The relationship between measures (including their subscales) is presented in Table 6.2. Almost every measure was significantly correlated with every other measure; only three measures were not correlated (r⬍ .01 in Table 6.2). The smallest significant correlation was .144, between Self-Referencing and the Counterargue subscale, and the largest correlation (excluding scales with their subscales) was .47, between Consideration of Future Consequences and Need for Cognition.
The evidence from these correlations indicated that these individual differ-ence measures are not completely orthogonal and may overlap significantly in some areas. To investigate further the properties of these measures, the data were entered into an exploratory factor analysis. The goal of this analysis was to determine whether these measures and their subscales would emerge reliably, or whether the conceptual and statistical overlap noted previously would suggest conceptually distinct dimensions underlying several of these measures.
Factor analyses were conducted to extract 7- and factor solutions. An 8-factor solution would be consistent with an approach that treated the Bolster and Counterargue subscales as distinct factors, whereas a 7-factor solution would collapse these into a single scale.
The quartimax-rotated 8-factor solution provided strong evidence for the in-dependence of these scales and subscales from one another. Almost every item of each scale and subscale loaded orthogonally onto a unique factor that rep-resented the item’s respective individual difference measure, with no other meaningful pattern of loadings. In fact, the 8-factor solution demonstrated close fit, RMSEA⫽ 0.045, CI ⫽ (0.044, 0.047).
Beyond establishing the independence of the various individual difference measures included in the factor analysis, this seemed to provide evidence that the Bolster and Counterargue subscales are independent. Based on the presen-tation of the Bolster-Counterargue Scale by Brin˜ol et al. (this volume), we ex-pected that the Bolster and Counterargue subscales would load onto a single factor, representing a common underlying psychological construct. However, an 8-factor solution could create the appearance that these subscales were indepen-dent if the inter-item correlations were not very high. We sought to test the interdependence of the Bolster and Counterargue subscales through a 7-factor analysis, which would force the subscales to load together if they shared sig-nificant common variance.
In fact, the 7-factor solution supported the independence of these subscales:
Consistent with the evidence of scale reliability and correlations the Bolster and Counterargue subscales of the Bolster-Counterargue Scale (Brin˜ol et al., this volume) loaded orthogonally. Furthermore, the 7-factor solution provided weaker factor structure than the 8-factor solution for the remaining scale items,
TABLE 6.2
Correlations Among Individual Difference Measures and Subscales
Need to Evaluate
Need for Cognition
Self-Referencing
Resistance to Persuasion
Consideration of Future Consequences
Bolster-Counterargue Bolster Counterargue Transportability
Need to Evaluate 1.000 .353 .261 .425 .250 .430 .269 .395 .263
Need for Cognition .353 1.000 .219 .081 .470 .305 .165 .301 .338
Self-Referencing .261 .219 1.000 .153 .229 .315 .374 .144 .288
Resistance to Persuasion .425 .081 .153 1.000 .285 .294 .263 .205 .070
Consideration of
Future Consequences .250 .470 .229 .285 1.000 .174 .251 .044 .196
Bolster-Counterargue .430 .305 .315 .294 .174 1.000 .730 .831 .237
Bolster .269 .165 .374 .263 .251 .730 1.000 .227 .223
Counterargue .395 .301 .144 .205 .044 .831 .227 1.000 .155
Transportability .263 .338 .288 .070 .196 .237 .223 .155 1.000
Note. All correlations above 0.1 are significant at p⬍ .01. All correlations below 0.1 are not statistically significant.
suggesting that the 8-factor solution provided the best fit to the data, and that the Bolster and Counterargue subscales should be treated as independent scales.
CONCLUSION
Our conclusions regarding the various individual difference measures relevant to resistance are very positive. Each measure has high internal validity and seems to make theoretically independent contributions in measuring individual differences.
Furthermore, we agree with Brin˜ol et al. that the Bolster-Counterargue Scale seems to have two distinct subscales, and we suggest that, rather than conceptu-alizing the subscales as interdependent, they may be used independently of one another.
