ࡱ> ~M ,3bjbj== WW3 l    LLL@M\,N<ɜtOtO4OOOuuu$Þ qul uuuA  OO9AAAuh OOAuAA&OhO tt 19LS 40ɜOA    Attitude Importance and the Accumulation of Attitude-Relevant Knowledge in Memory Allyson L. Holbrook University of Illinois at Chicago Matthew K. Berent The Ohio State University Jon A. Krosnick Stanford University Penny S. Visser University of Chicago David S. Boninger Three Rivers | Out Front December, 2004 Running Head: IMPORTANCE AND MEMORY Some of the data reported here were described in a masters thesis submitted by the second author to The Ohio State University. Study 9s data were described in a doctoral dissertation submitted by the fourth author to The Ohio State University. Study 3s data were described in a doctoral dissertation submitted by the first author to The Ohio State University. This research was conducted partly while the third author was a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (SBR-9022192). National Institute for Mental Health Grant 5T32-MH19728-03 provided a predoctoral fellowship to the fourth author during her work on this project. Studies 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 were supported by grant BNS8930430 from the National Science Foundation to the third author. The national survey described in Study 4 was funded by the National Science Foundation (grant SBR-9731532), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Ohio State University, and it was sponsored by Resources for the Future. Jon Krosnick is University Fellow at Resources for the Future. The authors thank Richard Petty, Lee Jussim, Charles Judd, Mark Pitt, Mari Jones, and Tim Johnson for their helpful comments and suggestions. Correspondence concerning this manuscript should be addressed to Allyson L. Holbrook, Survey Research Laboratory (MC 336), 412 S Peoria Street, Sixth Floor, Chicago, IL 60607 (allyson@uic.edu) or to Jon A. Krosnick, Stanford University, McClatchy Hall, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford, California 94305 (e-mail: krosnick@stanford.edu). Attitude Importance and the Accumulation of Attitude-Relevant Knowledge in Memory Abstract People who attach personal importance to an attitude are especially knowledgeable about the attitude object. In this paper, we describe nine studies testing an explanation for this relation: that importance causes the accumulation of knowledge by inspiring selective exposure to and selective elaboration of relevant information. Study One showed that after watching televised debates between presidential candidates, viewers were better able to remember the statements made on policy issues on which they had more personally important attitudes. Studies 2-4 showed that importance motivated selective exposure and selective elaboration: when given the opportunity to choose, people chose to acquire information about policies toward which they had more personally important attitudes, and they chose to think more about these policies. Studies 5-8 showed that greater personal importance was associated with better memory for relevant information encountered under controlled laboratory conditions and that manipulations eliminating opportunities for selective exposure and selective elaboration eliminated the importance-memory accuracy relation. Study 9 showed that people do not use perceptions of their knowledge volume to infer how important an attitude is to them but that importance does cause knowledge accumulation. These findings help to clarify the impact of attitude importance on information processing and refine our understanding of the relation between attitudes and memory. Attitude Importance and the Accumulation of Attitude-Relevant Knowledge in Memory A centerpiece of human socialization and development is learning the gathering of knowledge about how the world works. Such knowledge equips people to manage their existences: to enhance their acquisition of rewards, to minimize their experience of punishment, and in the extreme, to ensure their survival. But learning is not only of instrumental value enlightenment is viewed by many scholars and philosophers as a source of intrinsic psychological satisfaction and fulfillment, rewarding in and of itself, regardless of whether it is used to manipulate day-to-day experiences. For example, Maslow (1999) spoke of the sheer delight and satisfaction of knowledge and understanding per se. It makes the person bigger, wiser, richer, stronger, more evolved, more mature. It represents the actualization of a human potentiality, the fulfillment of that human destiny foreshadowed by human possibilities (pp. 74-75). Given the importance of knowledge as an instrumental tool and as a source of material and psychic satisfaction, our focus in this paper is on the forces that instigate and direct knowledge-gathering. This is an especially important question in light of the inescapable reality that there is too much information available in the social world for any one perceiver to acquire and store it all in memory. So people must be selective in their learning. Maslow (1999) argued that curiosity and exploration are higher needs than safety (p. 75), so people will not seek knowledge broadly unless they have satisfied lower needs, such as security. But once a person has satisfied such lower needs, other theories are needed to explain how people choose what to learn about and what knowledge to forego. One focus of social psychological research on knowledge acquisition has been on intra-psychic processes involving cognitive consistency (Festinger, 1957), and other work has focused on the impact of experiences that lead people to be exposed to information (Nie, et al., 1996; Roberts & Maccoby, 1985; Robinson & Levy, 1986; Wood, et al., 1995). The work in this paper complements that work by adopting a perspective from the attitude strength literature and considering the possibility that the personal importance of a persons attitude toward an object may play an instigating role in knowledge acquisition. Personal importance and the amount of information a person has about an object have both been recognized for some time as attributes related to the strength of the persons attitude toward the object. The more importance a person attaches and the more knowledge she or he has, the more likely the attitude is to be resistant to change, persistent over time, and influential in directing thinking and action (see Krosnick & Petty, 1995). And we have known for some time that importance and knowledge volume are positively correlated with one another (e.g., Bassili, 1996; Krosnick et al., 1993; Prislin, 1996; Visser, 1998). But we do not know why they are correlated with one another - what gives rise to this association. The principal hypothesis tested in this paper is that importance instigates knowledge accumulation. We conducted a series of studies to examine whether attaching personal importance to an attitude leads people to learn more about the object of that attitude, and we explored two mechanisms of this effect: that personal importance may lead people to selectively expose themselves to attitude-relevant information, and once exposed to such information, personal importance may instigate people to process that information more deeply and richly, thereby facilitating later retrieval. We begin below by setting the stage for our investigation by reviewing past work on the causes of knowledge accumulation. Then we outline a set of hypotheses about how and why importance may instigate the accumulation of attitude-relevant knowledge, and we review existing evidence relevant to those hypotheses. Finally, we report the results of nine studies designed to test these hypotheses with a focus on a particular type of attitude: evaluations of government policies. The Documented Causes of Knowledge Accumulation Festinger (1957, pp. 127-129, 163) proposed that people experiencing cognitive dissonance may seek out information about an object in order to reduce the dissonance, particularly when there is reason to expect that information will be dissonance-reducing. And Festinger proposed that people experiencing dissonance should be especially likely to avoid exposure to information they have reason to believe may be dissonance-exacerbating. An absence of dissonance, Festinger claimed, should not motivate either active seeking out of information, or active avoidance of information exposure Thus, increasing levels of dissonance were thought to be associated with increased information-seeking, especially of information likely to reduce the dissonance. Remarkably little research has tested this hypothesis (though for related work, see, e.g., Adams, 1961; Frey & Wicklund, 1978; see Eagly & Chaiken, 1993 for a review). Instead, researchers have devoted much more effort to investigating a hypothesis that Festinger did not explicitly offer: that people prefer to expose themselves to information consonant with their own views, regardless of whether or not they are experiencing dissonance (see, e.g., Klapper, 1960). This seemingly-plausible notion has met with a largely disappointing body of empirical evidence, revealing that people prefer exposing themselves to attitude-consistent information only under a specific set of circumstances (e.g., Frey, 1986; Jonas, et al., 2001). Other studies have shown that de facto selective exposure also occurs, whereby peoples locations in the world bring them into contact with information primarily in line with their attitudes by coincidence, not as the result of active selectivity (see Freedman & Sears, 1965). Additional work has explored variation in peoples retention of information to which they have been exposed. Some early studies suggested that people have a tendency to remember attitude-consistent information and to forget attitude-challenging information (e.g., Levine & Murphy, 1943; Watson & Hartmann, 1939), and an initial meta-analysis suggested this tendency was reliable but weak (Roberts, 1985). However, a later, more thorough meta-analysis showed that well-designed studies produced a near-zero congeniality effect (Eagly, et al. 1999). And Eagly, Kulesa, Brannon, Shaw, and Hutson-Comeaux (2000) showed that this is so because people devote a great deal of cognitive effort to thinking about attitude-inconsistent information (generating counterarguments), which makes this information as memorable as attitude-consistent information (which has other memorial advantages). Beyond these literatures, all focused on notions of cognitive consistency, relatively little work has sought to identify the social psychological constructs that drive people to gather and retain information in their memories about particular objects and to forego learning about others. Wood, Rhodes, and Biek (1995) noted that direct behavioral experience with an object enhances knowledge about it. Informal discussion with others about an object can educate a person (Robinson & Levy, 1986), as can exposure to information through formal schooling (Nie, Jun, & Stehlik-Barry, 1996) and through the news media (Roberts & Maccoby, 1985). But which psychological motivators instigate such information-gathering is left largely unanswered by past work. New Hypotheses Regarding Attitude Importance and Knowledge To outline our hypotheses about the relation of importance to knowledge accumulation, it is useful to begin with a general account of the processes by which information relevant to an attitude object is presumed to accumulate in memory (see, e.g., Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968; Craik & Lockhart, 1972). Although learning can take place via automatic, unconscious processes (e.g., Berry, 1994; Stadler & Frensch, 1998), we propose that importance is likely to influence knowledge acquisition via a series of conscious steps. The first step is information exposure, during which a person encounters a piece of information in the social environment. Second, a perceiver devotes perceptual attention to that information, bringing it into short-term or working memory (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974). Amidst the buzzing, blooming confusion (James, 1890) that fills peoples social environments, selective attention is a necessity. People are able to attend to multiple stimuli simultaneously (e.g., Treisman, 1964), but attention is not devoted to everything that a person encounters. Information that is unattended may be stored in long-term memory (e.g., Bornstein & DAgostino, 1992), but information that attracts a persons attention and thereby makes its way into working memory has a memorial advantage in the long run. Information in working memory that undergoes elaboration is likely to be encoded into long-term memory, where associative links are built, connecting new information to previously-acquired information through elaborative rehearsal and other such mechanisms (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). The deeper the processing of this incoming information, the stronger the neural trace and the more likely it is to be available for later retrieval (e.g., Craik, 1977; Tyler, Hertel, MacCallum, & Ellis, 1979). When characterized in this fashion, it is clear that the process of accumulating knowledge is often a cognitively demanding one. It is also a process at which we are well-practiced, and such practice no doubt makes the process relatively easy to implement (e.g., Smith, Branscombe, & Bormann, 1988). But accumulation of knowledge appears to be at least in part a zero-sum game: the more a person is exposed to information about a particular object, and the more resources she or he devotes to attending to that information and elaborating on its relation to other knowledge she or he already possesses, the less likely other available information is to be stored in long-term memory and available for later retrieval (e.g., Kahneman, 1973). Thus, which information makes its way into long-term memory via selective exposure and elaboration seems likely to be a function of peoples motives and desires. Dissonance theory points to some motives that may be consequential in this context. To maintain intra-psychic harmony, people may sometimes prefer to encounter information that is consistent with their beliefs and to avoid or discard information that challenges their beliefs. This account treats memory as an end in itself, as a repository of facts that can make a person either happy or uncomfortable simply by their existence. But memory can also be thought of as a tool bag, filled with items that can allow a person to navigate effectively through the social environment. Therefore, information acquisition may be inspired by more pro-active desires to understand and control pieces of the social world. Another possible motive is suggested by the positive correlation between the amount of knowledge a person possesses about an object and the personal importance of the persons attitude toward the object. People describe themselves as more knowledgeable about an object when their attitudes toward it are more important to them (e.g., Bassili, 1996; Krosnick et al., 1993; Prislin, 1996; Visser, 1998). People for whom an attitude is more important are in fact able to retrieve more information about the attitude object from memory (Berent & Krosnick, 1995; Krosnick et al., 1993; Wood, 1982). And the knowledge accompanying more important attitudes appears to be unusually accurate (Krosnick, 1990). These associations may be due to the role of attitude importance as a motivator of information acquisition and retention. Attitude importance is a subjective judgment a persons sense of the concern, caring, and significance she or he attaches to an attitude (see Boninger, Krosnick, Berent, & Fabrigar, 1995). Perceiving an attitude to be personally important leads people to use it in processing information, making decisions, and taking action (for a review, see Boninger et al., 1995). If attaching importance to an attitude motivates people to use the attitude in these ways as guides for thinking and action, then having a substantial amount of knowledge about the attitude object seems likely to be quite useful to facilitate effective attitude use. Consequently, attitude importance may motivate the acquisition of relevant knowledge in long-term memory by creating what Burnkrant (1976) called need for information and what James (1890) called voluntary attention. This general attentionfocusing motive may manifest itself in a number of ways. First, attitude importance may help to determine to which information in a persons environment he or she attends. People may prefer to encounter information relevant to their more important attitudes, a preference that seems particularly likely to influence informationgathering when information about multiple topics are available and when cognitive resources or time are limited, so individuals are not able to attend to all information available in their environments. Furthermore, this sort of selective exposure seems most likely to occur when information is labeled by cues that facilitate selectivity (e.g., newspaper headlines). Once exposed to information, people probably process it more deeply if it is relevant to more important attitudes, again because such processing is likely to serve strategic purposes later. So this new information is more likely to be encoded and stored in long-term memory, and associative links between the new information and information already stored in memory are more likely to be established in the process. Because greater linkage facilitates retrieval of information from memory (e.g., Raaijmakers & Shiffrin, 1981), people may be better able to remember information relevant to more important attitudes. Selective elaboration and the resulting increase in probability of retention are only likely to occur, though, when people have the requisite resources (e.g., cognitive capacity, time). When these resources are limited, elaborative processing is not possible, even if the relevant attitude is very important. Taken together with previous research on the origins of importance and knowledge, our hypotheses about these constructs in the context of governmental policies can be summarized by the diagram in Figure 1. A person presumably comes to attach personal importance to an attitude either because his or her own material interests