Traditionally, vested interest theory categorized individuals as highly vested if the attitude object affected the attitude holder directly. The predictive reach of the theory might be increased by explicitly expanding the definition of vested interest to include circumstances in which individuals indirectly affected by the issue under consideration are defined as vested. This expansion was prompted by research on interpersonal relationships indicating that as interpersonal closeness increases, so too does inclusion-of-the-other-in-the-self. Two experiments focusing on different issues using different modes of data collection and disparate participant samples supported the proposed theoretical expansion. Study 1 showed the range of the construct could be amplified by expanding the definition of vested interest to encompass individuals who were indirectly affected by the attitude object. Study 2 replicated this result and showed that interpersonal closeness moderated the attitude–behavior relationship, consistent with expectations based on the vested interest model. Throughout most of social psychology's history, research on attitudes has played an integral role in analyses of human behavior. The utility of the construct is based on the presumption that attitudes influence behavior (Crano & Prislin, 2008), although research suggests this is not always so (McGuire, 1985; Wicker, 1969). Consequently investigators continue to study factors that affect the consistency between attitudes and action (Crano & Prislin, 2006; Fazio & Petty, 2008; Forgas, Cooper, & Crano, 2010). Research on attitudes has identified many moderators of attitude–behavior consistency, including attitude strength and accessibility (Fazio, 1990; Fazio & Williams, 1986), social identity and group norms (Terry & Hogg, 1996; White, Hogg, & Terry, 2002), and working knowledge (Fazio & Zanna, 1981). The present investigation is concerned with another construct shown to increase attitude–behavior consistency, vested interest, or the hedonic relevance of an attitude or attitude-implicated action (Crano, 1983, 1997; Crano & Prislin, 1995; Lehman & Crano, 2002; Moon, 2012; Sivacek & Crano, 1982; Thornton & Tizard, 2010). Vested interest theory (VIT) posits that attitude–behavior consistency is enhanced when behaviors related to an attitude are perceived as important and as having clear hedonic relevance for the actor (Crano, 1995, 1997). Vested interest is distinguishable from ego-involvement in terms of hedonic relevance and importance. For an individual to be highly vested in an attitude object, the attitude in question must be considered important and as having real consequences for the actor. When perceptions of importance or personal consequence are minimized, attitude–behavior consistency is attenuated. The influence of vested interest on attitude–behavior consistency was demonstrated in Sivacek and Crano's (1982) study, in which participants were categorized objectively into vested and nonvested groups based on age, which reflected the extent to which they would be affected by a referendum to change the legal drinking age from 18 to 21 years. Although objectively defined vested and nonvested groups had similarly negative attitudes towards the legislation, vested participants were significantly more likely to act in attitude-congruent ways by engaging in actions to defeat the policy change. A wealth of research indicates that vested interest has significant implications for attitude–behavior consistency (Crano & Prislin, 1995), and accounts for variance over and above other theoretical approaches such as the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) in predicting personally important behaviors (Siegel, Alvaro, Lac, Crano, & Alexander, 2008). Moreover, the moderating effect of vested interest on attitude–behavior consistency has been illustrated across numerous domains, including: mandatory senior exams (Sivacek & Crano, 1982; Thornton & Knox, 2002), college exam fees (Thornton & Tizard, 2010), busing (Crano, 1997), organ donation (Siegel et al., 2008), fathers’ views of child care (Moon, 2012), tuition increases (Crano, 1983), health insurance, college admission quotas, and government employment assistance programs (Lehman & Crano, 2002), among others. In previous conceptualizations of vested interest participants were characterized as vested only if the attitude object directly affected them. This requisite may have been too restrictive. Conceivably, a person may be vested in an attitude object even when removed from its direct implications. One could be “once removed” from an issue but still vested in its implications, either because of its repercussions for a loved one or owing to consequences for oneself that may occur via indirect channels. For example, heterosexual parents whose son or daughter is homosexual may not be directly affected by legislation relating to same-sex marriage, but may be vested in the issue owing to its implications for their children. Research shows that individuals in close relationships come to perceive themselves as a single entity (Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult, & Langston, 1998; Batson & Shaw, 1991). Close relationships are associated with cognitive restructuring that spurs a transformation of motivation: individuals focus less attention on issues that affect themselves and attend more to partner- or relationship-oriented concerns (Agnew et al., 1998). People in close relationships also have been shown to incorporate their partners’ attitudes, resources, and characteristics into their own self-concepts (Aron & Aron, 1986, 1997; Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991; Davis & Rusbult, 2001). For those in close relationships there appears to be a blurring of the lines concerning where