as a function of attitude accessibility: Making objective judgments subjectively. Social Cognition. 1989;7:51–66. [Google Scholar]

Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. Fixed effects vs. random effects meta-analysis models: Implications for cumulative research knowledge. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 2000;8:275–292. [Google Scholar]

Jaccard J, Blanton H. The origins and structure of behavior: Conceptualizing behavioral criteria in attitude research. In: Albarracín D, Johnson BT, Zanna MP, editors. Handbook of attitudes and attitude change. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 2005. pp. 125–172. [Google Scholar]

Jaccard J, King GW, Pomazal R. Attitudes and behavior: An analysis of specificity of attitudinal predictors. Human Relations. 1977;30:817–824. [Google Scholar]

Johnson BT, Eagly AH. Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 1989;106:290–314. [Google Scholar]

* Johnson RW, McArthur A, Wright EF. Timing of reason analysis and attitude–behavior consistency. Psychological Reports. 1991;69:603–608. [Google Scholar]

Jonas K, Broemer P, Diehl M. Experienced ambivalence as a moderator of the consistency between attitudes and behaviors. Zeitschrift fuer Sozialpsychologie. 2000;31:153–165. [Google Scholar]

Jonas K, Diehl M, Broemer P. Effects of attitudinal ambivalence on information processing and attitude-intention consistency. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1997;33:190–210. [Google Scholar]

Kim M, Hunter JE. Attitude-behavior relations: A meta-analysis of attitudinal relevance and topic. Journal of Communication. 1993;43:101–142. [Google Scholar]

Kokkinaki F, Lundt P. The relationship between involvement, attitude accessibility and attitude-behaviour consistency. British Journal of Social Psychology. 1997;36:497–509. [Google Scholar]

Kraus SJ. Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1995;21:58–75. [Google Scholar]

Krishnan HS, Smith RE. The relative endurance of attitudes, confidence and attitude-behavior consistency: The role of information source and delay. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 1998;7:273–298. [Google Scholar]

Kumkale GT, Albarracín D. The sleeper effect in persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 2004;130:143–172. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Lavine H, Thomsen CJ, Zanna MP, Borgida E. On the primacy of affect in the determination of attitudes and behavior: The moderating role of affective-cognitive ambivalence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1998;34:398–421. [Google Scholar]

* Leippe MR, Elkin RA. When motives clash: Issue involvement and response involvement as determinants of persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1987;52:269–278. [Google Scholar]

Lingle JH, Ostrom TM. Principles of memory and cognition in attitude formation. In: Petty RE, Ostrom TM, Brock TC, editors. Cognitive responses in persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1981. pp. 399–420. [Google Scholar]

Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2001. [Google Scholar]

Lutz RJ. An experimental investigation of causal relations among cognitions, affect, and behavioral intention. Journal of Consumer Research. 1977;3:197–208. [Google Scholar]

Lynn M, McCall M. Gratitude and gratuity: A meta-analysis of research on the service-tipping relationship. Journal of Socio Economics. 2000;29:203–214. [Google Scholar]

Manfredo MJ, Yuan SM, McGuire FA. The influence of attitude accessibility on attitude-behavior relationships: Implications for recreation research. Journal of Leisure Research. 1992;24:157–170. [Google Scholar]

Marsh KL, Johnson BT, Scott-Sheldon LA. Heart versus reason in condom use: Implicit versus explicit attitudinal predictors of sexual behavior. Zeitschrift fuer Experimentelle Psychologie. 2001;48:161–175. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

* Millar MG, Millar KU. The effects of direct and indirect experience on affective and cognitive responses and the attitude-behavior relation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1996;32:561–579. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

* Millar MG, Millar KU. The effects of prior experience and thought on the attitude-behavior relation. Social Behavior & Personality. 1998;26:105–114. [Google Scholar]

* Millar MG, Tesser A. Effects of affective and cognitive focus on the attitude–behavior relation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1986;51:270–276. [Google Scholar]