APPENDIX 1
Need to Evaluate (Jarvis & Petty, 1996)
(scale: extremely uncharacteristic of you to extremely characteristic of you) 1. I form opinions about everything.
2. I prefer to avoid taking extreme positions.
3. It is very important to me to hold strong opinions.
4. I want to know exactly what is good and bad about everything.
5. I often prefer to remain neutral about complex issues.
6. If something does not affect me, I do not usually determine if it is good or bad.
7. I enjoy strongly liking and disliking new things.
8. There are many things for which I do not have a preference.
9. It bothers me to remain neutral.
10. I like to have strong opinions even when I am not personally involved.
11. I have many more opinions than the average person.
12. I would rather have a strong opinion than no opinion at all.
13. I pay a lot of attention to whether things are good or bad.
14. I only form strong opinions when I have to.
15. I like to decide that new things are really good or really bad.
16. I am pretty much indifferent to many important issues.
Need for Cognition (Cacioppo, Petty, & Kao, 1984)
(scale: extremely uncharacteristic of you to extremely characteristic of you) 1. I prefer complex to simple problems.
2. I like to have the responsibility of handling a situation that requires a lot of thinking.
3. Thinking is not my idea of fun.
4. I would rather do something that requires little thought rather than some-thing that is sure to challenge my thinking abilities.
5. I try to anticipate and avoid situations where there is a likely chance I will have to think in depth about something.
6. I find satisfaction in deliberating hard for long hours.
7. I only think as hard as I have to.
8. I prefer to think about small daily projects to long-term ones.
9. I like tasks that require little thought once I’ve learned them.
10. The idea of relying on thought to make my way to the top appeals to me.
11. I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems.
12. Learning new ways to think doesn’t excite me very much.
13. I prefer my life to be filled with puzzles that I must solve.
14. The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me.
15. I would prefer a task that is intellectual, difficult, and important to one that is somewhat important but does not require much thought.
16. I feel relief rather than satisfaction after completing a task that required a lot of mental effort.
17. It’s enough for me that something gets the job done; I don’t care how or why it works.
18. I usually end up deliberating about issues even when they do not affect me personally.
Propensity to Self-Reference (Haugtvedt, 1994)
(scale: extremely uncharacteristic of you to extremely characteristic of you) 1. I find that thinking back to my own experiences always helps me
un-derstand things better in new and unfamiliar situations.
2. I think it is easier to learn anything if only we can relate it to ourselves and our experiences.
3. When I read stories, I am often reminded of my own experiences in similar circumstances.
4. I often find myself using past experiences to help remember new infor-mation.
5. I think it is easier to evaluate anything if only we can relate it to ourselves and our experiences.
6. I always think about how things around me affect me.
7. In casual conversations, I find that I frequently think about my own experiences as other people describe theirs.
8. When explaining ideas or concepts to other people, I find that I always use my own experiences as examples.
Resistance to Persuasion Scale (Brin˜ol, Rucker, Tormala, & Petty, this vol-ume)
(scale: extremely uncharacteristic of you to extremely characteristic of you) 1. I am strongly committed to my own beliefs.