are at stake, because people with whom he or she identifies are materially affected by the object or consider their attitudes toward the object to be important, or because the object is perceived to be relevant to his or her values (see, Boninger, Krosnick, & Berent, 1995). Importance is thought to inspire selective exposure to and intensive elaboration of information relevant to the attitude object, which each increase the likelihood that a person will accumulate a large volume of information about the attitude object. Shown at the bottom left of the figure is a previously established cause of knowledge volume in the political domain: nonselective exposure to news coverage of political events (see Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1997; Roberts & Maccoby, 1985). The flowing nature of television and radio news programs does not easily afford viewers/listeners opportunities to select to watch/hear some stories and not others. Therefore, choosing to watch or hear such programs probably brings with it nonselective exposure to information on many topics. Attitude importance is not the sole determinant of knowledge accumulation but rather presumably instigates a set of supplementary topic-specific processes. Overview of the Present Studies The nine studies we report in this paper test the hypothesis that attitude importance yields better memory for attitude-relevant information due to selective exposure to and selective elaboration of such information. These studies combine the virtues of everyday memory research done in the field with the virtues of tightlycontrolled laboratory studies (see, e.g., Banaji & Crowder, 1989; Neisser, 1988). Our first study tested whether there is a relation between attitude importance and memory for attitude-relevant information acquired naturally during daily life. Participants were interviewed before and after they watched a televised presidential debate in their own homes under natural conditions, and we assessed whether memory for statements made during the debate was related to the importance of relevant attitudes. Our second, third, and fourth studies tested whether attitude importance inspires selective exposure to and selective elaboration of attitude-relevant information. Studies 2 and 3 used laboratory data to test these hypotheses directly. Study 4 used longitudinal survey data to test the direction(s) of the causal relation(s) between importance and selective elaboration. Studies Five, Six, Seven, and Eight were conducted under controlled laboratory conditions using stimuli explicitly designed for experimental purposes. In these studies, we tested the mechanism(s) responsible for the effects of attitude importance on memory by manipulating participants ability to selectively expose themselves to and/or selectively elaborate upon information. Study Nine used structural equation modeling to test whether importance causes knowledge accumulation and whether people infer attitude importance by observing the amount of information they have about an attitude object. Study One Study One explored whether greater importance is associated with naturally occurring knowledge volume increases outside the laboratory in a general public sample. Method Participants An RDD sample (Waksberg, 1978) of adult residents of the Columbus, Ohio, metropolitan area was interviewed by telephone by nine trained and carefully supervised interviewers. Initial interviews were conducted the evening before the October 13, 1988, U.S. Presidential debate between George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis. A total of 134 participants were contacted and answered questions about their candidate preferences and political ideology. Sixty-three of these participants (47%) were successfully re-interviewed the day after the debate. Recontact Interview During the debate, the candidates made enough statements of those positions to permit construction of recognition memory measures on only three issues: taxes, capital punishment, and defense spending. Each candidate made two statements about taxes, one about capital punishment, and three about defense spending. Statements from President Bush reflected conservative positions (opposition to raising taxes, support for capital punishment, and support for increased defense spending), and statements from Governor Dukakis reflected liberal positions on two issues (opposition to capital punishment, and opposition to increased defense spending), and a conservative position on the third (opposing tax increases). During the followup interviews, participants completed cued recall and recognition memory tasks focused on those issues, reported their attitudes on the issues, reported the personal importance of those attitudes, and completed a six-item political knowledge quiz. For the cued recall task, participants were first asked whether they remembered hearing any discussion about each of the target issues during the debate. Participants who indicated that they remembered discussion of an issue were asked to list the statements they could recall either candidate making about the issue. Participants verbal protocols were taperecorded and were then transcribed immediately following each interview. For the recognition memory task, interviewers read 24 statements on the three target issues. Twelve of these statements (called old statements) had been made by the candidates during the debate, and the other 12 (called new statements) had not. After listening to each statement, participants indicated whether or not they thought it had been made by one of the candidates during the debate. The 12 old statements made by the candidates during the debate were clear expressions of their attitudes toward policies on each of the three target issues. Two statements on each issue made by each candidate were used, and the statements were roughly equal in length. Each of the 12 new statements used in the recognition memory task corresponded to a specific old statement. Each new statement was constructed to be similar in length to its corresponding old statement and to express a similar attitude. Measures Attitude importance. Participants indicated how important each issue was to them personally and how much they personally cared about each issue. Responses to each question were coded to range from 0 to 1 (with larger numbers indicating greater importance). The two items were averaged to yield a single attitude importance index for each issue. Memory accuracy. Measures of memory accuracy were computed for each participant on each issue. First, cued recall accuracy measures were computed based upon participants recollections of the statements made during the debate. Two independent coders assessed the number of correct recollections for each participant on each issue, and the two coders results were averaged to yield a single cued recall accuracy score for each participant on each issue. Correlations between the two coders results were .95 for taxes, .94 for capital punishment, and .94 for defense spending. Recognition memory performance was assessed through the most widely-used statistic for this purpose: d'. d uses a participants hit rate (i.e., the rate at which he or she correctly identified statements that were made by one of the candidates during the debate as such) and his or her false alarm rate (i.e., the rate at which he or she incorrectly claimed that new statements had been made during the debate) to gauge accuracy of recognition on each issue (Green & Swets, 1966). d is the difference between these two rates divided by the standard deviation of responses to the new statements. The highest possible hit rate and the lowest possible false alarm rate indicate the most accurate recognition. In our case, d' was computed separately for each issue and could range from +2 to -2, with +2 indicating perfect discrimination between old and new statements, 0 indicating chance levels of discrimination, and negative numbers indicating more false alarms than hits.1 Attitudes. Participants were asked to report their attitudes on rating scales with labeled endpoints. Responses were coded to range from 0 to 1, with higher numbers indicating more liberal positions. Analysis Although recognition and recall involve different memory processes (e.g., Rabinowitz, et al., 1977), we had no a priori reasons to expect that they would be affected differentially by importance. Therefore, we estimated the parameters of a single multilevel model using MLwiN (Rabash et al., 2000; see Kreft & de Leeuw, 1998) in which recognition d and recall were treated as indicators of memory accuracy. Multilevel modeling was used because the data were hierarchically structured: each participant provided recall and recognition scores for each issue; issue was nested within participant; and measure was nested within issue. In the multilevel model, measure (cued recall or recognition) was treated as level one, issue (taxes, capital punishment, and defense spending) was treated as level two, and participant was treated as level three. This approach allowed us to estimate the impact of importance on memory accuracy as we would in a conventional ordinary least squares regression across issues and measures while explicitly modeling the multilevel nature of the data. We report unstandardized regression coefficients and standard errors that are analogous to such parameter estimates from OLS regressions. Parameters representing the slopes and intercepts for each issue and memory measure were estimated using dummy variables representing the three issues and two measures. For each issue, an average intercept was estimated across individuals. Intercept differences across individuals were modeled as level 3 residuals. The individual level residuals for cued recall and recognition for each issue were allowed to covary. The intercepts represented the amount of memory accuracy among people for whom the importance of the issue was zero. We had no a priori theoretical reason to believe that these intercepts would be the same across issues and measures, because the particular stimulus sentences used may have varied in inherent memorability for a variety of reasons across issues and measures, independent of importance. We tested whether the intercepts for the importance-memory accuracy relation differed across issues and across measures by comparing the fit of a model in which all intercepts were constrained to be equal to the fit of a model in which the intercepts were allowed to vary across issues and measures. If imposing the equality constraint significantly compromised goodness of fit, then we allowed the intercepts to vary. Otherwise, we constrained the intercepts to be equal for the sake of parsimony. Our analytic approach also allowed the slope of the importance-memory accuracy relation to differ across issues and measures. Again for the sake of parsimony, we initially estimated the importance-memory accuracy relation by constraining the slope to be equal across issues and measures. Although we had no a priori expectation of variation in this slope across issues and measures, we then tested whether the slope did in fact differ across issues and measures. Because this analytic approach required that cued recall and recognition memory accuracy scores be in the same metric, we standardized scores on each memory accuracy measure for each issue. That is, a participants cued recall score for taxes was converted to a z-score with respect to all participants cued recall scores for taxes. Similarly, recognition memory accuracy scores for taxes were standardized with respect to all taxes recognition memory scores. Thus, each participant generated six standardized memory accuracy scores (a cued recall and recognition memory accuracy score for each of the three issues). Results Importance-Memory Accuracy Relation As expected, importance had a positive and significant effect on memory accuracy (b=.46, SE=.23, p<.05, N=366).2 Thus, participants for whom an attitude was more important were more likely to recall and recognize the statements relevant to that attitude. To illustrate, participants whose attitude importance ratings were below the median had lower memory scores on average (M=-.09) than did participants whose importance ratings were above the median (M=.07). Differences Across Issues and Memory Measures The fit of the model reported here was not improved significantly when the intercept of the importance-memory accuracy relation was allowed to vary across issues and memory accuracy measures (Dc2(5)=.15, ns, N=366), or when the slope of the relation of importance to memory accuracy was allowed to vary across issues and memory accuracy measures (Dc2(5)=.70, ns, N=366), suggesting that the effect of importance on memory did not differ across issues or measures. Attitudes We also tested whether people remembered statements expressing attitudes with which they agreed better than statements expressing attitudes with which they disagreed. For each issue and memory accuracy measure for each participant, we subtracted the memory accuracy score for statements expressing conservative positions from the memory accuracy score for statements expressing liberal positions. Multi-level modeling showed that participants attitudes were not associated with this measure (b=.08, SE=.18, ns, N=359). When a main effect of importance and an interaction between importance and attitudes were included as predictors of memory bias, the non-significant interaction (b=-.32, SE=.71, ns, N=359) suggested that attitude-driven memory bias did not appear at any level of importance.3 Political Knowledge The effect of importance on memory accuracy was unaffected by controlling for political knowledge (b=.89, SE=.36, p<.05, N=354), nor did the impact of importance differ across levels of political knowledge (political knowledge x importance interaction: b=-.87, SE=.63, ns, N=354). Study Two We hypothesized that the relation between importance and memory accuracy observed in Study One was in part due to selective exposure. Over the course of a 90-minute debate, people may pay close attention to the candidates' statements on some issues but turn their attention elsewhere when other issues are discussed.And attitude importance may guide this selective attention. Study Two was designed to test this hypothesis directly: that people seek more exposure to information relevant to more important attitudes. In this study, participants were given the opportunity to learn about a set of fictional political candidates by reading the statements they had purportedly made on various policy issues, with the expectation that participants evaluations of the candidates would later be requested. The selective exposure hypothesis predicted that participants would request more information relevant to attitudes they considered more personally important. Method Participants Two hundred two undergraduates at The Ohio State University participated in this study in partial fulfillment of an introductory course requirement. Procedure Participants completed selfadministered questionnaires in groups of 12 to 20. Participants were told that they would be evaluating political candidates after reading statements they made. After completing questions to gauge which information they wished to receive, they were debriefed and dismissed. Questionnaire. Information choice was made using a 12 x 12 matrix. Twelve candidates, represented by the letters A through L, were listed across the top of the matrix, and 12 issues were listed down the left side: abortion, the death penalty for convicted murderers, gun control, defense spending, nuclear energy, sending U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia to oppose Iraqs invasion of Kuwait, laws to prevent pollution by industry, mandatory recycling, import restrictions, legalization of marijuana, womens rights, and busing to achieve racial integration. The instructions explained to participants that they would later be evaluating the candidates based on information about their stands on policy issues. Participants were told that they could not receive all available information, but rather could learn about only three issues for each candidate, which participants selected by writing checkmarks in the appropriate cells of the matrix. Six cells in each column contained an x, indicating that participants could not select those issues for that particular candidate. Each issue was available to be selected for six of the twelve candidates, such that each issue competed with each other issue for at least two candidates and not more than four.4 After completing the matrix selection task, participants reported the personal importance of their attitudes on the twelve issues. Measures Attitude importance. Participants reported how important each issue was to them personally. Responses were coded to range from 0 to 1 (higher numbers indicated greater importance). Selective exposure. The number of times each participant selected each issue during the exposure selection task was calculated.5 This variable could range from 0 to 6 for each issue. Attitudes. Participants indicated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with various policy positions. Responses were coded to range from 0 to 1 (larger numbers indicated more liberal positions). Results Importance-Selective Exposure Relation In a multilevel regression analysis treating issues as nested within participants, importance had the expected positive and significant effect on selective exposure (b=2.84, SE=.14, p<.001, N=2419). Participants below the median in attitude importance chose an issue on an average of 36% of the occasions on which they could, whereas participants above the median chose the issue on an average of 66% of those occasions. Differences Across Issues The fit of these models was significantly improved when the intercepts of the importance-exposure relation were allowed to vary across issues (Dc2(11)=427.04, p<.001, N=2419) and when the effect of importance was allowed to vary across issues than when the effect of importance was constrained to be equal across issues (Dc2(11)=496.46, p<.001, N=2419). In a model where intercepts and slopes were allowed to vary across issues, the effect of importance on selective exposure was positive and statistically