* Millar MG, Tesser A. The effects of affective-cognitive consistency and thought on the attitude-behavior relation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1989;25:189–202. [Google Scholar]

Millar MG, Tesser A. The role of beliefs and feelings in guiding behavior: The mismatch model. In: Martin L, Tesser A, editors. Construction of social judgment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1992. pp. 277–300. [Google Scholar]

Miniard PW, Cohen JB. Modeling personal and normative influences on behavior. Journal of Consumer Research. 1983;10:169–180. [Google Scholar]

Norman P, Smith L. The theory of planned behaviour and exercise: An investigation into the role of prior behaviour, behavioural intentions and attitude variability. European Journal of Social Psychology. 1995;25:403–415. [Google Scholar]

Norman R. Affective–cognitive consistency, attitudes, conformity, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1975;32:83–91. [Google Scholar]

Notani AS. Moderators of perceived behavioral control’s predictiveness in the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 1998;7:247–271. [Google Scholar]

Pelham BW. On confidence and consequence: The certainty and importance of self-knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1991;60:518–530. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Berkowitz L, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 19. New York: Academic Press; 1986. pp. 123–205. [Google Scholar]

Petty RE, Haugtvedt CP, Smith SM. Elaboration as a determinant of attitude strength: Creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant, and predictive of behavior. In: Petty RE, Krosnick JA, editors. Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1995. pp. 93–130. [Google Scholar]

Powell MC, Fazio RH. Attitude accessibility as a function of repeated attitudinal expression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1984;10:139–148. [Google Scholar]

Prislin R, Wood W, Pool GJ. Structural consistency and the deduction of novel from existing attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1998;34:66–89. [Google Scholar]

Reed A, II, Wooten DB, Bolton LE. The temporary construction of consumer attitudes. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2002;12:375–388. [Google Scholar]

* Regan DT, Fazio RH. On the consistency of attitudes and behavior: Look to the method of attitude formation. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology. 1977;13:28–45. [Google Scholar]

Rosenberg MJ. Cognitive reorganization in response to the hypnotic reversal of attitudinal affect. Journal of Personality. 1960;28:39–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Rosenberg MJ. Hedonism, inauthenticity, and other goads toward expansion of a consistency theory. In: Abelson RP, Aronson E, McGuire WJ, Rosenberg MJ, Tannenbaum PH, editors. Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook. Chicago: Rand Mc-Nally; 1968. pp. 73–111. [Google Scholar]

Ryan MJ, Bonfield EH. The Fishbein extended model and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research. 1975;2:118–136. [Google Scholar]

Schlenker BR. Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterrey, CA: Brooks/Cole; 1980. [Google Scholar]

Schwartz SH. Temporal instability as a moderator of the attitude–behavior relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1978;36:715–724. [Google Scholar]

Schwarz N, Bohner G. The construction of attitudes. In: Tesser A, Schwarz N, editors. Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intrapersonal processes. Vol. 1. Oxford, England: Blackwell; 2001. pp. 436–457. [Google Scholar]

* Sengupta J, Fitzsimons GJ. The effects of analyzing reasons for brand preferences: Disruption or reinforcement? Journal of Marketing Research. 2000;37:318–330. [Google Scholar]

Sengupta J, Johar GV. Effects of inconsistent attribute information on the predictive value of product attitudes: Toward a resolution of opposing perspectives. Journal of Consumer Research. 2002;29:39–56. [Google Scholar]

Shadish WR. Meta-analysis and the exploration of causal mediating processes: A primer of examples, methods, and issues. Psychological Methods. 1996;1:47–65. [Google Scholar]

Sheeran P, Abraham C, Orbell S. Psychosocial correlates of heterosexual condom use: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 1999;125:90–132. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Sheppard BH, Hartwick J, Warshaw PR. The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research. 1988;15:325–343. [Google Scholar]