one stops and the other begins. If people perceive themselves to be “as one” with close others, they should be vested in issues that affect close others, even if not directly affected themselves. As such, we propose expanding the operationalization of vested interest to include contexts in which significant others are affected by an attitude object. The goal of this research is to assess the utility of expanding the conceptualization of vested interest to include close others affected by the outcome of an attitudinally implicated action. We sought to conceptually replicate Sivacek and Crano's (1982) study using the original operationalization of vested interest, then to determine if including considerations of close others (when redefining vested interest) increased the predictive validity of the construct. Sivacek and Crano's (1982) nonvested group likely contained indirectly affected individuals (e.g., a 22-year-old who would not be directly affected by the legislation, but could be if involved in a meaningful relationship with an 18-year-old). Our goal was to test the proposed expansion by investigating whether the interests of a person's close other were related to his or her own attitude–behavior consistency. We hypothesize that individuals associated with close others affected by an attitude object (e.g., policy) will be vested in that object even if there are no direct implications for the actor(s). Classifying such individuals as vested should enhance the capability to predict behaviors based on attitudes (hypothesis 1). Participants (N = 100) were recruited at the Orange County Swap Meet in Costa Mesa, California. Participants were paid to complete a survey assessing attitudes toward depressed individuals and a proposed, relevant, piece of legislation. Swap meet patrons were recruited to complete questionnaires and compensated $10 for doing so. They read a passage detailing proposed legislation (“Initiative-D”) concerned with increasing prices for depression medications. The passage stated: Due to the increasing demand of various services associated with depression treatment, the federal government has been considering a variety of different proposals. One proposal that the federal government has been considering is Initiative-D. Initiative-D is concerned with the funding for and prices of medication and treatments for depression. If Initiative-D passes, the federal government will change the classification of depression, which will result in a significant increase in the price of medications used to treat depression. This raise in price will have to be paid by the individual(s) who need medication to treat their depression. If you are not currently being treated for depression, your health care premiums are expected to drop. That is, your monthly payments for health care coverage will most likely be less than you are currently paying. Participants answered a series of questions assessing their vested interest in the issue and their attitudes toward the initiative, and were then afforded several behavioral options in response to the legislation. Attitudes toward Initiative-D were measured with a 7-point Likert item (Strongly disagree to Strongly agree), “I am in favor of Initiative-D.” Vested interest was assessed with two items. The first asked if the participant had ever been treated for depression (yes or no). This item allowed for their categorization into traditional vested/nonvested groups. Those indicating they had ever been treated for depression were categorized as vested. The second item asked participants if someone close to them had been treated for depression (yes or no). This item allowed for the re-categorization of participants based on the proposed expansion. The dependent measure, behavioral engagement, was determined by: supplying an e-mail or physical address so that more information could be received, agreeing to volunteer time to fight the initiative, and supplying a first name and phone number, allowing for further contact regarding ways of contributing to the defeat of Initiative-D (α = .72). The outcome measure was computed by assigning a score of “0” (non-engagement) or “1” (engagement) for each of the three behaviors. Scores were averaged into a composite index. Consistent with Sivacek and Crano (1982), participants were first categorized based on whether they were directly affected by Initiative-D: only participants who reported receiving treatment for depression themselves were considered vested. This categorization scheme was intended to replicate the findings of previous vested interest studies. Next, the sample was re-categorized based on the newly proposed conceptualization, in which people directly and indirectly affected were defined as vested. In these analyses the vested category included people who reported receiving treatment for depression themselves (directly vested) along with those who had never received treatment for depression, but who were associated with a close other who had (indirectly vested). This categorization was intended to test the primary hypothesis, that inclusion of indirectly vested participants would strengthen VIT's predictive validity for attitude-consistent behavior. There were 58 female and 42 male respondents; mean age was 36.5 years. Participants appeared opposed to Initiative-D, as indicated by the mean on the 7-point attitude item (M = 2.77, SD = 1.68). They were divided on the objective indicator of vested interest, which was based on their reports of receiving treatment for depression. A total of 24 respondents satisfied this criterion and were categorized as vested; the remaining respondents indicated they had not been treated for depression and were categorized as nonvested. Nonvested (M = 2.84, SD = 1.72) and vested (M = 2.54, SD = 1.72) participants did