significant for all 12 of the issues but varied in strength. Study Three In our third study, we again tested whether importance was associated with selective exposure. In addition, we tested directly whether importance was associated with selective elaboration. We also tested whether the effect of importance on selective exposure and selective elaboration appears when controlling for other features of attitudes related to their strength. Strength-related attitude features such as extremity, certainty, and accessibility are usually positively related to one another (Krosnick & Petty, 1995), and the impact of importance we observed in Studies One and Two might therefore be a reflection of these other related attitude features. Study Three allowed us to gauge the impact of importance on selective exposure and selective elaboration controlling for the extremity, certainty, and accessibility of the attitude involved, as well as other characteristics of participants that might be related to memory accuracy (e.g., gender, identification with political parties, and liberal/conservative ideology). Method Participants Six hundred fifty four undergraduates at The Ohio State University participated in this study in partial fulfillment of an introductory course requirement. Procedure Participants visited our laboratory for about an hour in groups of 5 to 15 and each completed a questionnaire on a computer in a private room. Questionnaire. Participants were given a list of seven issues and told they would have five minutes to think about any or all of the issues participants then reported the issues they chose to think about and the order in which they thought about the issues. Participants also ranked a series of topics to indicate which they would most and least like to learn about, and they reported their gender, political party identification, and liberal/conservative ideology. Then, participants were randomly assigned to answer a series of questions about either abortion or capital punishment (which refer to the participants target issue). Participants reported their attitudes on the issue, and response latencies for each of these attitude reports were measured. And participants reported attitude importance and attitude certainty. Measures Attitude importance. Participants indicated how important their target issue was to them personally, how much they personally cared about the issue, and how important the issue was to them relative to other issues. Responses were coded to range from 0 to 1, with larger numbers indicating more importance. The three measures were then averaged to create an index of importance. Selective exposure. Three questions, each presenting a menu of three topics of information, asked participants to indicate which they would most and least like to learn about. Each list included one piece of information relevant to the target issue. For each list, participants were coded 1 if they said they most wanted to learn about the target issue, 0 if they said they least wanted to learn about the target issue, and .5 otherwise. These three measures were then averaged to create an index of selective exposure. Selective elaboration. Selective elaboration was coded 1 for participants who thought about the target issue (either abortion or capital punishment) first, .86 for participants who thought about the issue second, .71 for participants who thought about it third, .57 for participants who thought about it fourth, .43 for participants who thought about it fifth, .29 for participants who thought about it sixth, .14 for participants who thought about it seventh, and 0 for participants who did not think about the target issue. Attitude valence. Four sets of branching questions were used to assess participants attitudes on their target issue. For example, participants were asked whether they favored legalized abortion, opposed it, or neither favored nor opposed it. Follow-up questions determined whether participants who favored or opposed legalized abortion did so strongly or somewhat, and whether participants who neither favored nor opposed it leaned toward one of these positions. Responses to each set of branching questions were used to construct 7-point scales and coded to range from 0 to 1 (with larger numbers indicating more positive attitudes) and were averaged to create an attitude index for each participants target issue. Participants with an index score greater than .5 were coded 1 for the variable positive attitude, and all other participants were coded 0. Participants with an attitude index score less than .5 were coded 1 for the variable negative attitude, and all other participants were coded 0. Participants with an attitude score of .5 were coded 0 for both these variables and therefore served as the baseline group. Attitude extremity. Attitude extremity was measured by folding each of the four target attitude rating scales at its midpoint and coding responses to range from 0 to 1, with larger numbers representing greater extremity. These scores were then averaged to yield an index of extremity. Attitude certainty. Participants reported how confident they were about their opinions on their target issue and how sure they were that their opinions were correct. They also indicted how confident they were about the issue relative to other issues. Responses were coded to range from 0 to 1 (with larger numbers indicating greater certainty) and averaged to create an index of attitude certainty. Attitude accessibility. Attitude accessibility was assessed via response latencies for the four target attitude questions, which were subjected to a reciprocal transformation (see Fazio, 1990). Response latencies for two other questions were subjected to reciprocal transformations and averaged to yield an index of baseline speed of responding. This index was subtracted from each of the reciprocalized attitude response latencies, and the results were averaged (larger numbers indicated greater attitude accessibility). Gender. Females were coded 0, and males were coded 1. Party identification. Participants indicated whether they considered themselves to be Democrats, Republicans, or something else. Follow-up questions determined whether partisans identified strongly or weakly with their party, and whether those who did not identify with a party leaned toward one of the two parties. Responses were used to construct 7-point scales and coded to range from 0 to 1, with larger numbers indicating stronger identification with the Republican Party, smaller numbers indicating stronger identification with the Democratic Party, and .5 representing no identification with either of the two major political parties. Liberal/conservative ideology. Participants indicated whether their political views were liberal, conservative, or moderate. Follow-up questions determined the degree of liberalism/conservatism (e.g., whether liberal participants described their views as very liberal or somewhat liberal) and the tendency of moderates to lean in a liberal or conservative direction. Responses were used to construct 7-point scales and coded to range from 0 (for strong conservatives) to 1 (for strong liberals). Results Effects of Importance Selective exposure. Two OLS regressions were conducted to assess the impact of importance on selective exposure and selective elaboration, controlling for attitude valence, attitude extremity, attitude certainty, attitude accessibility, gender, party identification, and liberal/conservative ideology (see Table 1). The positive and significant relation between importance and selective exposure (see row 1 of column 1: b=.29, SE=.06, p<.01, N=550) indicates that greater attitude importance led participants to choose to learn attitude-relevant information more. Participants who were above the median in attitude importance said they most wanted to learn attitude-relevant information in 56% of the choices on average (M=.70). Participants who were below the median in attitude importance most wanted to learn attitude-relevant information in only 39% of their choices on average (M=.56). Selective elaboration. A positive and significant relation also appeared between importance and selective elaboration (see row 1 of column 2: b=.22, SE=.06, p<.01, N=533), indicating that greater attitude importance was associated with a greater inclination to think about the issue. Participants who were above the median in attitude importance were more than twice as likely (34.5%, M=.74) to think about the issue first than were participants who were below the median (15.9%; M=.65). Other Strength-Related Attitude Features Attitude extremity and attitude accessibility did not predict selective exposure or selective elaboration (see rows 3 and 4 of Table 1). Certainty did not predict selective exposure (b=.09, SE=.06, ns, N=550; see row 2 of Table 1), but greater certainty predicted more selective elaboration (b=.13, SE=.06, p<.05, N=533). Study Four To provide more direct evidence that importance causes selective elaboration, Study 4 used longitudinal survey data to gauge the impact of importance on selective elaboration and vice versa while controlling for other strength-related attitude features, attitude valence, general political dispositions, and demographics. For this survey, a nationally representative sample of American adults was interviewed twice, immediately before the 1997 national debate about global warming and immediately afterward. Because the relevant constructs were measured identically during both interviews, we were able to implement a well-established analytic technique for generating evidence of causal influence. The logic underlying this approach was articulated by Granger (1969), who argued that if one variable causes another, then measurements of the first variable made at one point in time should predict subsequent changes in the second variable. This logic has been outlined in many methodology textbooks (e.g., Duncan, 1975; Kessler & Greenberg, 1981; Kenny, 1979) and has been used to test causal claims in many past investigations (e.g., Bizer & Krosnick, 2001; Kessler & Greenberg, 1981; Krosnick, 1990). We implemented this approach by estimating the parameters of a set of multiple regression equations, the conceptual core of which is shown graphically in Figure 2. This model proposes that attitude importance measured at time 1 may have been a cause of attitude importance measured at time 2 and that selective elaboration of attitude-relevant information measured at time 1 may have been a cause of selective elaboration of attitude-relevant information at time 2. After controlling for the stability of these constructs in this fashion, the only variance left unexplained in the time 2 measurements is any change that occurred in these constructs between time 1 and time 2. Therefore, the effect of each variable measured at time 1 on the other variable measured at time 2 identifies the amount of change that occurred in the second variable that was predictable by prior levels of the first variable. If such a lagged effect appears, it is consistent with the hypothesis that the first variable caused changes in the second (see Kenny, 1979; Kessler & Greenberg, 1981). The model we estimated also included other time 1 control variables, including attitude valence and extremity, attitude certainty, liberal/conservative ideology, general political knowledge, and various demographic characteristics. Method Participants Computer-assisted telephone interviews were conducted with a representative sample of 688 American adults (selected via Random Digit Dialing) by the Ohio State University Survey Research Unit between September 17, 1997, and October 5, 1997. The most recent birthday method was used for respondent selection within households (Salmon & Nichols, 1983). Between December 20, 1997, and February 13, 1998, these participants were recontacted, and 497 of them (72%) agreed to be interviewed a second time. Interviews During each of the interviews, participants reported how important the issue of global warming was to them personally, how much they had thought about global warming, their attitudes toward global warming, and the certainty with which they held these beliefs and attitudes. Participants also reported their education, age, household income, race, and liberal/conservative ideology, and answered five quiz questions assessing general political knowledge. Interviewers recorded each participants gender. Measures Attitude importance. Participants indicted how important the issue of global warming was to them personally. Responses were coded to range from 0 to 1 (larger numbers indicated more importance). Selective elaboration. Participants indicated how much thinking they had done about the issue of global warming before that day. Responses were coded to range from 0 to 1 (larger numbers indicate more thinking). Attitude valence. Attitudes toward global warming were measured via a set of branching items like those used in Study Three. Participants with positive attitudes were coded 1 on the positive attitude dummy variable, and all other participants were coded 0. Participants with negative attitudes were coded 1 on the negative attitude dummy variable, and all other participants were coded 0. Attitude extremity. Attitude extremity was coded 1 for people who said global warming would be very good or bad, .67 for people who said it would be somewhat good or bad, .33 for people who leaned toward one way or the other, and 0 for people who said it would be neither good nor bad. Attitude certainty. Participants indicated how sure they were of their opinions about global warming. Responses were coded to range from 0 to 1 (larger numbers indicated greater certainty). Liberal/conservative ideology. Responses to a set of branching questions placed participants on a 7-point scale ranging from strong liberal to strong conservative. Responses were coded to range from 0 to 1, with 0 representing strong conservatives and 1 representing strong liberals. Gender. Gender was coded 0 for females and 1 for males. Age. Participants were asked the year in which they were born. Age was calculated and then recoded to range from 0 (for 18-year-olds) to 1 (for 95, the oldest age represented in the sample). Race. White participants were coded 1, and all other participants were coded 0. Education. Participants reported the highest level of education they had completed. People who had completed 8th grade or less were coded 0; those who had completed some high school were coded .14; those who were high school graduates were coded .29; those who had completed some college were coded .42; those who had an associates degree or who had completed technical or trade school were coded .57; those who had a four-year college degree were coded .71; those who had a masters degree were coded .86; and those who had a Ph.D. were coded 1. Income. Participants were asked to select a category from a list of 10 to indicate their annual family income. Responses were coded to range from 0 to 1, with 0 representing the lowest income category (less than $10,000) and 1 representing the highest income category (more than $90,000). General political knowledge. Using responses to five general political knowledge quiz questions, participants were given a score from 0 to 1 to indicate the percent of these questions answered correctly. Analysis To gauge the parameters of the model shown in Figure 2, we regressed selective elaboration at time 2 on selective elaboration at time 1, importance at time 1, and a series of control variables: attitude certainty at time 1, attitude extremity at time 1, attitude valence at time 1, liberal/conservative ideology, gender, age, race, education, income, and general political knowledge. We also regressed importance at time 2 on importance at time 1, selective elaboration at time 1, and the same control variables. To test whether the effects of importance on selective elaboration varied depending on general political knowledge, we estimated interactions of importance with general knowledge predicting selective elaboration. Results Effect of Importance on Selective Elaboration A significant, positive relation appeared between importance at time 1 and subsequent increases in selective elaboration (see row 2, column 1 of Table 2: b=.11, SE=.05, p<.05, N=411), suggesting that greater personal importance led to more thinking about global warming. Elaboration at time 2 was higher among participants for whom the attitude was of high importance (estimated marginal mean including elaboration at time 1 as a covariate=.64) than among participants for whom the attitude was of low importance (estimated marginal mean including elaboration at time 1 as a covariate=.58). The impact of importance at time 1 on subsequent increases in selective elaboration was uniform across levels of political knowledge (b=-.14, SE=.14, ns, N=411; see row 14 of column 2 in Table 2). Effect of Selective Elaboration on Importance Selective elaboration at time 1 did not predict subsequent changes in importance (see row 1, column 3 of Table 2: b=.04, SE=.04, ns, N=411). Thus, importance appears to have caused selective elaboration, but no support was found for the reverse causal relation. Other Strength-Related Attitude Features As in Study Three, certainty at time 1 was a positive predictor of subsequent increases in selective elaboration (b=.17, SE=.05, p<.01, N=411; see row 3, column 1 of Table 2), and attitude extremity was not (b=.07, SE=.06, ns, N=411). Neither certainty nor extremity at time 1 predicted subsequent changes in importance (see rows 3 and 4 of column 3 in Table 2). Study Five To test whether the association observed in Study One between attitude importance and memory accuracy is mediated by selective elaboration, we built a laboratory analogue to Study One and varied participants opportunities to engage in selective elaboration. If importance was related to memory accuracy when selective elaboration was permitted and eliminating this opportunity significantly reduced the association, that would lend credibility to the notion that the association between importance and memory accuracy is partly mediated by selective elaboration. Method Participants One hundred fifty-nine undergraduates at the University of Michigan participated in this study in