* Sivacek J, Crano WD. Vested interest as a moderator of attitude–behavior consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1982;43:210–221. [Google Scholar]

Smith JR, Terry DJ. Attitude-behaviour consistency: The role of group norms, attitude accessibility, and mode of behavioural decision-making. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2003;33:591–608. [Google Scholar]

Sobel ME. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In: Leinhardt S, editor. Sociological methodology. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association; 1982. pp. 290–312. [Google Scholar]

Songer-Nocks E. Situational factors affecting the weighting of predictor components in the Fishbein model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1976;12:56–69. [Google Scholar]

Tesser A, Cowan CL. Some attitudinal and cognitive consequences of thought. Journal of Research in Personality. 1977;11:216–226. [Google Scholar]

Tormala ZL, Petty RE. What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger: The effects of resisting persuasion on attitude certainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2002;83:1298–1313. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Turner JC, Garrison CZ, Korpita E, Waller J, Addy C, Hill WR, et al. Promoting responsible sexual behavior through a college freshman seminar. AIDS Education and Prevention. 1994;6:266–277. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Van den Putte B. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Amsterdam; Amsterdam: 1993. On the theory of reasoned action. [Google Scholar]

Visser PS, Mirabile RR. Attitudes in the social context: The impact of social network composition on individual-level attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2004;8:779–795. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Wallace DS, Paulson RM, Lord CG, Bond CF., Jr Which behaviors do attitudes predict? Meta-analyzing the effects of social pressure and perceived difficulty. Review of General Psychology. 2005;9:214–227. [Google Scholar]

* Wallace HM. Attitude change as a function of activation and comparison. 2003 Unpublished raw data. [Google Scholar]

White KM, Hogg MA, Terry DJ. Improving attitude-behavior correspondence through exposure to normative support from a salient ingroup. Basic & Applied Social Psychology. 2002;24:91–103. [Google Scholar]

Whitley BE, Jr, Nelson AB, Jones CJ. Gender differences in cheating attitudes and classroom cheating behavior: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles. 1999;41:657–680. [Google Scholar]

Wicker AW. Attitude versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues. 1969;25:41–78. [Google Scholar]

* Wilson TD, Dunn DS. Effects of introspection on attitude-behavior consistency: Analyzing reasons versus focusing on feelings. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1986;22:249–263. [Google Scholar]

* Wilson TD, Dunn DS, Bybee JA, Hyman DB, Rotondo JA. Effects of analyzing reason on attitude–behavior consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1984;47:5–16. [Google Scholar]

Wilson TD, Hodges SD. Attitudes as temporary constructions. In: Martin LL, Tesser A, editors. The construction of social judgments. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1992. pp. 37–65. [Google Scholar]

* Wilson TD, Lisle DJ, Schooler JW, Hodges SD, Klaaren KJ, LaFleur SJ. Introspecting about reasons can reduce post-choice satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1993;19:331–339. [Google Scholar]

Wilson TD, Schooler JW. Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1991;60:181–192. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Wooten DB, Reed A., II Informational influence and the ambiguity of product experience: Order effects on the weighting of evidence. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 1998;7:79–99. [Google Scholar]

Wyer RS, Srull TK. Memory and cognition in its social context. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1989. [Google Scholar]

Zanna MP, Olson JM, Fazio RH. Self-perception and attitude-behavior consistency. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1981;7:252–256. [Google Scholar]

Page 2

Description of Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis

Description of reports, experiments, and conditions	N	rattitude–behavior	Response latency	Attitude changea	Amount of thought	No. attitude reports or expressions	Direct experience	Behavioral relevance of attitudes	Information one-sidedness	Attitude confidence	Time between the attitude and behavior measuresc
Motivation	Ability
Outcome relevance	Value relevance	Need for cognition	Concentration	Information repetition	Measure of the attitude toward behavior or target	Correlation between weighted behavioral beliefs and attitudeb	Public–private correspondence	Hedonic–instrumental correspondence	Presentation of one- or two-sided information	Absence of two-sided questions about nonspontaneous thoughts
Ajzen & Fisbein (1970)
Direct experience	96	.67			H	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	B		L	M	Two	Yes		0.00