2. My own beliefs are very clear.
3. It is hard for me to change my ideas.
4. I usually do not change what I think after a discussion.
5. I find my opinions to be changeable.
6. After participating in an informal debate, I always have the feeling that I was right.
7. It could be said that I am likely to shift my attitudes.
8. I often vary or alter my views when I discover new information.
9. After forming an impression of something, it’s often hard for me to modify that impression.
10. My ideas are very stable and remain the same over time.
11. I have never changed the way I see most things.
12. What I think is usually right 13. My opinions fluctuate a lot.
14. I often have doubts about the validity of my attitudes.
15. If it is necessary I can easily alter my beliefs.
16. I have often changed my opinions.
Consideration of Future Consequences (Strathman, Boninger, Gleicher, &
Baker, 1994)
(scale: extremely uncharacteristic of you to extremely characteristic of you) 1. I consider how things might be in the future, and try to influence those
things with my day to day behavior
2. Often I engage in a particular behavior in order to achieve outcomes that may not result for many years.
3. I only act to satisfy immediate concerns, figuring the future will take care of itself.
4. My behavior is only influenced by the immediate (i.e., a matter of days or weeks) outcomes of my actions.
5. My convenience is a big factor in the decisions I make or the actions I take.
6. I am willing to sacrifice my immediate happiness or well-being in order to achieve future outcomes.
7. I think it is important to take warnings about negative outcomes seriously even if the negative outcome will not occur for many years.
8. I think it is more important to perform a behavior with important distant consequences than a behavior with less-important immediate conse-quences.
9. I generally ignore warnings about possible future problems because I think the problems will be resolved before they reach crisis level.
10. I think that sacrificing now is usually unnecessary since future outcomes can be dealt with at a later time.
11. I only act to satisfy immediate concerns, figuring that I will take care of future problems that may occur at a later date.
12. Since my day to day work has specific outcomes, it is more important to me than behavior that has distant outcomes.
Bolster-Counterargue Scale (Brin˜ol, Rucker, Tormala, & Petty, this vol-ume)
(scale: extremely unlike me to extremely like me)
1. When someone challenges my beliefs, I remind myself why my beliefs are important to me.
2. When someone has a different perspective on an issue, I like to make a mental list of the reasons in support of my perspective.
3. When someone gives me a point of view that conflicts with my attitudes, I like to think about why my views are right for me.
4. When someone tries to change my attitude toward something, I try to think about things that support the attitude I already have.
5. When confronted with an opposing viewpoint, I think it’s good to think about my values and beliefs.
6. When information contradicts my beliefs, I think of all the reasons in support of my beliefs.
7. When someone challenges my beliefs, I enjoy disputing what they have to say.
8. I take pleasure in arguing with those who have opinions that differ from my own.
9. When someone gives me a point of view that conflicts with my own, I like to actively counterargue their point of view.
10. When someone presents a view that differs from my own, I don’t like to engage in a debate.
11. I don’t like to challenge people with views that differ from my own.
12. When information challenges my beliefs, I don’t like to actively coun-terargue it.
Transportability Scale (Dal Cin, Zanna, & Fong, this volume) (scale: strongly disagree to strongly agree)
1. I can easily envision the events in the story.
2. I find I can easily lose myself in the story.
3. I find it difficult to tune out activity around me.
4. I can easily envision myself in the events described in a story.
5. I get mentally involved in the story.
6. I can easily put stories out of my mind after I’ve finished reading them.
7. I sometimes feel as if I am part of the story.
8. I am often impatient to find out how the story ends.
9. I find that I can easily take the perspective of the character(s) in the story.
10. I am often emotionally affected by what I’ve read.
11. I have vivid images of the characters.
12. I find myself thinking of other ways the story could have ended.
13. My mind often wanders.
14. I find myself feeling what the characters may feel.
15. I find that events in the story are relevant to my everyday life.
16. I often find that reading stories has an impact on the way I see things.
17. I easily identify with characters in the story.
18. I have vivid images of the events in the story.
REFERENCES
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of “need for cognition.”
Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–307.
Dal Cin, S., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (February, 2002). Perciever-based and stimulus-based individual differences in transportation. Symposium paper presented at the third annual meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology, Savannah, GA.
Haugtvedt, C. P. (1994, February). Individual differences in propensity to self-reference: Implica-tions for attitude change processes. Paper presented at the first Winter Meeting of the Society for Consumer Psychology, St. Petersburg, FL.
Jarvis, W. B. G., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The need to evaluate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 172–194.
Strathman, A., Boninger, D. S., Gleicher, F., & Baker, S. M. (1994). Constructing the future with present behavior: An individual difference approach. In Z. Zaleski (Ed.), Psychology of future orientation. Scientific Society of the Catholic University of Lublin, no. 32, (pp. 107–119).