partial fulfillment of an introductory psychology course requirement. Procedure Participants were mailed a questionnaire assessing their attitudes on various policy issues including abortion and U.S. defense policy, as well as the personal importance of those attitudes. Participants came to the laboratory 1 to 2 months later and reported the same attitudes on a computer. After performing a 10 minute distractor task, participants indicated whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements on various policy issues, including abortion and U.S. defense policy. After another 15 minute distractor task, participants attempted to write down all of statements they had judged. Exposure Conditions Participants were randomly assigned to either an unpaced or a paced exposure condition. Participants in the unpaced condition read the following instructions: During this next task, a series of sentences will appear on the screen. These statements were made by prominent politicians, and each statement reflects a general opinion about abortion: some are extremely pro-abortion, some are extremely anti-abortion, and some are more moderate positions. Your task is to indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement. If you strongly agree with the statement, press the button on your right marked strongly agree. If you strongly disagree with it, press the button on your left marked strongly disagree. And if your feelings are somewhere in between these extremes, press the appropriate button in between: 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. Similar instructions appeared before the defense spending statements, and participants in this condition then rated each statement about abortion and U.S. defense policy at their own pace. This permitted selective elaboration of statements whenever a participant chose to do so. Participants in the paced condition received the following additional instructions: Please make your response as quickly as possible. Dont spend much time deciding which button to press were interested in your first reaction. Thus, selective elaboration was minimized. Measures Attitude importance. Participants indicated how important each issue was to them; responses were coded to range from 0 to 1, with larger numbers indicating more importance. Participants also rank-ordered a series of issues in terms of their personal importance. In addition to abortion and defense policy, this list included legalization of marijuana, racial integration, pollution, womens rights, capital punishment, gun control, and U.S. intervention in foreign countries. Rankings of abortion and defense policy were coded to range from 0 to 1, with larger numbers indicating more importance. These two importance scores were were averaged for each issue into an index of importance. Memory accuracy. Measures of cued recall accuracy were computed and standardized as in Study One. Attitudes. Participants reported their attitudes on rating scales with labeled endpoints (e.g., abortion should never be permitted under any circumstances and abortion should be permitted whenever a woman wishes to have one). Two such questions gauged participants attitudes on each issue. Responses were coded to range from 0 to 1 (higher numbers indicated more liberal positions) and were averaged together. Analysis MLwiN was again used to conduct a multilevel regression. A two-level model was estimated, in which issue was level 1 and participant was level 2. Results Manipulation Check Our manipulation of pacing relied on the assumption that participants in the paced condition would read the statements more quickly than would participants in the unpaced condition. Consistent with this assumption, participants in the paced condition spent an average of 4.04 seconds reading and making their judgment about each statement, whereas participants in the unpaced condition spent an average of 4.44 seconds, a significant difference (F(1,157)=5.43, p<.05). Importance-Memory Accuracy Relation Replicating Study Ones findings, the effect of importance on memory accuracy was positive and significant in the unpaced condition (b=.93, SE=.42, p<.05, N=120). Among participants for whom the attitude was of high importance, memory accuracy was higher (M=.26) than among participants for whom the attitude was of low importance (M=-.06). In the paced condition, the impact of importance on memory accuracy was not significant (b=-.12, SE=.30, ns, N=174). The effect of importance on memory accuracy was significantly stronger in the unpaced condition than in the paced condition (z=2.03, p<.05, N=294). This is consistent with the conclusion that the relation of importance to memory accuracy can be eliminated if selective elaboration is eliminated. Differences Across Issues The fit of these models was not improved by allowing the intercepts of the importance-memory accuracy relation to vary across the two issues (paced: Dc2(1)=2.28, ns, N=174; unpaced: Dc2(1)=1.96, ns, N=120), so a single intercept was used for each condition. The effect of importance on memory accuracy differed significantly across the two issues in the unpaced condition (Dc2(1)=4.64, p<.05, N=120): this relation was positive and significant for abortion (b=1.09, SE=.42, p<.01) and weaker and non-significant for U.S. defense policy (b=.45, SE=.47, ns). Study Six In Study Six, we examined the impact of a different pacing manipulation on the importance-memory accuracy relation to again test for mediation by selective elaboration. Method Participants Eightysix undergraduates at The Ohio State University participated in this study in partial fulfillment of an introductory psychology course requirement. Procedure Participants made two visits to our laboratory on successive days. Participants read statements of attitudes toward government policies during their first visits and completed memory assessment tasks and an attitude questionnaire during their second visits. During participants first visits, they were seated alone in front of a computer monitor and keyboard in a small room and read the following instructions: During this part of the experiment, you will read statements made by ten candidates who ran for the United States Senate within the past ten years. The statements have been selected from their debates with other candidates. You will then be asked to indicate HOW MUCH YOU WOULD SUPPORT THIS CANDIDATE by pressing the number that corresponds to your feelings. Participants then read a total of 60 statements purportedly made by the 10 candidates. For each candidate, one statement on each of six issues (abortion, defense spending, womens rights, government efforts to stop industrial pollution, nuclear energy, and legalization of marijuana) was listed. Thus, participants encountered a total of ten statements on each issue, four of which were favorable toward a specific policy (e.g., Legalizing marijuana is a great idea), another four of which were unfavorable toward the policy, and two of which were neutral. All six statements made by a single candidate were presented simultaneously on the screen, and above each block of statements was the name of the candidate who purportedly had made them.6 Statements in a block were presented one above the other in an order that was uniquely randomized for each participant (e.g., for some participants, all 10 blocks of statements had a statement on abortion at the top, followed by a womens rights statement, followed by statements concerning pollution laws, legalization of marijuana, defense spending, and nuclear energy). After reading each block of statements, participants indicated how much they would support the candidate by pressing one of seven keys (17, with the end points labeled would support and would not support). During participants second visits, they completed cued recall and recognition memory tasks and a questionnaire measuring attitude importance and attitudes. The recognition memory task included all 60 old statements and 60 new statements. The 60 new statements included favorable, unfavorable, and neutral statements that were generated in the same manner as the old statements. Exposure Conditions Participants were randomly assigned to either an unpaced or a paced exposure condition. Participants in the unpaced condition read the following instructions: You will read six statements made by each candidate. After you have read the statements, press any button to continue. Participants in this condition were permitted to view a block of statements for as long as they wished before moving on. After each block of statements, participants were asked how much they would support the candidate. Participants in the paced condition read the following instructions instead: You will have 20 seconds to read six statements made by each candidate. After 20 seconds, the statements will disappear, so read as quickly as you can. Participants saw each block of statements for 20 seconds and then evaluated the candidate. After evaluating the candidate, a new block appeared for 20 seconds, and the cycle continued until the participant had evaluated all 10 candidates. The time of 20 seconds was selected based upon pretest work indicating that this was approximately the amount of time needed simply to read the statements, thus precluding any elaboration. Measures Attitude importance. Participants indicated how important each issue was to them personally and how much they personally cared about each issue. Responses to the two questions for each issue were recoded to range from 0 to 1 (larger values indicated more importance) and averaged to produce an index of importance for each issue. Memory accuracy. Measures of cued recall accuracy and recognition memory d were computed and standardized as in Study One. Attitudes. Attitudes were measured as in Study One. Results Manipulation Check Consistent with the assumption that the pacing manipulation accelerated exposure to the statements, participants in the unpaced condition chose to read each block of statements for 29 seconds on average, in contrast to the 20 seconds given to participants in the paced condition, a highly significant difference, t(106)=11.21, p<.001. Importance-Memory Accuracy Relation In a multilevel regression, the effect of importance on memory accuracy was significant and positive in the unpaced condition (b=.66, SE=.16, p<.001, N=536). Memory accuracy was higher among participants above the median in attitude importance (M=.35) than among those below the median (M=.09). The impact of importance on memory accuracy was non-significant in the paced condition (b= -.19, SE=.16, ns, N=474). The effect of importance on memory accuracy was significantly stronger in the unpaced condition than in the paced condition (z=3.79, p<.001; N=1010), a finding that is again consistent with the notion that selective elaboration is necessary in order for the relation to appear. Differences Across Issues and Memory Measures Model fit was not significantly improved when the intercepts of the importance-memory accuracy relation were permitted to vary across issues and memory measures (unpaced: Dc2(11)=16.29, ns, N=536; paced: Dc2(11)=17.06, ns, N=474), so a single intercept was used in each model. In the unpaced condition, the fit of the model did not improve when the effect of importance was allowed to vary across issues and memory accuracy measures (Dc2(11)=16.52, ns, N=536). In the paced condition, the fit of the model was significantly better when the effect of importance was allowed to vary across issues (Dc2(11)=15.16, ns, N=474), but when examined separately for each issue and memory measure, none of the importance-memory relations was positive and significant. Attitudes A measure of memory bias was constructed as in Study One.7 Attitudes were marginally significantly related to memory bias in the paced condition (b=-.39, SE=.21, p<.10, N=240), but the effect was in the opposite direction predicted by the congeniality hypothesis: memory was better for statements that were inconsistent with participants attitudes. The effect of attitudes on memory bias was not significant in the unpaced condition (b=.03, SE=.19, ns, N=274). Importance did not interact with attitudes in predicting memory bias in either condition (paced: b=.31, SE=.77, ns, N=240; unpaced: b=.85, SE=.69, ns, N=274). Study Seven Study Seven was conducted to replicate Study Six using a different manipulation of the opportunity for selective elaboration and using a new manipulation to test mediation of the importance-memory accuracy relation by selective exposure. This study included unpaced and paced conditions, plus two other conditions that were variants of the paced condition. The first variant was the elaboration time condition, in which participants were given extra time after reading each statement block to elaborate upon it before making their judgments and moving on to the next block. If selective elaboration is partly responsible for the relation of importance with memory accuracy, this relation should reappear when paced participants are given time for elaboration, because they would have chosen to spend their elaboration time thinking about information relevant to the issues most important to them. The second variant of the paced condition was the topic labels condition. In this condition, each statement was labeled with the name of the issue it addressed. If participants preferred to expose themselves to information on issues they considered more important, this presentation format would have allowed such selectivity. That is, participants could scan each screen for the names of the issues they cared about, read those statements, and ignore other statements. If the relation of importance to memory accuracy reappeared in this condition, it would be because we allowed selective exposure and would support the claim that selective exposure mediates the relation of importance with memory accuracy. Method Participants Five hundred fifty six undergraduates at The Ohio State University participated in this study in partial fulfillment of an introductory course requirement. Procedure The procedures for this study were nearly identical to those of Study Six. Participants made two visits to our laboratory on successive days. On the first day, they were exposed to statements concerning defense spending, womens rights, abortion, nuclear energy, and legalization of marijuana. Ten blocks of statements were presented to participants, and participants indicated how much they would support the candidate who made the statements after each block. Each block contained five statements, and each statement in a block addressed a different issue. The order of issues within blocks was randomized between participants but held constant across blocks within participants. During their second visit, participants completed a cued recall task in which they wrote down as many statements as they could remember from their first visit. They then completed recognition memory tasks in which they attempted to discriminate between 50 new statements and the 50 old statements. Finally, participants completed a questionnaire in which they reported attitudes and personal importance. Experimental Conditions Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions. The instructions used and procedures used in the unpaced condition were identical to Study Six. The paced condition was similar to Study Six, with one change. The instructions stated, You will have 20 seconds to read five statements made by each candidate. After 20 seconds, the statements will disappear, so read as quickly as you can. Participants in the elaboration time condition read the following instructions: You will have 20 seconds to read five statements made by each candidate. After 20 seconds, the statements will disappear, so read as quickly as you can. Once the statements disappear, you will have 45 seconds to think about what you read. 15-second exposures to blocks of statements were each followed by 45 seconds during which the computer screen was blank, after which participants indicated how much they would support the candidate. Participants in the topic labels condition read the same instructions as participants in the paced condition, and each block of statements appeared for 15 seconds. In order to help these participants locate statements relevant to particular attitudes, each statement in a block was preceded by a single word that identified the general topic of the statement. The statements relevant to defense spending was preceded by the word Defense, and the other statements were each preceded by Women, Abortion, Energy, and Marijuana, respectively. Measures Attitude importance. Attitude importance was measured and coded as in Study Six. Memory accuracy. Issue-specific measures of cued recall accuracy and d were computed and standardized as in the previous studies. Attitudes. Attitudes were measured and coded as in Study Six. Results Manipulation Check As expected, participants in the unpaced condition read each block of statements for 26 seconds on average, in contrast to the 20 seconds allowed participants in the three paced conditions (paced, topic labels, and elaboration time), a highly significant difference (t(79)=6.63, p<.001). Importance-Memory Accuracy Relation In a multilevel regression, importance had a significant positive effect on memory accuracy in the unpaced condition (b=.26, SE=.12, p<.05, N=1435). Memory accuracy was higher for attitudes that were above the median in importance (M=.17) than those below the median (M=.11). The same positive and significant effect of importance on memory accuracy appeared in the elaboration time condition (b=.26, SE=.11, p<.05, N=1300; high importance: M=.11; low importance: M=-.08). The effect of importance on memory accuracy was also positive and significant in the topic labels condition (b=.34, SE=.09, p<.01, N=1383; high importance: M=-.06; low importance: M=-.19). As expected, the importance-memory accuracy relation was not significant in the paced condition (b=.13, SE=.10, ns, N=1371). Effect of Exposure Condition on the Importance-Memory Accuracy Relation As predicted, the effect of importance on memory accuracy did not differ significantly across the unpaced, selective elaboration, and topic labels conditions (topic labels versus unpaced: z=.50, ns; topic labels versus selective elaboration: z=.51, ns; unpaced versus selective elaboration: z=.02, ns). When constrained to be equal across these three conditions, the effect of importance on memory accuracy was highly significant (b=.28, SE=.06, p<.001, N=5489), and the fit of this model was not significantly different from that of a model in which the slopes of the importance-memory relation were allowed to vary across all four conditions (Dc2(2)=.79, ns). The importance-memory accuracy relation in these three conditions combined was marginally significantly larger than the importance-memory accuracy relation in the paced condition (z=1.63, p<.10, N=5489), as expected. All this is consistent with the notion that importance enhanced memory accuracy by inspiring selective exposure and selective elaboration. Differences Across Issues and Memory Measures The fit of these models was marginally significantly improved when the intercepts for the importance-memory accuracy relation were permitted to vary across issues and memory accuracy measures in the unpaced condition (Dc2(9)=14.83, p<.10, N=1435), though not in the topic labels condition (Dc2(9)=8.79, ns, N=1383), the elaboration time condition (Dc2(9)=11.86, ns, N=1300), or the paced condition (Dc2(9)=2.89, ns, N=1371). Therefore, in models in which the conditions were compared, separate intercepts were estimated for each issue and measure in the unpaced condition, but a single intercept was estimated for all issues and memory accuracy measures in the paced, elaboration time, and topic labels conditions. The fit of these models was marginally significantly improved when the effect of importance was allowed to vary across issues and memory accuracy measures in the elaboration time condition (Dc2(9)=27.07, p<.001, N=1300), though not in the unpaced condition (unpaced: Dc2(9)=11.90, ns, N=1435), the paced condition (Dc2(9)=9.52, ns, N=1371), or the topic labels condition (Dc2(9)=14.53, ns, N=1383). In the elaboration time condition, the importance-memory accuracy relation was consistently stronger for cued recall than for recognition memory. Attitudes We also tested the congeniality hypothesis using memory bias scores calculated as in Study One.8 Participants attitudes did not predict their inclination to remember liberal statements better than conservative ones in any of the conditions (unpaced: b=.06, SE=.11, ns, N=1090; paced: b=.03, SE=.10, ns, N=1035; elaboration time: b=-.11, SE=.11, ns, N=1040; topic labels: b=-.09, SE=.10, ns, N=1095), nor did these relations differ across the four conditions. When a main effect of importance and an interaction between importance and attitudes were included as predictors of memory bias, the interaction was nonsignificant in the unpaced, paced, and topic labels conditions (unpaced: b=-.40, SE=.34, ns, N=1090; paced: b=-.46, SE=.33, ns, N=1033; topic labels: b=.26, SE=.33, ns, N=1094), suggesting that attitude-driven memory bias did not appear at any level of importance in these conditions. In the elaboration time condition, this interaction was significant (b=-1.09, SE=.35, p<.01). Among participants for whom the attitude was below the median in importance, the relation between attitudes and memory bias was positive and nonsignificant (b=.25, SE=.15, ns, N=537), and among participants for whom the attitude was above the median in importance, the relation between attitudes and memory bias was negative and marginally significant (b=-.27, SE=.15, p<.01, N=503). Thus, the significant interaction was primarily the result of effects in different directions; neither group showed a significant congeniality bias. Study Eight In our eighth study, we explored the impact of pacing and elaboration time manipulations on memory accuracy using a new dependent measure. Rather than asking participants to remember exactly what a political candidate had said, participants were asked to indicate whether a candidate favored or opposed each of a series of policies. Method Participants One hundred thirty undergraduates at The Ohio State University participated in this study in partial fulfillment of an introductory course requirement. Procedure The procedures for this study were similar to those of Study Seven, but the 50 statements participants read during the first lab visit were purportedly made by a single political candidate. Twenty-five of the statements each pertained to one of 25 different target issues. The remaining 25 statements were about other matters. The statements were presented in 10 blocks of five statements. After viewing each block of statements, participants indicated how much they would support the candidate. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three exposure conditions, paced, unpaced, and elaboration time, which were executed as in Study Seven. One day after exposure to the statements, participants returned to the laboratory to complete a questionnaire asking them to indicate whether the candidate had supported or opposed each of the 25 target policies. Participants also indicated whether they supported or opposed each policy and the personal importance of their attitudes on the issues. Measures Attitude importance. Participants indicated how important each issue was to them personally. Responses were coded to range from 0 to 1, with larger numbers indicating more importance. Memory accuracy. Measures of memory accuracy for each issue were coded 1 for participants who correctly identified the candidates position and 0 for participants who did not. Attitudes. Participants indicated whether they supported or opposed a series of policy positions. Responses were coded 0 for participants who advocated the conservative position and 1 for those who advocated the liberal position. Analysis Because the memory accuracy measure was dichotomous, a hierarchical binomial regression model was estimated using MLwiN to test the impact of importance on memory accuracy. A two-level model was estimated, with issue being level one and participant being level two. Results Importance-Memory Accuracy Relation Importance had the expected significant positive effect on memory accuracy in the unpaced condition (b=.94, SE=.25, p<.01, N=1285): 88% of participants who were above the median in attitude importance correctly identified the candidates positions, compared to 79% of the participants below the median. A similar relation between importance and memory accuracy was observed in the elaboration time condition (b=1.27, SE=.32, p<.01, N=931; high importance: 84% correct identification of candidates positions; low importance: 72% correct identification). As expected, the relation between importance and memory accuracy was not significant in the paced condition (b=.47, SE=.30, ns, N=937). Effect of Exposure Condition on the Importance-Memory Accuracy Relation The effects of importance in the unpaced and elaboration time conditions were not significantly different from one another (z =.33, ns), and the importance-memory accuracy relation was highly significant in the two conditions combined (b=1.17, SE=.21, p<.01, N=2216). The importance-memory accuracy relation in these two conditions was significantly stronger than that in the paced condition (z=1.92, p<.05, N=3153). Differences Across Issues Because the dependent variable was dichotomous, no measure of model fit was provided by MLwiN. In the models we reported, the intercept was constrained to be equal across all issues within each condition but was allowed to vary across conditions. In order to test whether the slope of the importance effect differed across issues within condition, we conducted a series of z-tests comparing the coefficients for each pair of issues. In all three conditions, the proportion of significant tests was not significantly different from that expected by chance alone (unpaced: c2(1)=.31, ns, N=1285; paced: c2(1)=1.04, ns, N=937; elaboration time: c2(1)=.04, ns, N=931). Meta-Analysis of Studies One, Five, Six, Seven, and Eight To efficiently gauge the reliability of the differences in the importance-memory accuracy relation observed across exposure conditions in Studies One, Five, Six, Seven, and Eight, we next conducted meta-analyses.9 As expected, the importance-memory accuracy relation was positive and statistically significant in the unpaced conditions (average effect size d=.26, z=6.47, p<.001; see column 2, row 6 of Table 3), but small and not significant in the paced conditions (average effect size d=.00; z=1.03, ns; see column 5, row 6 of Table 3). This relation was significantly stronger in the unpaced conditions than in the paced conditions (focused comparison of significance levels: z=3.54, p<.01). Also as expected, the importance-memory accuracy relation was positive and significant in the elaboration time (average effect size d=.20, z=4.53, p<.001; see column 8, row 6 of Table 3) and the topic labels conditions (average effect size d=.17, z=3.76, p<.001; see column 11, row 6 of Table 4). The importance-memory accuracy relation was significantly stronger in the elaboration time conditions than in the paced conditions (focused comparison of significance levels: z=3.11, p<.01), and significantly stronger in the topic labels condition than in the paced conditions (focused comparison of significance levels: z=2.90, p<.01). The unpaced and topic labels conditions did not differ significantly from one another (focused comparison of significance levels: z=.79, ns), nor did the unpaced and elaboration time conditions (focused comparison of significance levels: z=.38, ns), or the elaboration time and topic labels conditions (focused comparison of significance levels: z=.45, ns). All of this is consistent with the claim that the importance-memory accuracy relation was reliable when either selective elaboration or selective exposure was possible but not when both were eliminated. Study Nine Although Studies One through Eights results are consistent with the claim that importance leads to knowledge acquisition, some of the associations between importance and knowledge volume may be attributable to the reverse causal process: people may infer the personal importance of an attitude to them using the amount of attitude-relevant knowledge they have about the issue via a self-perception process (Bem, 1967, 1972). Feeling that one knows a great deal about an object may lead to the inference that the object is important. This logic presumes a two-step causal chain: actual knowledge volume is a principal cause of perceived knowledge volume, and perceived knowledge volume may be a cause of attitude importance, so some of the associations of importance with actual knowledge volume may result from the latter causing the former, mediated by perceived knowledge volume. The final study we report assesses the viability of this perspective by testing the crucial link: that people infer importance based upon perceived knowledge volume. To do so, we used survey data to estimate the parameters of a non-recursive structural equation model based on the principles of instrumental variable analysis to gauge the reciprocal effects of importance and perceived knowledge volume on one another (for an explanation of the technique, see Heise, 1975; Kenny, 1979; for an example of its application, see Bizer & Krosnick, 2001). Instrumental variable analysis in this instance requires that we have in hand an instrument for importance (i.e., a variable that causes importance but not perceived knowledge volume) and an instrument for perceived knowledge volume (i.e., a variable that causes perceived knowledge volume but not importance). Two variables measured in the survey are thought to cause attitude importance, social identification and value-relevance (see Boninger et al., 1995), and might therefore be able to serve as the former. Two variables thought to cause general political knowledge accumulation, exposure and attention to news media stories about politics generally (see Chang & Krosnick, 2003), were also measured and might be able to serve as the latter, thereby potentially constituting the empirical handles needed. We therefore collected data measuring importance, perceived knowledge volume, social identification, value-relevance, and exposure and attention to news media stories about politics, tested the adequacy of the posited instrumental variables, and gauged the effects of importance on knowledge volume and the reverse using the structural equation model shown in Figure 3. Method Participants One hundred fifty-nine undergraduates at The Ohio State University participated in this study in partial fulfillment of an introductory course requirement. Procedures Participants completed a written questionnaire and were debriefed and dismissed. Measures Attitude importance. Participants indicated how important the issue of abortion was to them personally, how much they personally cared about this issue, and how much they cared about this issue compared to other issues. Responses to each question were coded to range from 0 (meaning minimal importance) to 1 (meaning maximum importance). Perceived knowledge volume. Participants indicated how knowledgeable they considered themselves to be about the issue of legalized abortion, how much information they had about this issue, and the extent to which they considered themselves to be experts on this issue. Responses were coded to range from 0 to 1 (larger numbers meant more knowledge). Social identification. Participants identified one social group with whom they felt closest and most strongly identified. Participants indicated how important the issue of abortion was to this group and how much most members of this group cared about the issue of abortion. Responses were coded to range from 0 to 1 (larger numbers indicated more importance). Value relevance. Participants indicated the degree to which their views on the issue of abortion were closely related to their core values (which were defined as their personal beliefs about right and wrong, their beliefs about good and bad ways of living, and their religious beliefs). Participants also indicated how frequently the issue of legalized abortion brought to mind important values, the extent to which their attitudes toward abortion were based on their basic values, and the degree to which their opinions on this issue were an expression of their core values. Responses were coded to range from 0 to 1 (larger numbers meant more value relevance). Media exposure/attention. Participants indicated the number of days in the past week that they had watched the news on television and the number of days in the past week that they had read a newspaper (ranging from 0 to 7). Participants also indicated how much attention they paid to stories about government and political issues when they watched the news, and how much attention they paid to such stories when they read the newspaper. Responses were coded to range from 0 to 1, with higher numbers indicating more television watching, more newspaper reading, and greater attention. Responses to the pairs of exposure and attention questions were multiplied to yield indices of exposure/attention to television news and to newspaper news, because past work has shown that knowledge volume accumulation via the news media is a joint product of exposure and attention (see Brodie, Hamel, Altman, Blendon, & Benson, 2003; Chaffee & Schleuder, 1986; Chang & Krosnick, 2003). Results Correlation Between Importance and Perceived Knowledge Volume Using LISREL 8.3 (Jreskog & Srbom, 1998), we estimated the parameters of a structural equation model in which the three measures of attitude importance were treated as indicators of one latent construct (importance), the three measures of perceived knowledge volume were treated as indicators of a second latent construct ( perceived knowledge volume ), and the two latent constructs were permitted to correlate with one another. The model fit the data very well (c2(8)=11.97, N=158, ns; c2/df=1.50; GFI=.98; Normed Fit Index=.99; RMSEA=.05), and the correlation between the two latent factors was .48 (N=158, SE=.07, p<.001). The Effects of Importance and Perceived Knowledge Volume on One Another We then used LISREL to estimate the parameters of the structural equation model shown in Figure 3, wherein each latent variable had multiple indicators. The model fit the data well (c2(84)=92.52, N=152, p<.01; c2/df=1.10; GFI=.93; Normed Fit Index=.94; RMSEA=.02). As expected, social identification and value relevance were positively and significantly related to attitude importance (b=.37, SE=.10, p<.01, and b=.27, SE=.08, p<.01, respectively), and media exposure/attention was significantly and positively related to perceived knowledge volume (b=.38, SE=.14, p<.01). The effect of importance on perceived knowledge volume was positive and significant (b=.55, SE=.12, p<.01), consistent with the notion that attaching importance to an issue led people to gather knowledge about that issue. In contrast, the effect of perceived knowledge volume on importance was not significant (b=.04, SE=.34, ns). This disconfirms the claim that knowing a great deal about an issue led people to infer that they attached more importance to it. This analytic approach is valid only if social identification, value relevance, and media exposure/attention meet the criteria necessary to be considered instrumental variables. To gauge the viability of these assumptions, we conducted tests following the logic offered by James and Singh (1978) and A. Westholm (personal communication, March 29, 2002). For social identification and value relevance to be acceptable instrumental variables, they must have no residual association with perceived knowledge volume once importance has been controlled. For media exposure/attention to be an acceptable instrumental variable, it must have no residual association with attitude importance once perceived knowledge volume has been controlled. We therefore estimated the parameters of two additional structural equation models (the measured variables used as indicators of each latent variable were the same as in Figure 3). In the first model, social identification, value relevance, media exposure/attention, and perceived knowledge volume were allowed to cause attitude importance, and the former four variables were allowed to covary (c 