Ajzen & Fisbein (1974)
Direct experience	144	.09			H	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		L	M	Two	Yes		0.00

Albarracín & Kumkale (2003)
Experiment 1: Propolicy arguments (collapsed across argument strength) and affect induction (collapsed across positive and negative) with varying levels of concentration and outcome relevance
1. High outcome relevance and concentration	41	.72			H	H	Mx	H	No	1	No	T	.66	H	M	One	Yes		0.01
2. Low outcome relevance and high concentration	41	.57			L	H	Mx	H	No	1	No	T	.56	H	M	One	Yes		0.01
3. High outcome relevance and low concentration	43	.67			H	H	Mx	L	No	1	No	T	.34	H	M	One	Yes		0.01
4. Low outcome relevance and low concentration	37	.55			L	H	Mx	L	No	1	No	T	.44	H	M	One	Yes		0.01
Experiment 2: Antipolicy arguments (collapsed across argument strength) and affect induction (collapsed across positive and negative) with varying levels of concentration and outcome relevance
1. High outcome relevance and concentration	41	.33			H	H	Mx	H	No	1	No	T	.21	H	M	One	No		0.01
2. Low outcome relevance and high concentration	37	.32			L	H	Mx	H	No	1	No	T	.55	H	M	One	No		0.01
3. High outcome relevance and low concentration	42	.56			H	H	Mx	L	No	1	No	T	.49	H	M	One	No		0.01
4. Low outcome relevance and low concentration	41	.30			L	H	Mx	L	No	1	No	T	.19	H	M	One	No		0.01

Albarracín & McNatt (2002)
Experiment 1: Either behavior feedback or argument direction (collapsed across pro and con) at different time points with and without two-sided questionsd
1. Behavior feedback (Time 1)	48	.48	0.85	0.15	M	H	Mx	H	No	1	No	B	.34	H	M	One	Yes		14.00
2. Behavior feedback (Time 2)	48	.51	0.69	0.08	M	H	Mx	H	No	2	No	B	.38	H	M	One	Yes		7.00
3. Behavior feedback (Time 3)	48	.55	0.54		M	H	Mx	H	No	3	No	B	.35	H	M	One	Yes		0.01
4. Argument direction (Time 1)	46	.69	0.92	0.15	M	H	Mx	H	No	1	No	B	.45	H	H	One	Yes		14.00
5. Argument direction (Time 2)	46	.70	0.71	0.07	M	H	Mx	H	No	2	No	B	.44	H	H	One	Yes		7.00
6. Argument direction (Time 3)	46	.71	0.64		M	H	Mx	H	No	3	No	B	.46	H	H	One	Yes		0.01
7. Behavior feedback (Time 1)	41	.29	0.80	0.66	M	H	Mx	H	No	1	No	B	.17	H	M	One	No		14.00
8. Behavior feedback (Time 2)	41	.48	0.77	0.39	M	H	Mx	H	No	2	No	B	.37	H	M	One	No		7.00
9. Behavior feedback (Time 3)	41	.29	0.68		M	H	Mx	H	No	3	No	B	.39	H	M	One	No	.59	0.01
10. Argument direction (Time 1)	37	.62	0.66	0.14	M	H	Mx	H	No	1	No	B	.28	H	H	One	Smt		14.00
11. Argument direction (Time 2)	37	.56	0.64	0.04	M	H	Mx	H	No	2	No	B	.35	H	H	One	Smt		7.00
12. Argument direction (Time 3)	37	.78	0.62		M	H	Mx	H	No	3	No	B	.41	H	H	One	Smt	.61	0.01
Experiment 2: Argument direction (collapsed across pro and con) at two different time points
1. Time 1	74	.64	0.80	0.15	M	H	Mx	H	No	1	No	B		H	H	One	Yes		7.00
2. Time 2	74	.70	0.57		M	H	Mx	H	No	2	No	B		H	H	One	Yes		0.01

