Attitude strength and the perceived prevalence of attitude positions

Evaluated in 2 studies with 649 1st-yr undergraduates C. M. Judd and J. T. Johnson's (see record 1982-05755-001) hypothesis that people with involved or extreme (as opposed to moderate) attitudes on an issue would tend to overestimate the extent to which other's attitudes are polarized toward both extremes. The present studies included a range of S attitude groups and target categories, obtaining prevalence estimates on a variety of nuclear-related issues. Questionnaire results indicate that support for the hypothesis was limited, being clearest for pronuclear Ss' estimates of pronuclear positions but almost nonexistent for other Ss and target categories. It is suggested that the cognitive mechanism proposed by Judd and Johnson needs to be supplemented by broader social, functional, and knowledge-based considerations.