not differ significantly in their attitudes toward the legislation, t(98) = −.76, ns. Gender did not significantly influence attitudes toward the legislation, t(98) = .28, ns, nor levels of behavioral engagement, t(98) = .75, ns. In support of VIT, the correlation between attitudes toward the initiative and behavioral engagement for vested participants was statistically significant (r = .37, p < .05). For nonvested participants this correlation was not significant (r = −.01, ns). The difference between these two coefficients was marginally significant (z = –1.60, p < .055). To further explore the role of vested interest in attitude–behavior consistency, vested status was tested as a moderator of the attitude–behavior relationship. Controlling for age and gender, results showed a marginally significant moderation model (n = 100, B = −.17, ΔR2 = .033, p < .06). The conceptual extension holds that attitude objects of consequence for a person's close others (i.e., have indirect implications for the actor) should be analogous, in terms of vested interest, to attitude objects or issues affecting the actor directly. Accordingly, for these analyses, vested individuals were defined as those directly or indirectly affected by the initiative. Participants who were not directly affected by the issue, but who were close to another who was affected, were included with the vested group from the first set of analyses. This reclassification resulted in 60 respondents being defined as vested. Their attitudes towards the legislation were less favorable than nonvested individuals’ (M = 2.48, SD = 1.67 and M = 3.20, SD = 1.62, respectively), t(98) = 2.13, p < .05. As hypothesized, vested participants’ attitude–behavior correlation was statistically significant (r = .35, p < .01), whereas that of nonvested participants (n = 40) was not (r = −.24, p = .136). The difference between these correlations was statistically significant (z = 2.89, p < .01). To gain a clearer picture of the workings of vested interest, vested status was entered as a moderator of the attitude–behavior relationship in a multiple regression model. After controlling for gender and age, neither attitudes toward the legislation (n = 100, B = .03, ns) nor vested status (n = 100, B = .19, ns) had significant influence on behavioral engagement. However, the interaction of attitude with vested status was statistically significant (n = 100, B = −.08, ΔR2 = .05, p < .01; see Figure 1). Vested participants were significantly more likely to engage in attitude-congruent behaviors toward Initiative-D. Qualifying simple effects tests were conducted: after controlling for age and gender, attitudes did not predict behaviors for nonvested participants (n = 40, B = .04, ns); however, attitudes did predict behavior for vested individuals (n = 60, B = −.05 p < .05). Study 1 replicated previous vested interest research using the original conceptualization, which classified respondents as vested if they were directly affected by an attitude object. With the original classification, nonvested participants showed a non-significant attitude–behavior correlation, while the attitude–behavior correlation of vested participants was statistically significant. Results also provided preliminary support for the proposed expansion of how vested interest is defined, which moves beyond a strictly egocentric (if objective) characterization by including the actor's considerations of close others’ welfare. The expanded definition increased the predictive validity of participants’ attitudes on relevant behavior. The moderating influence of vested interest on the attitude–behavior relationship was more powerful using the expanded approach. Although there were significant group differences in attitudes towards the legislation, the moderation model showed that between-group variations in attitude did not predict behavioral outcomes; the significant attitude-vested interest interaction indicated vested participants were significantly more likely to act in accord with their attitudes. To ensure that these results were not issue-specific, and to specify the construct more precisely, a second study was conducted with a different sample, different attitude object, and different measures. In this study we sought to provide evidence for the generality of indirect vested interest effects and to investigate the possible moderating role of interpersonal closeness. Based on considerable research (e.g., Aron et al., 1991; Mashek, Aron, & Boncimino, 2003), it is reasonable to assume that in some contexts, issues affecting very close others would result in stronger indirect vested interest effects. To maximize the evidentiary value of Study 1, a new issue (tobacco use) was selected for study. Investigating VIT using a different focal issue, sample, and measures should provide additional support for the expanded conceptualization (hypothesis 1). The study also was concerned with delineating the relationship between indirect vested interest and interpersonal closeness. Research suggests that close relationships involve “inclusion-of-the-other-in-the-self” (Aron & Aron, 1986; Aron et al., 1991). As closeness increases, people in close relationships incorporate aspects of the other into their self-concept and tend to confuse self-other features (Mashek et al., 2003). This cognitive confusion increases concurrently with greater closeness (Aron et al., 1991); thus people who are closer to another affected by an attitude object may be more likely to perceive the other's outcome as their own. Accordingly, indirectly affected individuals who are closer to the person proximally affected by the attitude object should be more vested and more likely to act in attitude-congruent ways, even if not directly vested (hypothesis 2). Participants were recruited