Albarracín & Wyer (2000)
Experiment 2: Behavior feedback (collapsed across pro and con) with varying levels of concentration
1. High concentration	47	.77	1.01		M	H	Mx	H	No	1	No	B	.62	H	M	One	Yes		0.01
2. Low concentration	46	.64	1.02		M	H	Mx	L	No	1	No	B	.60	H	M	One	Yes		0.01
Experiment 3: Behavior feedback (collapsed across pro and con) with varying levels of concentration
1. High concentration	32	.40	0.96		M	H	Mx	H	No	1	No	B	.30	H	M	One	Yes		0.01
2. Low concentration	32	.62	0.95		M	H	Mx	L	No	1	No	B	.64	H	M	One	Yes		0.01
Experiment 4: Behavior feedback (collapsed across pro and con) with varying levels of concentration
1. High concentration	32	.63	0.90		M	H	Mx	H	No	1	No	B	.51	L	M	One	Yes		0.01
2. Low concentration	32	.66	1.02		M	H	Mx	L	No	1	No	B	.32	L	M	One	Yes		0.01

Albarracín & Wyer (2001)
Experiment 1: Propolicy arguments (collapsed across argument strength) and affect induction (collapsed across positive and negative) with varying levels of concentration
1. High concentration	40	.65			M	H	Mx	H	No	1	No	T	.55	H	M	One	Yes		0.01
2. Low concentration	42	.67			M	H	Mx	L	No	1	No	T	.37	H	M	One	Yes		0.01
Experiment 3: Propolicy arguments (collapsed across argument strength) and affect induction (collapsed across positive and negative) with varying levels of concentration
1. High concentration	80	.66			M	H	Mx	H	No	1	No	T	.33	H	M	One	Yes		0.01
2. Low concentration	81	.55			M	H	Mx	L	No	1	No	T	.43	H	M	One	Yes		0.01

Alleman (1998; Experiment 2)
Direct experience with and without reason analysis with varying levels of accountability
1. No reason analysis (high accountability)	20	.44			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		L	M	Two	Yes	.65	0.02
2. No reason analysis (low accountability)	20	.43			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		H	M	Two	Yes	.71	0.02
3. Reason analysis (high accountability)	20	.45			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		L	L	Two	Yes	.68	0.02
4. Reason analysis (low accountability)	20	.68			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		M	L	Two	Yes	.69	0.02

Berger (1992)
Favorable information with and without repetition of information and single or repeated attitude reports or expressions
1. Favorable information (single expression, no repetition)	16	.49	2.50		H	L	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		H	M	One	Yes	.64	0.01
2. Favorable information (repeated expression, repetition)	16	.62	2.15		H	L	Mx	H	Yes	3	No	T		H	M	One	Yes	.72	0.01
1. Favorable information (single expression, repetition)	16	.65	2.39		H	L	Mx	H	No	3	No	T		H	M	One	Yes	.71	0.01
2. Favorable information (repeated expression, no repetition)	16	.54	2.12		H	L	Mx	H	Yes	1	No	T		H	M	One	Yes	.68	0.01

Berger (1999)
Favorable information (collapsed across information amount) with or without repetition of information
1. Favorable information (repetition)	30	.73			H	L	Mx	H	Yes	1	No	T		H	M	One	Yes	.68	0.01
2. Favorable information (no repetition)	30	.51			H	L	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		H	M	One	Yes	.63	0.01

Berger & Mitchell (1989)
Direct experience or favorable information with or without repetition of information
1. Direct experience	25	.78	2.61		H	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		H	M	Two	Yes	.73	0.01
2. Favorable information (no repetition)	25	.48	3.10		H	L	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		H	M	One	Yes	.63	0.01
3. Favorable information (repetition)	54	.69	2.60		H	L	Mx	H	Yes	1	No	T		H	M	One	Yes	.68	0.01

