ABSTRACT
Years ago, Sherif and Hovland (1961) suggested that people who hold an attitude about an object are likely to perceive new information about the object in relation to the attitude. For example, one's prior attitude toward condom use will partially determine the effect of a strong external endorsement for condom use on one's subsequent attitude. If recipients favor condom use only slightly, the campaign will offer a relatively stronger endorsement than the recipients'. The size of the difference, however, should matter a great deal in predicting the actual effects of the campaign. If the distance between the two positions is small, recipients may perceive the campaign as congruent with their prior attitudes and shift in the direction of increased support for condom use. In contrast, as the distance between the two positions increases, recipients will be likely to distinguish or contrast the two positions. Under these conditions, they may shift their attitude in the opposite direction of the campaign, resulting in decreased rather than increased support for condom use. Following this logic, prior attitudes, other accessible evaluative information, and the comparison of these sources of information jointly determine the stability of attitudes over time.