through the web-based service Mechanical Turk and paid $0.30 to complete a questionnaire. Those whose response pattern indicated they were not actively engaged in the study (operationalized as listing less than three facts about the effects of tobacco use) were removed from the sample. This process was completed before any other responses were viewed. Consented participants read a passage detailing bogus legislation regarding healthcare coverage for smoking-related illnesses. The description of the legislation, termed Initiative-T, was as follows: Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States (Center for Disease Control [CDC], 2010). Due to the increasing demand and cost of various health-services associated with tobacco use, the federal government has been considering a wide range of healthcare reforms. One solution that has received a great deal of attention is Initiative-T. Initiative-T is concerned with insurance coverage for the treatment of tobacco- related illnesses (for example, cancer and emphysema). If passed, Initiative-T would effectively cut Medicaid and Medicare coverage for all tobacco-related illnesses; the burden of payment would be placed solely on the individual seeking treatment. If the federal government does pass this legislation, it is expected that most private insurers will also remove tobacco related illness and smoking cessation treatments from their plans, as tobacco-related illnesses and treatments are rather expensive to cover. If you are not currently a smoker and have never used tobacco products for a period of more than a year, this legislation will not affect you in any way. After reading the passage participants completed items assessing vested interest (self- and other-smoking history), attitudes toward the initiative, and interpersonal closeness to others affected by the initiative. Participants completed three 7-point (Strongly disagree to Strongly agree) Likert-type items assessing attitudes toward Initiative-T. These items were: (1) “I am in favor of Initiative-T”, (2) “Cigarette smokers should have to pay for their own smoking-related illnesses”, and (3) “Initiative-T is wrong.” The items were combined to form a composite scale of attitudes toward the legislation (α = .94). Vested interest was assessed as in Study 1: participants completed items assessing the impact of the target attitude-issue (smoking and health insurance) for oneself and close others. The first question, used to define direct vested interest, asked “At any point in your life, were you ever a cigarette smoker?” The second question, used in the extended definition, asked “At any point in his or her lifetime, was someone you presently consider close a cigarette smoker?” Interpersonal closeness was assessed with Aron, Aron, and Smollan's (1992) Inclusion of the Other in the Self (IOS) Scale, with reference to the primary close other participants listed as affected by Initiative-T. The IOS consists of a series of seven images depicting two circles with the labels “self” and “other.” The seven images vary in the extent to which the circles overlap. Aron and colleagues (1992) have reported the measure to be a reliable measure of interpersonal closeness (α = .87 for family,.92 for friendship, and.95 for romantic relationships). The behavioral measure of Study 1 was used in Study 2. Behavioral engagement was operationalized as the total number of anti-Initiative-T behaviors (i.e., agreeing to volunteer time, supplying address, and supplying first name and phone number) the participant volunteered (α = .80). All behaviors were couched as directed toward preventing the passage of Initiative-T. The analysis plan of Study 1 was repeated: analyses were conducted first using the original conceptualization of vested interest, then using the proposed expansion. Demographic variables were not associated with vested interest effects in Study 1 and thus were not included in the second study. As in Study 1, participants were first categorized as vested only if they were directly affected by the proposed legislation (i.e., reported smoking cigarettes for more than 1 year). Across the sample as a whole, participants appeared negatively disposed to the legislation (n = 635, M = 3.63, SD = 1.88). However, vested participants were more negative (n = 323, M = 3.01, SD = 1.83) than nonvested participants (n = 312, M = 4.28, SD = 1.71), t(633) = 8.97, p < .001. Attitude–behavior correlations indicated that more negatively disposed participants in both the nonvested and the vested groups were more willing to take actions against the proposed legislation (both r = 0.29, p < .01). This result does not support the standard model. However, as was argued, it is possible that using the original conceptualization of vested interest resulted in an unduly insensitive measure of vested interest, as 270 participants identified as indirectly vested in the legislation were included in the nonvested group in this analysis. Nonsmokers who reported having a close other who smoked for more than a year (indirectly vested participants) were combined with those directly affected by the initiative. Compared to nonvested participants (n = 42, M = 4.61, SD = 1.70), the combined group of vested individuals (n = 593, M = 3.56, SD = 1.88) were significantly more opposed to the proposed smoking legislation, t(633) = 3.83, p < .001. In the vested group a statistically significant correlation was found between attitudes and levels of behavioral engagement (M = .15, SD = .28; r = −.34, p < .001). In the nonvested group no participant engaged in a single oppositional behavior. Thus the correlation between these respondents’ attitudes and their behavioral engagement was not calculable. To explicate the influence of vested interest on attitude–behavior consistency, vested