G. L. Cohen (2003)
Information congruent with participants political affiliation with or without a dissimilar source
1. No source	25	.74			H	H	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		L	H	One	Yes		0.00
2. Dissimilar source	24	.81			H	H	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		L	H	Two	Yes		0.00

Doll & Ajzen (1992)
Direct or indirect experience with fun or skill orientation
1. Direct experience (fun orientation)	20	.67	5.09e		L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	B		H	M	Two	Yes		0.00
2. Direct experience (skill orientation)	18	.49	5.44e		L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	B		L	M	Two	Yes		0.00
3. Indirect experience (skill orientation)	19	.27	6.02e		L	L	Mx	H	No	1	No	B		L	M	Two	Yes		0.00
4. Indirect experience (fun orientation)	18	.47	5.67e		L	L	Mx	H	No	1	No	B		H	M	Two	Yes		0.00

Doll & Mallü (1990)
Direct or indirect experience
1. Direct experience	20	.80			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		H	M	Two	Yes		0.00
2. Indirect experience	20	.58			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		H	M	Two	Yes		0.00

Fazio et al. (1982; Experiment 4)
Indirect experience with single or repeated attitude reports or expressions
1. Single expression or report	39	.30			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		H	M	Two	Yes		0.00
2. Repeated expressions or reports	40	.48			L	L	Mx	H	No	3	No	T		H	M	Two	Yes		0.00

Fazio & Zanna (1978b)
Experiment 1: Direct or indirect experience
1. Direct experience	15	.52			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		H	M	Two	Yes	.72	0.00
2. Indirect experience	15	.26			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		H	M	Two	Yes	.64	0.00
Experiment 2: Direct or indirect experience with varying levels of confidence
1. Direct experience (high confidence)	21	.68			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		H	M	Two	Yes	.61	0.00
2. Direct experience (low confidence)	11	.49			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		H	M	Two	Yes	.38	0.00
3. Indirect experience (high confidence)	10	.51			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		H	M	Two	Yes	.61	0.00
4. Indirect experience (low confidence)	22	.37			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		H	M	Two	Yes	.38	0.00

Fazio et al. (1978)
Direct or indirect experience
1. Direct experience	15	.70			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		H	M	Two	Yes		0.00
2. Indirect experience	15	.54			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		H	M	Two	Yes		0.00

R. W. Johnson et al. (1991)
Direct experience or reason analysis during or after direct experience
1. Direct experience (reason analysis during experience)	27	.06			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		M	L	Two	Yes		0.02
2. Direct experience (reason analysis after experience)	27	.46			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		M	M	Two	Yes		0.07
3. Direct experience (no reason analysis)	27	.35			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		H	M	Two	Yes		0.02

Leippe & Elkin (1987)
Propolicy arguments (collapsed across argument strength) with varying levels of issue and response involvement
1. High issue and response involvement	28	.08			H	H	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		L	H	One	Yes		0.00
2. Low issue and high response involvement	28	−.20			L	H	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		L	H	One	Yes		0.00
3. High issue and low response involvement	28	.74			H	H	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		H	H	One	Yes		0.00
4. Low issue and response involvement	28	.01			L	H	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		H	H	One	Yes		0.00

Millar & Millar (1996)
Experiment 3: Direct or indirect experience (collapsed across instrumental or hedonic behavior)
1. Direct experience	20	.47			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		H	M	Two	Yes		0.00
2. Indirect experience	20	.13			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		H	M	Two	Yes		0.00
Experiment 4: Direct or indirect experience (collapsed across instrumental or hedonic behavior)
1. Direct experience	39	.38	3.20		L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		H	M	Two	Yes		0.00
2. Indirect experience	39	.31	2.75		L	L	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		H	M	Two	Yes		0.00