2(80)=81.88, N=152, p<.01; c2/df =1.02; GFI=.93; Normed Fit Index=.94; RMSEA<.01). Social identification, value relevance, and perceived knowledge volume had the expected significant, positive effects (b=.31, SE=.07, p<.01; b=.21, SE=.07, p<.01; and b=.34, SE=.10, p<.01, respectively), and media exposure/attention was not significantly related to importance (b=-.12, SE=.14, ns). In a second model, social identification, value relevance, media exposure/attention, and importance were allowed to cause perceived knowledge volume, and the former four variables were allowed to covary (c 2(80)=81.88, N=152, p<.01; c 2/df=1.02; GFI=.93; Normed Fit Index=.94; RMSEA<.01). Media exposure/attention and importance had the expected significant, positive effects on perceived knowledge volume (b=.38, SE=.13, p<.01; b=.32, SE=.09, p<.01, respectively), and social identification and value relevance had no such effects (b=.07, SE=.06, ns, and b=.08, SE=.07, ns, respectively). Therefore, social identification, value relevance, and media exposure/attention satisfied the necessary criteria for serving as instrumental variables in Figure 3. General Discussion Memory Accuracy These studies provide consistent support for the hypothesis that attaching personal importance to an attitude leads to the acquisition of attituderelevant information in long-term memory. This relation appeared regardless of whether information was presented visually or orally, whether exposure took place naturally in participants homes or in structured laboratory settings, whether the participants were heterogeneous general population samples of adults or college students, whether attitude importance was measured months before memory accuracy was assessed or was measured afterward, or whether participants were asked to recall or recognize the words they had read previously or simply to remember their essential meaning. Furthermore, this relation seems to have occurred because people selectively devoted cognitive resources to exposing themselves to and elaborating upon the implications of information relevant to important attitudes.10 Thus, this evidence documents an explanation for findings of previous research studies showing that greater attitude importance is correlated with higher levels of knowledge accuracy in naturalistic contexts (Krosnick, 1990). These findings are valuable because they help to flesh out our understanding of the functioning of attitude importance. Much research to date has shown that more important attitudes have all the hallmarks of strength: they are more resistant to change, more stable over time, and have more impact on peoples thinking and action (for a review, see Boninger et al., 1995). But to date, relatively little is known about the cognitive mechanisms by which resistance and consequentiality follow from attitude importance. Our evidence suggests that importance is a motivator: it inspires gathering and thinking about attitude-relevant information and thereby yields an accumulation of such information in long-term memory, which then equips a person to resist persuasion and to use an attitude in making judgments and planning courses of action. It will be interesting for future research to conduct explicit tests of these mediational hypotheses about the mechanisms of attitude importances influence. Our theoretical account of the relation of selective elaboration with importance nicely dovetails with existing evidence on the organization of attitude-relevant information in memory. Berent and Krosnick (1995) showed that information relevant to more important attitudes is more elaborately organized in memory. Related pieces of information a person knows about a topic are more likely to be linked to one another in memory, and the organizational principles structuring such linkages are more complex in the case of more important attitudes. In light of the new evidence reported here, Berent and Krosnicks (1995) findings reinforce the apparent validity of the selective elaboration notion. It is useful to note that we found evidence consistent with Eagly et al.s (1999, 2000) on the congeniality hypothesis. Contrary to many prior claims in the literature (Levine & Murphy, 1943; Roberts, 1985; Watson & Hartmann, 1939), we (and Eagly et al.) found that people were no more inclined to remember information with which they agreed than to remember information with which they disagreed. Furthermore, if anything, people who attached more importance to an attitude leaned toward remembering attitude-inconsistent information slightly better than remembering attitude-consistent information. Thus, it seems that attitude importance does not inspire an attitude-protective bias in information recall. Implications Regarding Personal Relevance In some regards, our results are very much in harmony with research findings on involvement and persuasion in the tradition of Petty and Cacioppos (1986) Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM). Many investigations have shown that increasing the personal relevance of an attitude leads people to be more sensitive to variations in the quality of arguments made advocating a particular position, presumably because personal relevance increases the importance people attach to an attitude (see, e.g., Petty, Cacioppo, & Haugtvedt, 1992), which in turn enhances the degree to which people elaborate upon attituderelevant information, thus leading them to sharply differentiate strong from weak arguments. However, research in the ELM tradition has not yet explicitly tested whether importance is a mediator of the relation between personal relevance and elaboration. Our results help to make the case for this relation. Although we did not examine personal relevance directly, we did find that attitude importance induces selective elaboration. Such evidence is one component of the array one must assemble to make the case for mediation (see Baron & Kenny, 1986). Another component would be evidence that personal relevance causes attitude importance, evidence that Boninger, Krosnick, and Berent (1993) and Bizer and Krosnick (2001) have reported. Therefore, the stage seems appropriately set for the sort of partial correlation analysis suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986) to fully make the case for this multistep causal model. Our results are at odds with ELM study findings in one particular respect, though. According to various models of memory (i.e., 1980; Hintzman, 1986; Raaijmakers & Shiffrin, 1981), expending more cognitive effort in elaborating upon the meaning and implications of a piece of information should yield better memory for that information. And this is just what our results suggest attitude importance instigates. Yet research in the ELM tradition has generally failed to find that personal relevance enhanced participants memory for persuasive arguments to which they were exposed (Cacioppo, Petty, & Morris, 1983; Petty & Cacioppo, 1979; Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman, 1981; Petty, Cacioppo, & Heesacker, 1981; Petty, Cacioppo, & Schuman, 1983). There are at least four possible explanations for this discrepancy. One possible explanation may be the time interval between the personal relevance induction and memory assessment in ELM studies. Participants began our studies with target attitudes presumably having been important to them for long periods of time, during which selective exposure and elaboration habits may have been established, yielding schematic storage structures that facilitated efficient and effective encoding and retrieval of relevant knowledge. In ELM studies, novel issues were usually made personally relevant by manipulations implemented at the beginning of a laboratory visit, and memory was assessed only shortly thereafter. Perhaps personal relevance (or attitude importance) only enhances memory after some additional processes (e.g., knowledge acquisition and schema formation) have had time to unfold. A second possible explanation for the discrepancy involves the ways in which information was presented to participants in our studies and in ELM studies. In ELM studies, participants were usually given information about only a single topic, whereas in ours, participants were simultaneously exposed to information on many topics. Selective exposure and selective elaboration would only be expected to occur in multifaceted information environments, such as those we created. Because ELM study participants were typically presented with a message on a single topic, selective exposure was not possible, and selective elaboration may also not have been possible, because there were no other competing stimuli to think about. This raises the possibility that the elaboration in which our participants engaged (which yielded improved memory) may have been different from the elaboration in which ELM study participants engaged (which yielded greater sensitivity to argument quality). A third possible explanation for the discrepancy between our findings involves the statistical power of the tests we conducted. Memory accuracy has not been a primary focus of ELM research studies, so those studies usually did not entail any special steps to maximize the power and sensitivity of their memory assessments. We did take such steps, such as collecting multiple memory measures (cued recall and recognition) for multiple attitudes in the same study. Thus, we were able to eliminate idiosyncratic error variance and maximize true score variance in our tests. Perhaps more elaborate memory assessments in ELM studies would have yielded the same memory accuracy findings as ours. A final possible explanation involves the time interval between exposure and memory assessment. Whereas ELM studies typically assessed memory moments after exposure to a persuasive message, our studies involved much longer delays between stimulus exposure and memory assessment. This raises the possibility that the impact of attitude importance on memory is not due only to differential processes at the time of encoding incoming information by people high and low in importance, as we have assumed. In addition, the effect of importance-inspired rich encoding of a stimulus may be to reduce the natural rate at which a memory trace of the stimulus decays over time. Information relevant to unimportant attitudes may decay more quickly than information relevant to important ones, so the memorial advantage of the latter information may only appear after a significant time interval has passed post-exposure, even though the reason for this advantage is richer encoding at the time of exposure. Regardless of which explanation for the discrepancy between typical ELM study findings and ours is correct, we view this discrepancy as a useful starting point for future studies of the relation between attitudes and memory and for building conceptual bridges between the heretofore generally separate research programs on attitude importance and personal relevance. Other Strength-Related Attitude Features Additional findings of ours contribute to an on-going debate about the nature of strength-related attitude features. First, attitude importance was found to cause knowledge, whereas knowledge, certainty, and extremity did not cause importance. This evidence is consistent in spirit with Bizer and Krosnicks (2001) evidence showing that importance causes accessibility, but accessibility does not cause importance. Thus, importance judgments appear to be consequential but not epiphenomenal inferences based on self-perceptions derived from operative strength-related concepts such as knowledge or accessibility or from certainty or extremity. Furthermore, we saw evidence that these various attitude features behave differently from one another: importance causes selective exposure and selective elaboration, whereas extremity and accessibility cause neither, and certainty causes selective elaboration but not selective exposure. This evidence is consonant with Visser, Bizer, and Krosnicks (in press) argument that strength-related attitude features should not be averaged together to form indexes, because this will often mask real and interesting relations among constructs. Flashbulb Memories It is interesting to note that our results on memory accuracy parallel naturalistic findings in the literature on flashbulb memories (see, e.g., Brown & Kulik, 1977; Curci, Luminet, Finkenauer, & Gisle, 2001; Winograd & Neisser, 1992). Brown and Kulik (1977) demonstrated that flashbulb memories were most often reported and were most elaborate for events that more individuals said were especially consequential for themselves, in that their lives were directly affected by those events. This is what we have labeled selfinterest and is a primary cause of attitude importance (Boninger et al., 1993; Krosnick, 1990). Therefore, presuming that consequentiality and importance are strongly related, Brown and Kuliks (1977) findings in aggregate, correlational analyses seem reinforced by our experimental results conducted at the individual level. Furthermore, Brown and Kulik (1977) demonstrated that the consequentiality of events was related to the amount of rehearsal the event received (via conversations about it with others), a finding consistent with evidence that attitude importance is positively related to the frequency with which people talk about an attitude with others (Krosnick et al., 1993). The American Political Process Our finding that attitude importance enhances memory accuracy is useful partly because it addresses two interesting issues in the literature on political behavior. First, political theorists have argued that responsible democratic citizens form preferences about what they want government to do and use those preferences to guide their voting behavior in elections (e.g., Dahl, 1956; Pennock, 1979). And in fact, many democratic citizens do base their votes on issues they care about personally (Anand & Krosnick, 2003; Krosnick, 1988a). That is, greater importance is associated with greater impact of a persons attitude toward a policy on candidate preferences. This is true partly because people are more likely to perceive a sizable difference between the stands competing candidates take on an issue (thereby permitting a choice between them on that basis) when the voters own attitudes on the issue are personally important (Krosnick 1988a; 1989). Our findings suggest a process through which these more differentiated perceptions may evolve. Candidates have many incentives to remain ambiguous in terms of their stands on policy issues (Page, 1976; Shepsle, 1972), so they rarely make clear statements of those stands. However, selective exposure to and elaboration of information relevant to important attitudes presumably allow people to acquire and retain subtle details of fact about candidates statements and actions, with which their issue stands can be inferred. And on those few occasions when candidates do make clear statements of their policy stands, people who care deeply about the issues in question are especially likely to be listening and to remember what was said later. Thus, the motivation to acquire and process information inspired by attitude importance may yield more accurate perceptions of candidates policy preferences. Our evidence also addresses the popular perception among political scientists that democratic citizens are generally illinformed (e.g., Sussman, 1988) and are therefore irresponsible (Key, 1966). Our studies suggest that citizens attend to and retain political information about issues that are personally important to them. Research on issue publics (i.e., groups of individuals who care deeply about a given policy issue) suggests that people are likely to care deeply about only a small number of issues and that caring about an issue is typically unrelated to caring about another issue and not limited to political elites (see Krosnick, 1990). Thus, most citizens are likely to be knowledgeable about the few issues that they care deeply about and are therefore equipped to be responsible voters in these regards. Conclusion There are two distinct camps within the community of scholars interested in memory processes. The advocates of the everyday memory approach suggest that the most interesting lessons can be learned by studying these processes as they unfold naturally in the course of daily life. The advocates of controlled laboratory studies argue that such an approach is doomed to yield at best ambiguous evidence regarding the causal processes at work. We see merit in the views of both camps, so we set out to study the relation of attitude importance to memory employing both approaches in concert with one another. The result is a set of consistent evidence documenting both the causal processes at work and the ecological validity of those findings. We look forward to more such bridges between the two memory research camps being built in the future to push ahead our understanding of these and other such significant psychological phenomena. Footnotes 1 The computation of d' involves converting proportions into z-scores, so d' is indeterminate when a proportion is either 0 or 1. In our analyses, proportions of 0 were changed to .0228 (which translates to a z-score of -2.00), and proportions of 1 were changed to .9772 (z-score of 2.00). 2 One-tailed p-values are reported for all tests of directional hypotheses when the observed direction of an effect was as expected, and two-tailed p-values are reported for tests of non-directional hypotheses and tests of directional hypotheses when the observed difference ran in the direction opposite to expectations. Each N reported for multi-level analyses is the number of observations used to estimate a parameter: the number of participants multiplied by the number of issues and the number of memory accuracy measures for each issue minus any missing data points. These Ns are appropriate for the multi-level models because they take into account the hierarchical organization of the data. 3 We also tested the interaction between importance and attitudes. This interaction was positive and significant (b=2.14, SE=.70, p<.05, N=366), suggesting that individuals who advocated liberal positions showed a stronger importance-memory accuracy relation than did individuals who advocated more conservative positions. However, later studies did not replicate this interaction. 