status was entered as a moderator of the attitude–behavior relationship in a hierarchical regression analysis. The analysis revealed a significant moderation model (n = 635, B = −.03, ΔR2 = .01, p < .05; Figure 2). Vested participants with anti-Initiative-T attitudes were significantly more likely than nonvested individuals to engage in attitude-congruent actions. A simple effects test within the vested subsample revealed that attitudes towards Initiative-T significantly predicted levels of behavioral engagement (B = −.05, p < .001). This test could not be run for the nonvested group owing to a lack of variance on the dependent variable. The fact that no nonvested participants engaged in the behavioral outcome measures coupled with the observed between-groups difference in attitudes produced a unique challenge in evaluating indirect vested interest effects. Although hierarchical multiple regression indicated a significant interaction between attitudes and vested status, further exploration of the differences between vested groups was warranted. Accordingly, participants were divided into distinct groups (nonvested, directly vested, and indirectly vested) and additional between-groups comparisons were conducted. Nonvested participants (n = 42) did not differ significantly from indirectly vested participants (n = 270) in their attitudes towards the legislation (M = 4.61, SD = 1.70 and M = 4.22, SD = 1.71, respectively), t(310) = 1.37, ns. Due to zero variance in the outcome variable for nonvested participants, no statistical test could be completed to compare the behavioral engagement of nonvested and indirectly vested respondents. Indirectly and directly vested participants did differ significantly on attitudes toward Initiative-T (M = 4.22, SD = 1.71 and M = 3.01, SD = 1.83, respectively), t(591) = –8.26, p < .001, and on levels of behavioral engagement (M = .08, SD = .19 and M = .20, SD = .32, respectively), t(591) = 5.49, p < .001. However, the attitude–behavior correlation of indirectly vested individuals did not differ significantly from that of directly vested participants (r = −.30, −.29, respectively, both p < .001), z = 0.13, ns. To test hypothesis 2, that interpersonal closeness moderates the effects of indirect vested interest on attitude–behavior consistency, the dataset was limited to only those participants who reported being close to another affected by the legislation. Using hierarchical regression, interpersonal closeness was tested as a moderator of the attitude–behavior relationship. Supporting expectations, closeness moderated the attitude–behavior relationship: indirectly vested interest participants closer to (vs detached from) the person affected by Initiative-T were significantly more likely to engage in attitude-congruent behaviors (n = 270, B = −.01, ΔR2 = .06, p < .01; Figure 3). Following Aiken and West (1991), the significant interaction was examined further by evaluating simple slopes, which were estimated at three levels of closeness to the other affected: low (one standard deviation below the maximum of the regression curve), moderate (maximum of the regression curve), and high (one standard deviation above the maximum of the curve). Results showed that more negative attitudes towards Initiative-T predicted levels of anti-Initiative-T behavioral engagement for both high and moderate closeness groups, and that this relationship was stronger for high closeness participants (B = −.06, t = –6.78, p < .001) when compared to moderate closeness participants (B = −.04, t = –5.54, p < .001). When closeness to the other affected was low, the simple slope of the regression line did not differ significantly from zero (B = −.01, t = −.98, ns). Study 2 supports the proposed expansion of the vested interest framework. Analyses indicated that vested interest is not best defined only in terms of one's direct self-interest. Certainly, factors that affect one directly matter, but the needs of significant others also have clout, and the closer the other, the more heavily those needs are weighed. This assertion is highlighted by the failure to replicate traditional vested interest findings using the original conceptualization, which assigned 270 indirectly vested individuals to the nonvested group. This categorization demonstrably influenced the observed attitude–behavior correlations. After (re)categorizing participants into vested groups under the expanded conceptualization, none of the nonvested participants was willing to engage in a single anti-initiative behavior. Although the hierarchical regression showed vested interest's moderating influence over attitude–behavior consistency, pre-existing attitude differences and zero variance in the dependent variable (for nonvested participants) presented challenges in determining the influence of indirect vested interest on attitude–behavior consistency. However, auxiliary analyses showed that indirectly vested participants did not significantly differ from nonvested participants in their attitudes. A lack of variance in the dependent variable (for nonvested participants) precluded the possibility of testing differences between indirectly vested and nonvested participants’ anti-initiative actions. However, the fact that no nonvested participants engaged in a single oppositional behavior offers strong behavioral evidence that although these two groups had similar attitudes towards the legislation, only the indirectly vested participants were willing to take relevant action(s). Indirect vs direct vested interest group comparisons provided additional support for the proposed expansion. While indirectly affected participants differed from the directly vested group in attitudes and behavioral engagement, the propensity to act in accord with attitudes was identical in these groups. That