Millar & Millar (1998)
Direct experience and cognitive focus with hedonic or instrumental behavior and varying levels of practice with the object
1. Hedonic behavior (low practice)	15	−.24			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		M	L	Two	Yes		0.00
2. Hedonic behavior (high practice)	15	.33			L	L	Mx	H	Yes	1	Yes	T		M	L	Two	Yes		0.00
3. Instrumental behavior (low practice)	15	.35			H	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		M	H	Two	Yes		0.00
4. Instrumental behavior (high practice)	15	.36			H	L	Mx	H	Yes	1	Yes	T		M	H	Two	Yes		0.00

Millar & Tesser (1986)
Direct experience and cognitive or affective focus with hedonic or instrumental behavior
1. Cognitive focus (hedonic behavior)	17	.01			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		M	L	Two	Yes		0.00
2. Affective focus (hedonic behavior)	17	.34			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		H	H	Two	Yes		0.00
3. Cognitive focus (instrumental behavior)	17	.42			H	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		M	H	Two	Yes		0.00
4. Affective focus (instrumental behavior)	17	.18			H	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		H	L	Two	Yes		0.00

Millar & Tesser (1989)
Direct experience with cognitive or affective focus with hedonic or instrumental behavior
1. Affect focus (hedonic behavior)	20	.44			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		H	H	Two	Yes		0.00
2. Affect focus (instrumental behavior)	20	.13			H	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		H	L	Two	Yes		0.00
3. Cognitive focus (instrumental behavior)	20	.48			H	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		M	H	Two	Yes		0.00
4. Cognitive focus (hedonic behavior)	20	.32			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		M	L	Two	Yes		0.00

Regan & Fazio (1977)
Experiment 1: Direct or indirect experience
1. Direct experience	58	.42			H	H	Mx	H	Yes	1	Yes	T		H	M	Two	Yes		0.00
2. Indirect experience	62	.04			L	H	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		H	M	Two	Yes		0.00
Experiment 2: Direct or indirect experience
1. Direct experience	14	.54			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		H	M	Two	Yes		0.00
2. Indirect experience	14	.20			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		H	M	Two	Yes		0.00

Sengupta & Fitzsimons (2000)
Experiment 1: Favorable information or reason analysis after favorable information with immediate or delayed measures of behavior
1. Favorable information (delayed measure)	52	.49			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		H	M	One	Yes		5.00
2. Favorable information (immediate measure)	52	.42			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		H	M	One	Yes		0.00
3. Reason analysis after favorable information (immediate measure)	52	.54			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		M	M	One	Yes		0.00
4. Reason analysis after favorable information (delayed measure)	52	.27			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		M	M	One	Yes		5.00
Experiment 2: Favorable information or reason analysis after favorable information
1. Favorable information	111	.54			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		H	M	One	Yes		5.00
2. Reason analysis after favorable information	37	.19			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		M	M	One	Yes		5.00

Sivacek & Crano (1982, Study 2)
Pro- and antipolicy arguments with varying levels of vested interest
1. Low vested interest	30	.24			L	H	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		H	H	Two	Yes		0.00
2. Moderate vested interest	39	.17			M	H	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		H	H	Two	Yes		0.00
3. High vested interest	27	.64			H	H	Mx	H	No	1	No	T		H	H	Two	Yes		0.00

H. M. Wallace (2003)
Experiment 1: Propolicy arguments at two time points with varying levels of need for cognition
1. Low need for cognition (Time 1)	48	.58		0.02	M	H	L	H	No	1	No	B	.09	H	H	One	Yes	.62	0.02
2. Low need for cognition (Time 2)	48	.53			M	H	L	H	No	2	No	B	.20	H	H	One	Yes	.63	0.01
3. High need for cognition (Time 1)	42	.59		0.28	M	H	H	H	No	1	No	B	.43	H	H	One	Yes	.65	0.02
4. High need for cognition (Time 2)	42	.61			M	H	H	H	No	2	No	B	.32	H	H	One	Yes	.68	0.01
Experiment 2: Propolicy arguments at two time points with varying levels of need for cognition
1. Low need for cognition (Time 1)	34	.58		0.55	M	H	L	H	No	1	No	B		H	H	One	Yes	.51	0.02
2. Low need for cognition (Time 2)	34	.60			M	H	L	H	No	2	No	B		H	H	One	Yes	.56	0.01
3. High need for cognition (Time 1)	38	.63		0.60	M	H	H	H	No	1	No	B		H	H	One	Yes	.51	0.02
4. High need for cognition (Time 2)	38	.58			M	H	H	H	No	2	No	B		H	H	One	Yes	.59	0.01
Experiment 3: Pro- followed by antipolicy arguments at two time points with varying levels of need for cognition
1. Low need for cognition (Time 1)	34	.38		0.66	M	H	L	H	No	1	No	B		H	H	Two	Yes	.55	0.02
2. Low need for cognition (Time 2)	34	.40			M	H	L	H	No	2	No	B		H	H	Two	Yes	.58	0.01
3. High need for cognition (Time 1)	53	.37		0.62	M	H	H	H	No	1	No	B		H	H	Two	Yes	.60	0.02
4. High need for cognition (Time 2)	53	.60			M	H	H	H	No	2	No	B		H	H	Two	Yes	.61	0.01
Experiment 4: Pro- followed by antipolicy arguments at two time points with varying levels of need for cognition
1. Low need for cognition (Time 1)	24	.37	4.80	0.47	M	H	L	H	No	1	No	B		H	H	Two	Yes	.48	0.02
2. Low need for cognition (Time 2)	22	.53	2.75		M	H	L	H	No	2	No	B		H	H	Two	Yes	.50	0.01
3. High need for cognition (Time 1)	108	.60	5.26	0.20	M	H	H	H	No	1	No	B		H	H	Two	Yes	.55	0.02
4. High need for cognition (Time 2)	98	.64	3.44		M	H	H	H	No	2	No	B		H	H	Two	Yes	.51	0.01
Experiment 5: Pro- followed by antipolicy arguments at two time points with varying levels of need for cognition
1. Low need for cognition (Time 1)	35	.61	4.00	0.30	M	H	L	H	No	1	No	B		H	H	Two	Yes		0.02
2. Low need for cognition (Time 2)	35	.67	4.07		M	H	L	H	No	2	No	B		H	H	Two	Yes		0.01
3. High need for cognition (Time 1)	30	.55	5.21	0.22	M	H	H	H	No	1	No	B		H	H	Two	Yes		0.02
4. High need for cognition (Time 2)	30	.76	3.92		M	H	H	H	No	2	No	B		H	H	Two	Yes		0.01

Wilson et al. (1984, Experiment 1)
Direct experience with and without reason analysis
1. Reason analysis	12	.17	4.95		L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		M	L	Two	Yes	.64	0.00
2. No reason analysis	12	.54	5.12		L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		H	M	Two	Yes	.62	0.00

Wilson & Dunn (1986, Experiment 2)
Direct experience with or without reason analysis or affective focus
1. Reason analysis	49	.25			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		M	L	Two	Yes		0.00
2. Affective focus	48	.53			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		H	H	Two	Yes		0.00
3. No reason analysis or affective focus	47	.54			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		H	M	Two	Yes		0.00

Wilson et al. (1993)
Direct experience with or without reason analysis
1. No reason analysis	21	.60			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		H	M	Two	Yes		0.00
2. Reason analysis	21	.60			L	L	Mx	H	No	1	Yes	T		M	L	Two	Yes		0.00

Q&A When

When trying to predict the behavior of a single individual, the most useful information will be:

Page 2

Related Posts

Advertising

LATEST NEWS

Advertising

Populer

Advertising

About

Legal

Help

Social