is, participants defined as directly or indirectly vested differed in the extent to which they were opposed to the legislation and the number of anti-initiative behaviors they undertook; however, the attitude–behavior correlations in these groups were virtually identical. These results suggest that the nature of a given attitude object's consequences (i.e., whether the actor is indirectly or directly impacted) may influence the strength of people's feelings toward the attitude object, as well as levels of action (with more personally imminent ramifications exerting greater influence over both). However, while extremity of attitudes and the number of actions taken appear to be associated with how one is affected by the attitude object (indirectly or directly), vested interest's moderating influence over the attitude–behavior relationship is evident, regardless of the manner in which one is affected. Analyses strongly supported the hypothesis that interpersonal closeness was associated with the perception of one's (indirect) vested interest. Indirectly vested participants with greater interpersonal closeness to the primary other affected by the legislation were significantly more likely to act in attitudinally congruent ways than participants reporting less closeness to the individual they listed as their primary other. As hypothesized, this research supports the extension of the vested interest concept to include consideration of the interests of close others. The relevance of an attitude object to one's self-interest has been established as a significant moderator of the attitude behavior relationship. The present research extends the utility of the construct to considerations of (close) others. Research on interpersonal closeness suggests that people in close relationships perceive the other to be an extension of themselves; the present research supports, and builds upon, this contention. In both studies inclusion of indirectly vested participants (i.e., persons having no direct vested interest, but associated with a close other who did) increased the moderating effect of vested interest on attitude–behavior consistency. Furthermore, as closeness to the affected other increased, so too did the influence of vested interest on attitude–behavior consistency. This research contributes to the literature by extending the utility of vested interest theory. In prior conceptualizations only directly affected individuals were considered vested; the present research shows consequences for close others also have important implications for the extent to which people's actions will correspond with their attitudes. As such, vested interest considerations may be applicable to an entirely new set of contexts previously beyond the scope of the theory. In addition, while previous research has established the importance of close others in behavioral engagement (e.g., Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2003), there is substantially less exploration of their role in attitude–behavior consistency. The study of attitude–behavior consistency has been a recurring theme in social psychology; the present research suggests an addition to the compendium of variables that affect this relation. There is a limitation of this research that deserves attention. Previous vested interest studies have reported no attitudinal differences between vested and nonvested groups. The demonstration of behavioral differences was used to suggest vested interest's moderating influence on attitude–behavior consistency. In the present instance statistically significant differences in attitudes were observed in both studies. However, because vested interest is concerned with attitude–behavior consistency (an interaction, rather than a main effect), pre-existing differences in attitudes do not diminish the utility of the conception. The crux of vested interest theory is not singularly located in attitudes, nor behaviors, but rather the relationship between the two. Indirectly vested individuals may have less-extreme attitudes and engage in fewer attitude-relevant actions than those that are directly vested. But the appropriate test is to determine whether the moderation of attitude–behavior consistency obtains even after accounting for differences in initial attitude. In the present research analyses from two studies indicate that the moderating influence of vested interest still holds, even after accounting for initial attitude differences. The theoretical and applied contributions of this research outweigh its limitations. The findings suggest new avenues for research on attitude–behavior consistency and clearer insights into the ways in which the link between beliefs and actions may be enhanced – or reduced. Attitude-congruent action is not solely an individualistic phenomenon, as implied by earlier measurements of vested interest. Close others are significant influences in people's lives, shaping not only opinions and actions, but also the connection between the two. As such, considerations of interpersonal relations are essential in understanding the circumstances in which attitudes will predict actions. We hope other researchers will continue the exploration of interpersonal factors contributing to attitude–behavior consistency, as well as this expanded conception of vested interest, as it promises to expand our understanding of a critical feature of social influence, the effects of beliefs and interpersonal connections on our behaviors. NotesWe are grateful to members of the Health Psychology and Prevention Science Institute of Claremont Graduate University who commented on earlier versions of this work.
|
Are most likely to predict when attitudes are strong, and when the person has a vested interest.
Postagens relacionadas
direito autoral © 2024 mesadeestudo Inc.