4 Participants were randomly assigned to be told the political party affiliation of each candidate or not. The results were similar regardless of whether the candidates party identifications were shown or not, so we report results combining all participants. The issues made available for each candidate were determined using the following rules: (1) each issue was available for selection six times, (2) each candidate had six of the twelve issues available for selection, (3) each pattern of available issues occurred for two candidates, (4) given the six available patterns of issues available for selection, the number of different issue combinations was maximized, (5) no two issues were both available for selection more than four times in the matrix, and (6) four pairs of issues were never simultaneously available for selection in the matrix (death penalty and mandatory recycling; defense spending and import restrictions; Kuwait and women's rights; pollution laws and recycling). The fact that some pairs of available issues appeared more than twice while other pairs never appeared was necessary given that only six unique combinations of available issues were used. 5 Several participants selected more than three issues or fewer than three issues for at least one of the candidates. In order to use the majority of the data without compromising its integrity, we chose to include in our analyses all participants who made such an error for two candidates at most. This approach led us to include 195 participants and to exclude seven. When we repeated the analyses using only the 129 participants who selected three issues for each candidate, we obtained comparable results. 6 For each participant, the name of the candidate was randomly selected from a set of ten, and the six statements in each block were drawn randomly from the pool of 60 statements, with the constraint that each statement in a given block must concern a different issue. The statements in each block were presented in an order uniquely randomized each time a block was presented to a participant. As a result of this process, the mix of liberal and conservative statements made by a single candidate varied across candidates. 7 Only recognition scores were used to calculate memory bias in this study because participants recalled only a small number of statements about each issue. As a result, cued recall memory bias scores for some issues had no variance across participants. 8 Memory bias scores were computed for recognition memory for all participants. For cued recall, memory bias scores could only be estimated for about half of the participants. The data for this study were collected in two waves, and separate coding of cued recall for liberal and conservative statements was not conducted for half of participants. Thus, substantial additional coding would be necessary to estimate cued recall memory bias scores for these participants. 9 The effect sizes were homogeneous in the unpaced conditions (Dc2(4)=8.57, p>.05) and in the paced conditions (Dc2(3)=6.96, p>.05; see Rosenthal, 1984), so we combined the effect sizes within each condition to compare meta-analytically to the topic labels and selective exposure conditions. 10 We did not formally document statistical mediation via the procedures outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986). Rather, we documented mediated causality via manipulations: by implementing procedures in the lab that held the posited mediators constant at zero (e.g., prohibiting selective elaboration or selective exposure), we achieved the same goal that Baron and Kennys procedure achieves statistically. And we showed that under these circumstances, the relation of importance with memory accuracy disappeared. This is therefore evidence of causal mediation of comparable clarity. References Adams, J. S. (1961). Reduction of cognitive dissonance by seeking consonant information. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 74-78. Alexander, A., Wartella, E., & Brown, D. (1981). Estimates of children's television viewing by mother and child. Journal of Broadcasting, 25, 243-252. Anand, S., & Krosnick, J. A. (2003). The impact of attitudes toward foreign policy goals on public preferences among presidential candidates: A study of issue publics and the attentive public in the 2000 U.S. Presidential election. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 33, 31-71. Anderson, D. R., Field, D. E., Collins, P. A., Lorch, E. P., & Nathan, J. (1985). Estimates of young children's time with television: A methodological comparison of parent reports with timelapse video home observation. Child Development, 56, 1345-1357. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol 2. New York: Academic Press. Baddeley, A.D. & Hitch, G.J. (1974). Working memory. In Bower, G.A. (Ed.) Recent advances in learning and motivation (Vol. 8). pp. 47-90. New York: Academic Press. Banaji, M. R., & Crowder, R. G. (1989). The bankruptcy of everyday memory. American Psychologist, 44, 11851193. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182. Bassili, J. N. (1996). Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: The case of measures of attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 637-653. Bechtel, R. B., Achelpohl, C., & Akers, R. (1972). Correlates between observed behavior and questionnaire responses on television viewing. In G. A. Comstock, E. A. Rubinstein, & J. P. Murray (Eds.), Television and social behavior, vol. 4. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Bellezza, F. S. (2003). Evaluation of six multinomial models of conscious and unconscious processes with the recall-recognition paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 779-796. Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74, 183-200. Bem, D. J. (1972). Self perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol. 6, pp. 1-62). New York: Academic Press. Berent, M. K., & Krosnick, J. A. (1995). The relation between political attitude importance and knowledge structure. In M. Lodge & K. McGraw (Eds.), Political judgment: Structure and process. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Berry, D. C. (1994). Implicit learning: Twenty-five years on. A tutorial. In Umilta, C. & Moscovitch, M. (Eds.). Attention and performance 15: Conscious and nonconscious information processing. Attention and performance series. Bizer, G. Y., & Krosnick, J. A. (2001). Exploring the structure of strength-related attitude features: The relation between attitude importance and attitude accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 566-586. Boninger, D. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Berent, M. K. (1993). The origins of attitude importance: Selfinterest, social identification, and valuerelevance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 61-80. Boninger, D. S., Krosnick, J. A., Berent, M. K., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1995). The causes and consequences of attitude importance. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum. Bornstein, R. F., & DAgostino, P. R. (1992). Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 545-552. Brodie, M., Hamel, E. C., Altman, D. E., Blendon, R. J., & Benson, J. M. (2003). Health news and the American public, 1996-2002. Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law, 28, 927-950. Brown, J. (1976). Recall and recognition. London: John Wiley and Sons Ltd. Brown, R., & Kulik, J. (1977). Flashbulb memories. Cognition, 5, 7399. Burnkrant, R. E. (1976). A motivational model of information processing intensity. Journal of Consumer Research, 3, 2130. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Morris, K. J. (1983). Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 805818. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. A., &Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chaffee, S. H., & Schleuder, J. (1986). Measurement and effects of attention to media news. Human Communication Research, 13, 76-107. Chang, L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2003). Measuring the frequency of regular behaviors: Comparing the typical week to the past week. Sociological Methodology, 33, 55-80. Craik, F. I. M. (1977). Depth of processing in recall and recognition. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 679697). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Craik, F., & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684. Curci, A., Luminet, O., Finkenauer, C., & Gisle, L. (2001). Flashbulb memories in social groups: A comparative test-retest study of the memory of French President Mitterands death in a French and Belgian group. Memory, 9, 81-101. Dahl, R. A. (1956). A preface to democratic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Delli Carpini, M.X., & Keeter, S. (1997). What Americans know about politics and why It matters. New Haven: Yale University Press. Duncan, O. D. (1975). Introduction to structural equation models. New York, NY: Academic Press. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. Eagly, A. H., Chen, S., Chaiken, S., & Shaw-Barnes, K. (1999). The impact of attitudes on memory: An affair to remember. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 64-89. Eagly, A. H., Kulesa, P., Brannon, L. A., Shaw, K., & Hutson-Comeaux, S. (2000). Why counterattitudinal messages are as memorable as proattitudinal messages: The importance of active defense against attack. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1392-1408. Fabrigar, L. R., & Krosnick, J. A. (1993). The impact of personal and national importance judgments on political attitudes and behavior. Paper presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, Illinois. Fazio, R. H. (1990). A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. In C. Hendrick & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Research methods in personality and social psychology: Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 74-97). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, Illinois: Row Peterson. Freedman, J. L., & Sears, D. O. (1965). Selective exposure. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 57-97). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Frey, D. (1986). Recent research on selective exposure to information. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 41-80). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Frey, D., & Wicklund, R. (1978). A clarification of selective exposure: The impact of choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 132-139. Furu, T. (1971). The function of television for children and adolescents. Tokyo: Monumenta Nipponica, Sophia University. Gold, P. (1987). Sweet memories. American Scientist, 75, 151155. Granger, C. W. J. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37, 424-438. Green, D., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley. Heise, D. (1975). Causal Analysis. New York: Wiley. Himmelweit, H. T., Oppenheim, A. N., & Vince, P. (1958). Television and the child. London: Oxford University Press. Hintzman, D. L. (1986). Schema abstraction in a multipletrace memory model. Psychological Review, 93, 411428. Iyengar, S. (1990). Shortcuts to political knowledge:Selective attention and the accessibility bias. In J. Ferejohn & J. Kuklinski (Eds.), Information and democratic processes. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt. James, L. R., & Singh, B. H. (1978). An introduction to the logic, assumptions, and basic analytic procedures of two-state least squares. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1104-1122. Jonas, E., Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., & Thelen, N. (2001). Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: An expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 557-571. Jreskog, K., & Srbom, D. (1998). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS common language. Chicago: Scientific Software International. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causality. New York: Wiley. Kessler, R. C., & Greenberg, D. F. (1981). Linear panel analysis: Models of quantitative change. New York, NY: Academic Press. Key, V. O. (1966). The responsible electorate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Klapper, J. T. (1960). The effects of mass communications. New York: Free Press. Kreft, I., & de Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Krosnick, J. A. (1988a). The role of attitude importance in social evaluation: A study of presidential candidate evaluations, policy preferences, and voting behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 196210. Krosnick, J. A. (1988b). Attitude importance and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 240255. Krosnick, J. A. (1989). Attitude importance and attitude accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 297308. Krosnick, J. A. (1990). Americans perceptions of presidential candidates: A test of the projection hypothesis. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 159182. Krosnick, J. A., Boninger, D. S., Chuang, Y. C., Berent, M. K., & Carnot, C. G. (1993). Attitude strength: One construct or many related constructs? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1132-1151. Krosnick, J. A., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Levine, J. M., & Murphy, G. (1943). The learning and forgetting of controversial material. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 507-517. Maslow, A. H. (1999). Toward a psychology of being. (Third edition). New York: Wiley. McLeod, J. M., Atkin, C. K., & Chaffee, S. H. (1972). Adolescents, parents, and television use: Adolescent self-report measures from Maryland and Wisconsin samples. In G. A. Comstock, A. E. Rubinstein, & J. P. Murray (Eds.), Television and social behavior. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Neisser, U. (1988). New vistas in the study of memory. In U. Neisser & E. Winograd (Eds.), Remembering reconsidered: Ecological and traditional approaches to the study of memory (pp. 110). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Nie, N. H., Junn, J., & Stehlik-Barry, K. (1996). Education and democratic citizenship in America. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Page, B. I. (1976). The theory of political ambiguity. American Political Science Review, 70, 742752. Pennock, J. R. (1979). Democratic political theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing messagerelevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 19151926. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol 19., pp. 123205). New York: Academic Press. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argumentbased persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847855. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Haugtvedt, C. (1992). Egoinvolvement and persuasion: An appreciative look at the Sherifs contribution to the study of selfrelevance and attitude change. In D. Granberg & G. Sarup (Eds.), Social judgment and intergroup relations: A Festschrift for Muzifer Sherif (pp. 147174). New York: SpringerVerlag. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Heesacker, M. (1981). The use of rhetorical questions in persuasion. A cognitive response analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 432440. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 134148. Prislin, R. (1996). Attitude stability and attitude strength: One is enough to make it stable. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 447-477. Rabash, J., Browne, W., Goldstein, H., Yang, M., Plewis, I., Healy, M., Woodhouse, G., Draper, D., Langford, I., & Lewis, T. (2000). A users guide to MLwiN. United Kingdom: MLwiN. Raaijmakers, J. G. W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1981). Search of associative memory. Psychological Review, 88, 93134. Rabinowitz, J. C., Mandler, G., & Patterson, K. E. (1977). Determinants of recognition and recall: Accessibility and generation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 302329. Ritchie, D., Price, V., & Roberts, D. F. (1987). Television, reading, and reading achievement. Communication Research, 14, 292-315. Roberts, D. F., & Maccoby, N. (1985). Effects of mass communication. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 539-598). New York: Random House. Roberts, J. V. (1985). The attitudememory relationship after 40 years: A metaanalysis of the literature. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 6, 221241. Robinson, J. P., & Levy, M. R. (1986). Interpersonal communication and news comprehension. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 160-175. Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Rubin, A. M. (1976). A developmental examination of the uses of television by children and adolescents. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois. Salmon, C. T., & Nichols, J.S. 1983. "The Next-Birthday Method of Respondent Selection." The Public Opinion Quarterly 47 (2): 270-6. Shepsle, K. A. (1972). The strategy of ambiguity: Uncertainty and electoral competition. American Political Science Review, 66, 555568. Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. Smith, E. R., Branscombe, N., & Bormann, C. (1988). Generality of the effects of practice on social judgement tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 385-395. Smith, T. W. (1988). Ballot position: An analysis of context effects related to rotation design. GSS Methodological Report No. 55. Chicago: NORC. Stadler, M. A. & Frensch, P. A. (1998). Handbook of implicit learning. Thousand Oaks, NJ: Sage Publications Sussman, B. (1988). What Americans really think. New York: Pantheon. Treisman, A., 1964. Selective attention in man. British Medical Bulletin, 20, 12-16. Tyler, S. W., Hertel, P. T., McCallum, M. C., & Ellis, H. C. (1979). Cognitive effort and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 607617. van der Voort, T. H. A., & Vooijs, M. W. (1990). Validity of childrens direct estimates of time spent television viewing. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 34, 93-99. Visser, P. (1998). Assessing the structure and function of attitude strength: Insights from a new approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: The Ohio State University. Visser, P. S., Bizer, G. Y., & Krosnick, J. A. (in press). Exploring the latent structure of strength-related attitude attributes. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York, NY: Academic Press. Waksberg, J. (1978). Sampling methods for random digit dialing. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 73, 4046. Watson, W. S., & Hartmann, G. W. (1939). The rigidity of a basic attitudinal frame. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 34, 314-335. Winograd, E., & Neisser, U. (1992). Affect and accuracy in recall: Studies of flashbulb memories. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Wood, W. (1982). The retrieval of attituderelevant information from memory: Effects of susceptibility to persuasion and on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 798810. Wood, W., & Kallgren, C. A. (1988). Communicator attributes and persuasion: Recipients access to attituderelevant information in memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 172182. Wood, W., Rhodes, N., & Biek, M. (1995). Working knowledge and attitude strength: An information-processing analysis. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Table 1 Unstandardized OLS Regression Coefficients from Analyses Predicting Selective Exposure and Selective Elaboration (Study 3) __________________________________________________________________ Dependent Variable _______________________________________ Predictor Selective Exposure Selective Elaboration __________________________________________________________________ Importance .29** .22** (.06) (.06) Certainty .09 .13* (.06) (.06) Attitude Extremity .05 -.03 (.05) (.05) Attitude Accessibility .03 -.04 (.15) (.15) Positive Attitude .07 .10+ (.06) (.06) Negative Attitude .05 .03 (.06) (.06) Gender -.10** -.06* (.03) (.02) Party Identification .01 -.05 (.04) (.04) Liberal/Conservative Ideology .02 .01 (.04) (.04) __________________________________________________________________ R2 .14 .10 N 550 533 __________________________________________________________________ Note: Standard errors are shown in parentheses. **p<.01 *p<.05 +p<.10 Table 2 Unstandardized OLS Regression Coefficients for Longitudinal Analyses of the Relation Between Importance and Elaboration (Study 4) _____________________________________________________________________ Dependent Variable _____________________________________________________________________________ Predictor Selective Elaboration2 Importance2 _____________________________________________________________________ Selective Elaboration1 .31** .31** .04 (.05) (.05) (.04) Importance1 .11* .20+ .44** (.05) (.11) (.05) Certainty1 .17** .17** .01 (.05) (.05) (.04) Extremity1 .07 .07 .07 (.06) (.06) (.05) Positive Attitude1 -.06 -.06 -.01 (.06) (.06) (.05) Negative Attitude1 -.04 -.04 .02 (.05) (.05) (.04) Liberal/Conservative Ideology .01 .01 .03 (.03) (.03) (.03) Gender .04+ .04 -.02 (.02) (.02) (.02) Age .14* .14* .12* (.06) (.06) (.05) Race .02 .02 -.04 (.03) (.03) (.03) Education -.10+ -.10+ -.08 (.06) (.06) (.05) Income .08+ .08+ .01 (.04) (.04) (.04) Political Knowledge .00 .07 -.04 (.04) (.09) (.04) Importance1 * -.14 Political Knowledge (.14) ____________________________________________________________________ R2 .29 .30 .37 N 411 411 411 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Note: Standard errors are shown in parentheses. **p<.01 *p<.05 + p<.10 Table 3 Unstandardized Regression Coefficients Estimating the Associations Between Attitude Importance and Memory Accuracy in Studies One, Five, Six, Seven, and Eight ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Condition ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Unpaced Paced Elaboration Time Topic Labels _______________________ _________________________ ________________________ _______________________ Regression Effect Regression Effect Regression Effect Regression Effect Study Coefficient size (d) N Coefficient size (d) N Coefficient size (d) N Coefficient size (d) N ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ One .46* .21 366 (.23) Five .93* .41 120 -.12 -.06 174 (.42) (.30) Six .66** .36 536 -.19 -.11 474 (.16) (.16) Seven .26* .12 1435 .13 .07 1371 .26* .14 1300 .34** .17 1383 (.12) (.10) (.11) (.09) Eight .94** .22 1285 .47 .10 937 1.27** .26 931 (.25) (.30) (.32) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Average .26** .00 .20** .17** effect size ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Note: Standard errors are shown in parentheses. Ns are the numbers of sets of observations used in the multi-level analyses. **p<.001, *p<.05 Figure 1: Diagram of Hypotheses Self-Interest  Selective Exposure Social Identification with via Information Reference Groups or Attitude Seeking Knowledge Reference Individuals Importance Accumulation  Selective Elaboration Values of Encountered Information Non-selective News Media Exposure Figure 2: Core of the Structural Equation Model Estimated in Study Four  Figure 3: Non-Recursive Structural Equation Model Estimated in Study 9  PAGE   PAGE 49 PAGE 57 Social Identification Value Relevance Media Exposure/ Attention Attitude Importance .55** .27* .37* .38* Perceived Knowledge Volume Note: Unstandardized parameter estimates are shown. Solid arrows indicate statistically significant parameters, and dotted arrows indicate nonsignificant parameters. All factor loadings were statistically significant (not shown). **p<.01 * p<.05 ( ( .00 .04 Selective Elaboration1 Selective Elaboration2 Importance1 Importance2 RS1 ; z""$$))WgXnXzXZZcc"e1e5k7k8kAkyll-z4z5zYzzz{{| |~~~6:<67178D>Pɑ~GHUOJQJH*5>*>*CJOJPJQJ^JaJh6>*5CJ WRSTi01@ & p@ P !dhdh$ & p@ P !dha$$ & p@ P !da$1$0 1+3@Ae 1 2 3 < = de ) 0p@ P !` ) 0p@ P !d`$ & p@ P !a$1$ & p@ P !dU z""$%)-//0R5@7:=J@Dd`" >  ` 0p@ " p@ P !`  p@ P !dd1$[$\$$a$ & p@ P !d`DFJMPPGRWWgXnX{XZZ^2`ac & p@ P !d$a$$$ & p@ P !da$$a$ & p@ P !d`cc"ecg8kl lpuw-z5zYz'|U|8Ld & p@ P !d$ & p@ P !da$d` & p@ P !d`Lfp18Eڈ>ɑd`$ & p@ P !d & p@ P !d`$$ & p@ P !da$ & p@ P !dɑG $;E{ d1$`d1$ $1$`a$$d1$$$a$ $$da$d`d +$4;QEK{ ޵ߵ ijreu !.7RXs'Uj3FGPux6>*H*>*>*CJ6PJ>*5[{ r޹e$d$` $$d1$a$ $$d1$a$d1$$d1$$1$a$dd` .Rs?H'Uj3>sz$a$$a$d1$ $$da$$d$1$a$d$`d`0:O)2G$a$  p@ P !d` & p@ P !d & p@ P !d^ & p@ P !d`$a$du9CEK & p@ P !d^ & p@ P !d`d1$ $$da$d`$dd  p@ P !x|~8<>45AHNSir - " # L M t x z    HICO =Ib i   !!##%%&&&&&& (1())=)>)))******D++$.(.*.002226>*5H*OJQJ`Kzi -   d  p@ P !" >  ` 0p@ " p@ P ! & p@ P !d` & p@ P !d ~ 4# & p@ P !d`$$ & p@ P !da$ & p@ P !d$ & p@ P !dd`#%%&&&&& (1(D++00s & p@ P !d$d$ & p@ P !dd  p@ P !$$ & p@ P !da$ & p@ P !d` 222233 3j3n3p3666666667l7p7r7d8n888BBBBBBaDtDE(EEEGGJJLLOOOPPPRPTPVPORPRQRXX8ccc1d:dMdeefgShbhjknnnn+oqqqqqqrrrr0J0J>*h>*65 CJOJQJ>*CJOJQJ>*H*OJQJV04d8n8c>o>???i@s@dBXDaDEEF" >  ` 0p@ " p@ P !$$ & p@ P !da$$d & p@ P !d`d`FFGGGJJLLPP4TXX_\^$c d*$1$$$1$a$$$ & p@ P !da$ d1$`$dd`$d1$$a$ & p@ P !d$c+c8ccc1d:defShjnnnvrrUx5{A3d$1$$$1$a$d` & p@ P !d`$rlrmrvrrttt,t.t:tt}}}}}}}} FHTVZ  U~Хԥ#0   X135.02?h >*OJQJOJQJ>*>*H*5H*OJQJ0J>*>*X3FV֋Uޔx`ڝhf$ & p@ P !d &  ` 0p@ "d`" > p@ P !  ` 0p@ " & p@ P !d`$$ & p@ P !da$ ڝaݩQp  &  ` 0p@ "d &  ` 0p@ "d` & p@ P !d & p@ P !d`   & > p@ P !  ` 0p@ "`d`" > p@ P !  ` 0p@ " *!  ` 0p@ "d(>?8"{P dd1$` vd &  ` 0p@ "d`   ` 0p@ "')+Xlnp{_ACE"83EG%HQ4OmH sH  >*OJQJOJQJ>*^P\%nG%r ,?  p@ P !d1$` d &  ` 0p@ "d` +,Dd b;MOQ 4G[k~H]_a e"8:<.Z\^0o3MVDprt# 0J!6>*>*hh6>*^?\GmQIiXy,dd` vd` vd &  ` 0p@ "d`>/hZQWj -   @  s  d &  ` 0p@ "d &  ` 0p@ "d` 2!BDFjGsuw">    "     S x z |  %     8 c e h     f"EGHEa${"N]:xd.Z\^ CJOJQJ6>*`s  SEq]bgy $ a$d`" (d1$]  !d` &  ` 0p@ "d` vd^=lnp.l5ace(*,!*?@hi9:fg  b!c!!!!!!!" "g"h"}"~"""""""""####B#C#T#U#x#y#######$$D$E$l$m$H*5CJ CJ H*CJ >*>*^yp7 !)*Oxy,    $da$$ ) 0p@ P !1$a$ &  ` 0p@ "d`,?@Uhi ,9:Yfg  !   ; < l m       !$da$( A  ` 0p@ " 0p@ P !d1$$ ) 0p@ P !1$a$  x   !b!c!!!!!"g"h"""""""###/#B#C#e#x#    l    l  l  d     !x#y#######$$$1$D$E$Y$l$m$$$$$$$$$%%1%v%  lm$$$$$$% % %v%w%x%y%%%%&q&z&}.~......//*$jB*CJUhmHnHphu B*ph >*B*phCJ>*CJ5CJ H*H*CJ =v%w%%%%&p&q&y&z&&'''')(*(())8* ) 0p@ P !1$$ ) 0p@ P !1$a$  !   l8**j+k+++++++p 4!0~ H X %")h.1$ 20~ H X %")h.1$ /0~ H X %")h.1$ 1!0~ H X %")h.1$ ) 0p@ P !1$ +H,k,,,8-9-h-t---l.m.~. ) 0p@ P !1$ 4!0~ H X %")h.1$ 20~ H X %")h.1$  7!0~ H X %")h.31$ ~......../$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t x$p%O  p$pWpȃ(t xOٷ5 >O7F=ll&p,K hnjF7>׵7 .{'[c @jKR 8ml|i`uMԋ<܂ 8p/T["Ri47m-#NB+}{Xv"7"#eA &ՖpM[QߠϡNux)]^@ F;g XVljm@2܄vZDg|I$UX/XO (0j" 8#gGlvpMvy餁U3m}n`vئZ̋!0 A @`}hp5=Ww y Xk}&GĚ|<*EnCFC9MFyN5PxzºYJT<}"+B8BA+pi6ZFrMյ-Q7˯cw 4)xhy hp5y3$>8f6i>4&z\񑩘!EVpH  0V>l 8Z嚞<_pV<M .ENjBZF-j!@@p{ 6Nڤ:l=7ۆG ,Z/勍$@HY @`AI%)FS6II6jja== @ =hbE`;Ԕ1N:\?yzi`bZl\eU-k0F* 8L-H)4q3owܙzn`_MUVݺF @Aa  }Ni*5QUkXW3+z-/r5Bat9  pX/Rg-vzh`UfZ@] @"E%@;Mhf5 >_ն4^?aW3ˤeg  梉-F3S6Vǯ~zY}7|jf4UU(pBFLL+F3;UiL-kU4eb~C  P$0*b2%Z 8fvvbZX3U%И5 &@p˙ )4יpL*k ,Ȍ&@`+VYvpi$]i43CPXO x6Q Z:=#hb_>4,|kX\&D| I pՊOI"-F}m!=M];sd?Y<r 8Tp/T["Ri41mOؗcS=MDVK=pK޺P~! pU`}~߿zWz`|`\/\o Fa4 }NiԲ.:xD'K x~嵁uK,E.Q2֏_  @@Ύ8.@횲#X=O74k]."9E C4= 4KOQ!W_}W4 --E&4#ןb#1h8-n&'4 W U>X)b۩S-F;_%p_0"4ɪV_ToX-xzFE4M @ats,ڶCFvL[7koXm]zty(hh8:"5R @@@^<(p[Y_l}R΃YA B0:l`7xCX@p@ /4o~bqRF!8guNwb,⚙uS0ivM#@(`i&eD >7|+ݮ!̮>M$O'2Zum@ Qd 0)cW:Q'  š@ U0Ӧ[kq!t#vI (` 'PX3}xg OB +p<cFcRWSCszde5su'@`{K&p6_-l~FeNSG%Ԝ.VT3xg }f8 ʟ @@p8OQRX;'p¢p}S @GS(p2ϳF$)K+`efRmHh8^aX&@@sLN.I XX"X; {ryo$;Z3 8Q[Nx؛:V9UK`] Kjg_|D@oQ:yçHh8X.'{T] FpO7 Ii/[9,W"*(T,IV EE%l{FXX*S@^T,uֺ5bg$h8RpEӇÛ, h1/rt  qKk"3 46)b8&Id(bW "MK h8ge p LK%:\-2AS"M%p0^vKYY!@ೀh\|;1,r qI:9kM`1_4L @ 8FDAh\ 7޵ ;SLS$@{4F>0vIV#@hXmP~q4|u2l& )PR}!k 4FXnH+pݫ ,4OcPDZwy,PR}7hyvh8>5tv({$@ @S"$@ hTҞFӾqSJkTvNj|m@cK+GEI "G=NQM zO`BxJ,p}n``e. @PNQ(h`UvEV9᣶i^yvEdh8mBD, 4 i`BxJ,p5t2 XCp_cvA@0Ѩ7O㪛km'9f^DE`;贁]0h[K8FUwVDX2z/r> yKkSb 417"* 8%) M8A zbGh8SOdp 9eycP9l& )p^}! 4F% , ~%pڠh H"4vQY$IN8nf_|D@/è2 @ }ʦ!@OѸz(h`=[Qgi` m^ n" 4Fe ,iP 8 $ p7tV({ @&5†mZFk6"oh$]0ab#@hNz3O p Us,E n9`)< 4-lk#@HUX@@m  QUKk*nxw==ZFg"of$_0k``/ SੁU$l8c"N >^du@@è hA PृUj8 N9!S/)h8)aɍ$@ w٪1F&\G^duA@35ѷ,R3XRఁUv:w"Pi0iB&,EVsY%  0NM`&zF=z%D$ h2g XL]cNJvpM | xU!fF *:&CwLB@ӨWx$ALO:j>6> pW*Em1 ;$XEः]@vQ //2 @ hR!hAnֻ p a4 {[/̵$+4[XoVpE{^} C`a4u @@@QK8o=L00JO| !00D @ @Yר:nӧ,"4Z$y=0˅a;X-,m,4 j:wxP&/I9r 7>͝vXGiN.dc/ɷuF- 4~|Y[ m<8q5+^#@hO rM %4Z+vy6h7F7,M]<(n`ma9iK#@Zѵf'0E<" qݱ晃?'@@L6f:EE`?~9 &Ֆd0eь3XOQ$@mn}[8/8K3 !patϪL%@MX7[1.}cBV/'@MM; `۳ XGo\^䍓o" uݵn${ @\`@Ͽ p+-P{/a5)F-\+d<Ѹ7[9ߵV"_Fkbj;[XLٹk,Go>@`:323.\i`H5$ྦྷ>LyR-Cg;;V#p]ʻl;~ۧ$\§H\/z]$Y!P+patR @`U{B7U_N+MpۛNnm߶^d 7<5W0w53jWw_D>^;sA*iI~.4:~m"H N\$Y͇˯U"@ ?S{ս3ry~n@D>*{ݮEE-3.>O@ @ ս׊|wfbJ[}@V/v^d7U;/.¡ӻwrȧі 6EvJ]$&\(JRTջ*k`(ye۽s~E>ˆ/*ұX/DG*?"1|FaY;vGUeͫ}3c3ս {½>UV|bl>_b.͉AW^2a'mo\!pdnG{gk1{k4ZKn84*z]$xc.h(P(.pvUh^Do&9/нBM|mKZEvhJMH겑Ho"@`5A~XV";/bȧ N/&M "HdjLJk(T0 'Dn8$'|wiSwN^vȧѲ6jX/Duo|EF|mO#pvCw˜Lp ֽsPmLƽs ҋD>]ή'_^EvL߭]$n_oX?; m/t@!^08c "ȧE[6-; XŠ"HYakHԊQ aΐ;ֽz_*@v ٽ a w6~0 @"FM VE"v >F")[ bu P$ o9Zdg{\>UY{}5O/O;}.TP4fWEA4.ƄA @EŠ"H޵?k\$qEVlmXNjhnFF@hO ?XlGiͽm5ΛY>$}^8暐?Fy)|‰>d(O-ݸ!x){wyO mj }X/DQu Y"R^Ey󥄦¬\Hhΰ_Zݰ "gE[=$T{K*>^.wO|8S53G4{gte;Qe+i@,?GǶy*itU \+Pv~y^E⼄\$HOPc B 0G`~<AV#C{|%eqtYG헯'_x,|g+{giM,i8GWȧQ|=(>rk^d8+"qzX^ !F:.!AZ\*lR!wM*7oE_4ˠKg.{gɆ)X[Meq 1du3:itU \,PrvcX?02Z#]$~H 03Y |\pR#΂䟼Rƣvʦ.5ߩRe2Qq;~Y;C65Jf.K_'o21ZV%,!"p.){,UJ7@jkdοcf.eqUa ,p,"FY IJ)=GV8E\y]$/(\MrtPM2 XAO^vagVX:^opeelViԁX (m6&!YfƚH㏍|!-n# fmG~)Uij@UXяVT] >o"}Ϊ@\+.JYպqm&/Ee*'>aFD> Paz]$%6u"Xfј ۍل[7^bwV^j׶M._ xSo峹H|Y6Xуbвf[YY3Eؿ4M zＮmRYQq9{:V'?O;>;*Bs*+`_#WЊ~)[b%oI{Wn1 Pupp!"Q.Cuo7AjnEA+ȇ{;ErZ)hڪNwr_eGez}Ti~/.?𿇺H|Y].]$^/bFg"@`Q-G>kW~ c) wy4N8 :"(o~{)\fN38G8%Q!@zq~?<=fꥑ}ayR٨s6L7onVׁe UT W눉up(m`]7\$>-aV|".=*y9{#@`@mhVLD>9k]Kon/*K7G=>L}v;==^UaV ~u1[_`V_EF@3+ֵEIO<b?"vu!Cm"@ @](LХ hGnGT7&U}{ Ҧ5TӺÏ7ܵC<\ qDX"Q+DWV&;v!V^" %qܬѮj2t6~K5>T~e1>/UT b[-vdE\lT, Ǧ !I* |owߞ;rDٕ pg}csr]QuTa7 I/GEQ n#bc]AJ@C5Gk~'MVQU5QOM]Y/Fm0j  L:wבO͚U?TX5צ.㊢KjDžηqq P!Pt]9lq"RI?*&\$*~ȿ{8Η -0|hV\1. <|T4;o[?Lru/5(=U kxG8{@/Ć GgQ*~U}S.]/LM^@Vpq1b"@@{Sōz>-}V]q;{,_vOy fk@XDi,wH 8y?DTCgrSҹvx"2kk⫼|@2`:mG~F}=+[Wi7PxS?sW$!sX:wu,f\s%pZ5c/;SB=+# C9.c|bְ׌{Q܌Q T{T\ qU:#6S@jkY[)h<OO'yS: .~xsJ^ϊZu&Jp8{FyqN7 (p߶u|n?_g(~7#*}XT(]Z*"@GTk_ϴ {19~J(Vu(WLz49iӖ!@`@ O0iͽ/[n;Wz e =ӗt 5A.w@6>~Z##@`qVx^7EbVkk`MeȿdZ5@C̅틶IS-Q?| m 8)* 7i7  ﬈u9]k.g?OE?C_ ,Z- `O 0S33kE>+k2P{yVwբ'+\zp<9~wJCLB=Kkϓ6J~.>w I "Ϯu勸dW 0K(׉|Twnslvװ;'hݸ[o'W;?S=saTTKԟW*@K.ײ mjFNFwOʚ$ޛjǻwh ;Xe(g OCsEb  , ۏD, @8e";7w~z*½34f)^e S, GŲU?dvЪ;BiݼɼjgXEQTGT@]E/H㻼'U$\ "@`R⊑YѶNSWZ E~RuDVK4@b]+j~ oo*3~ԬWS Q?R 5i.l :JM+Β0ފ8" udnF %a'~Z8?Vdn;O5D}ս$呖ZRӚz_mЊcu]Q-,r֜qzk:?r4Zg||xH?uUr ,cy\F>;Y.Mw Y&>4`)Ϟb5?bjhԎ/U=sF[[>El>"aTx_WOKS<{ɲGZϔIu.b;_Q z\rڒi zk~_7'S|)g~*j"Q/2&aTOܲ'p,Pٿ*c"ڃv|3[~|?SsEP\.eQg~Ǟ @FGT͓F>;W34f)^%U _҇.""Z\׃XU@{oQt ϕ/}.9MmɴT`V.bț4J"˯#]$ψi#cF-ο]{}WXK7ʯw4 _>Jce9Yb5k}MO74u嬧KPSœ0j\` Mg;^Y;>zyKȷXO׮\>|W<gb\}Δx@(1 P9ni zk~4 Q}?GHɞ ETqkδʀXQ {h۹$y57+C{ kZ? '3{ |(, zzkڝ׎o\$*"g|d"ixMΙ{\èrM4cxUq=xySj#-|% c5?bjhԎw8lH %:ZE=G+WՊѯEFW x{ovw֥ h+=(y2 zk{XnP5EH.:*6A?",s|Iᕮv7g Q~<*zOTfܭt(2ݘȧQ:L88_p8 ֋\3שW15?;Rc{ 򹊢SUI>?*&<*a.>Wr<00[f#%@K+_5pN_Jp@5uT{@]ᅴk{Z 8&Mȉ>6E^ut0zp(ڜ.D:z6NzXRA @@S2H #r8pqbU=p~yF,uXj3lg?|nx<-ĂX{g7zikoꣾ S4%)ZoΰFz]$.u?>egDUYHGt>{>ZAktlbFzkWv>7qyο'>BJ&-~T@CgGS-#FC`y3``m .#s,vXl; FHb _Op{g[s~;Q*uK+Tz |%b*Ӧ1^D6V3z| ? { w W}?V^#=Xߨl("F9EIX)~d`E(] ?j\$%LԼe n+X64ph`=L?;Iehi 4-p6w>LtXyl^>Au&~e}`N*q+zwk`VfϚ͈: GL.esXhz;b[xb{gWs+{:{Yka 8 ~m4ʣ(REgM#b.mƲu>wpϗXg-TD'3"iGQJ.|.dgOc\$ޠU79]$ZX.<"aԼWX\˿NϷ y#*/s|lT]u@*3$iGQJ.z]$ޕCՏG5MD59&a4pM 1 .S|q,RVNͳdFjn{~ 3$uSx4;I>4S[࿷m| ^dgkx.SV$pKܐ L0KIC@p'p_YhݤlAO휳@ vt0*POW !Pzǽ ߩ<8 A44`_k"H SP辛},H|MH|j€XѸ qBf"@n4|.tg夸;^ b.|dgTʮXoiOq4׵"q\/h @LS g{{5U}\=? snG> >};X/.ea;cF6t|9)|.> !X@vX/DI=3sd? [=U?PC߫;n-\FomNF S?$/KcІDfR?uA&Oz U3 @\-Ev7LN~/FX>ukY'΄Ւ,qdy IG h`4Gu"oh>}t(/\F#X՜kN ,,X]Sqr!WOarI@ x="ohV*Q>ua457k6yu$ql]ѾʟR-I`'j`M6)x_}L "EϤDrŸ0Zӹoe3@`):Ng#/fw̋.rR x"oh$n;W MK8Ո_/KyM>H ᶫ S K_.fQ`ֿO+J{FX>  KkR^xe{䚆^~}~C3' )U+i+e7{A< t/΅"F +EϽDz:g_ |կa@2Ra 4@f<EӸw^kڡ/ N)6{.fM pO$g:_h`կ(Wюx`wj:Py:(L*B]nI~C3%XwEg[aj'{+|WP*5;gI[G ᖫfg x"WDx{8O oݽ~~;x؎G ~EFϜ~>7) {̷@{h򲑝w74-zwF? 9%5Fo,FW;q;ۻa)7[Z SF'E ~C3 ܾ/;uc;A󑍈ЎZ(y[?4ȹKiK^F4G&9~r޵ D;8Ux xE s^W ٛߩ57Ex \p:\4Gk=xypͱ"Egw74LUΗ7YV+[@C -+()򈷇W͝m x]$ 0Q ǯ~at?=eگlTweEvo L;Ɔ=iهmݸ_݈obQq $Wܟ~C3L _8_qȠ4Fڻ'-0p4G3G=o=zufG x"ohYQ?~u_B~eQ;ٹ%/0p4' [@8Q2z/r'ܿ–7[i*T٨{(oG&p/Mrb (4 X(B"P+E3@Z?dN5U6f/c#>6aLx/{Ҥn-C @+(T@S _VS/顖:)mlTxُg \$0l(uӼB DC8B x뼌&Vm#S`}خ+kM5ݳc;%pGکeI61u/NM 9dZE`@O`TC&ZSez$ճ}7$p=\8慸&V -i\F\\ne$O;y5}kO`Ey,[!% f(N(!^<H#5Xm6>V_$e*U'"^<[9 L;.Eӻi^kZ"#FKFpeNF- QokFկhm.}Px/e VZ%A kE W?ڈj}:e^\S L;i&M t h`uywjWXuX֚*ToMX4gT5DxpEh"7y@2 ker)kM]Ζ}xiGÜ _Ms8 $xp%(!8" sR}k+5U6vm1l.0hH즙4q&%a V  h`=k+5U6vmӎnI'l]X]|&@@K U Gj'lZSe*~L;kQWq!IBɴXT P#ZQe,XYkoC?YY6e\Cgj< Y 4fNz4z5z,Nqg73F3E"/E%@N`afeQ˾`obua >7pj#nf 8fj[E^`MK@è9ZSeW=ze¾H^Q֚*UȦӽ7(0d&EqDN+"/F _`a{f)*kM*_ֻauc 6^τý4Zium~/*&Fgv>^T٨Uߍl`iad ]̈́ý<# Xiqm}/:?z}8=eQŋ31=$S;b L;b3= +4m5x/a5)Ff>_,RY ORV$ Y`SlYeM\\oD| I 05b` 7 ) $_`82&@`h\"Eդ tFC t"X&a L;K pϺmq Ni.%"P/E7tFC xgr{&a4"Pd !uc1 86N#E^'vB @aT;dD RUUnp"ޓ%VB<^F^h V<^|Ɖ+ ]i,A5zNt{mpNp)z/r'@0:|ɮ'(U+h=~{X֯}K%0dH#=M@8Q@\ yy>"O45ºLI`@29u  8Vͬ}m%E*6K @at; 4+`/:돮p #4R"/D[ @at; }"fCU_xįȯ_=eEjV'# t-752}d("@`kUȫd>$<<_ q /b_̺~.ٱs c*]h}y_ GiOta/ɵ5Fe#J aǚ]+iauy8Vi{ \5eD< h!@`èoAk|^f44լx l*હim{-/ZiF OOw:zjuq h`i`V|&@FUFXAA#, 8X?#X3foZX3eƽz{ܭJHMX@@m WKRV:~C3/uE*~ 8 $ 0zj`=]|ė?,j-!Sd , %g9\5aM'X:t-8 *4j@^@ F JBw{ZmJ+e^"oz'Kam߫U!p&uV#! }^>?O 0HaoKkKd[44n)< P+Y+f<^IFj^obP , u(N5N _?G"$ham񖯹I , 5+ۮ,'હ\JmhG/YgF{7tB***[U X/DS /0ڼ , [ Ϣ j֊O 9`RD`G v| 9Vƺ3 \57L-'E^/vD +m Rf/Vg h`i`ͪ5 %a11  84|kc %V4\5˹/(E^0D H뗀ae|y7YKkW dp̒)q EVp=56VQXXb( jgoe(MD@޷Cfgu'o54|&NU3]LU*!0z]!S>h`i`yAH!ઙ"M$YB!0*`NAx/ @ f4  @ [ֿ2J ? , ,)\5SI4 *$C]bJּh`i`]PV$@`xS3.ENnAFX?g9xa ]#@Z y$FuVx؃n jO xړ @> է{\'UW1F pM%0R`;JXB&Y˥ԆpۜCs"R7!@`tr /EojFF h<3X:N54 )હgz1/b YFY37'nlz , 7jހnIȣEG@èmtuj`i`%+YUUsR^i3 8nJXS-R/U_5 @W-I`yhp5mFNU , T+X j{;_HP2m@fQMD,geXXeb7 jޜ!EhF݄O|SnPK+e ~܎"/T["Qa1kc n , :1\5oO x @*X> 7*5 (હcy9/r)!9F967jm , :1\5oO x @Z?vhL`OW=n׋ xK*0ʚqk`MXVIC@f @`hS`md[JV%殙Kfpu r[\@Ij`Wp !" z!!O#X854p *હk{)/RyFys77rV;:N@Wi>/r $04X˧854p *હk{)/RyFys79r,!@ f4 @ w U%n] t)[;` , +,#હL*mdg/ٷwF< ,< , Jv dp̚9q!EVpHC tri(546)u$]U3{OY Ba" 9ʑMڤm@vW? ,5@@(V,.n j&O "B8B!I?%I\W@Kk3K j.NUk@0QGbg44*x%WU3oDN?/b @ (D&U| 5\5ȣ]l.E޼l@QLC+GvRKk:G j.D[ EVpHC tjH54/q#*[ pEH;)ҴCXX;Թ=X@Us$/ @ (D#XtXXKXGUs\^䍓o" 8"e#C,XCXX;Թ=X@Us$/ @ (D2)[ Ǫpy\5Wʦl+E66N (V>D I;C#\5H-"B8B!UҵlPk1k jOTim@4QďGh54vs{$I^d5@@Q4 B WVj`-ZڶE`5W2j?[ xLM'0O*C  , હ@mY  Ba" \Z4Z , EK۶&હZFgK/iiFr?"9Z?BU~!%\5HM.E޽@QD GRk`54-m"j-[ݦ pI$i5np\$y=00Al-"Zmje~"ov&Oa/'"<ȐcTXkWXFUsT^䝳o 8%#Q(hjPkҶ- jQRem@<QdH C֎Q j`]vG`WeRi#; xwξ$0 Ld֒*A % ۦ'હ^NhC/IeF &݃IZ;D%ve\5I,E9N (P2R}*] 5,k["Yۥ܆ pKhUnwp\&6y;@@HAt- Zm+f՞"or&Sa3/ ?HCTX+׷XHUsdʾ^}soB 8B#S0` Pk%+ jU{N]m@LQ̼d_dU h`i`WvD`IW%jS xw˸*0 ai $H!? $હR6e[/򶩷qF*TZ-X姁ZME\5Mm%E+vK (lj?G G4.o[#Jٴmۦ pGh'U؂]C@KkJ  j.bAC@Q$ Q+lj6LKk2E+jE{^} Ca#9ʙ5Z˧w"e{$@a IqCW>q#ٲXXXKUs|ͦ^Mo 8e$U<XҵVXXkUXVUsN^䝲m 8''Ah_ R!&ZME\5Mm%E+vK (ljR"MKda\5˩m(E0L (bV;yrZXXմXTUs^^m 8¦&G`>#O F`Y\5W̪=m'E.6L (f^D&UZME\5Mm%E+vK (ljr#O F`Y\5W̪=m'E.6L (f^DJZ&ֶ"o%Va65I$Z.L , چ)હf^j3/f ]QFQ3%. ,Z-N , j~,*હhbmk//^[aFaS$0!LZmkծ6"op%Ua53YʒZ&ֶ"o%Va65Y,Z,N , Jv*હjfk+/VYqFqs$2 $Z-L , j~,*હhbmk//^[aFaS%0!̒Zmf־"on%Wa77Y",Z+N , *n,+હljml'/NٶWF$4 $Z,L , Jv*હjfk+/VYqFqs%2!̒Z˦v"m{%Xa89IBJZmf־"on%Wa77i"4Z)P , ^,,હprmm/>SFӓ#8 yZ,J , Jv*હjfk+/VYqFqs&2!LZ '"k;%Za:=9ʑŢZmf־"on%Wa77y"EʐbZmf־"on%Wa77"JUBZ'"g$^a>EʐbZmf־"on%Wa77"JUBZ'"g$^a>EʐbZmf־"on%Wa77"KHUBUtXԲ}X\Us^=l 8§(Cz XNk j^Y?/'y!F!Ґ>!Ltp]JW&yrb h`bUC(4g0_XVpռ<~"^Nl ,5@@ yV u]+_ՊOˉ-!V#٣ʞ|k`ZRUx941*b!{X3/~u |U+b[ j^v?/' @ [E>qz?l={&@ 4V݄V95 (9 ?A?ͷnFɎU%w?NGZ v~6zl7yvƖ XQ`36MB՜yysʞXVP ;3Ql,=/JXo5,{p 4!%& (#@@@յa7z~ZUzWcG n¦oJ>{+ @TY+i`tXuoс(4 P#Pe%7ZwùfQɘd&3xmb)vM)!BA8({TFЂTڝjà $SCUɅH  p&P|;U0~ci/Ձ6M(1bA8lp^Н9d\oh-`_^@7a f[տ9.ts mʶMkڮ; M"Tr%vXZW\:D;O-#kXM[ k C_$ۣp  @n,&[{S5~ǯht`+aud~J3#  @`݄mReJ.J&A_kklU@moj_NJt,yJ.yOտ>LJi`}~V?MU7[ Ծ[,l!E#mREʆX P!Psw*:Uό2òo6F &l6.*tW?IfŋM_7,j*w%@ [9&\luuAGWoh`=.=u)1z#o#[%@mtIu*(Zj~3eI l`m￾կ}qe T~w"< Ѐ%ףY/P;tVIe>u]KA @:݄:/\7  p@/?4|zSk=iQ:%4J> @ +f5\%X?qNW=<@ỷ @ ;d9\tmF>?7duԓzy8j5SJ߻>8}܂I%6(M:_zIs޴^bTⷮbNC  @@<"PrX @ @/Ke ֻK8 '&;߸;6N@7:[3 (9AU;2ھXG5~V$ax, 0V@7aN)"P;uVU8'?x_  @YWX#i`K|Gf9n``7-XV@7aFݘq @M7TۊnHiǏQ)^b7{M @/W$0Y@M.šzÛO`3g_1xH @U@7UsJc,PŠ y{7/L nɍ5%3/"@@@m] zUax;B'G4I?~${$@ IMY@ɩ,)5u?[^KVMx׾ , @`e݄roJ.dZE~V3Lk`Q"?ӹexxٞH  @@nB'\  Xu5'bb==j @+ܝ5SXW W KkJ̾_;|ղZ @ೀn ,&[Sj[XS{ZLN}kǎ4 @`m݄pwJ.`RDqG5.f(pkhC0(1+KǤN @!-?<\ :X"$ 0T@7a(ܹH.P)v~"֊m0ۃJ]""KSɅI@ p@mj`]V&nJ=m\c @ nB\-[$AZX sԖbi_=ku#@?~ 0Gu}U p@m k~Xlʿ=q46G 0Gu}U p@mk5n| }깁El AcmQʇh p@I.L= :@uꩃd$@= =zmPr h!@@V}j`M{oSp  @ ;d9\t v~wW:lqM@ǯX8,B& (#@7-ag~s4~~+FEI:t:=^+jŌ'@@vֈ~~c/mcyoaqZ:lSdp @~Vv 4G+ @"݄"& (qf"@@-1 9;>6&g^ &{@ &̳% @m Qz}@WS}_ug nŽYuJV~ @6V7nSp^ou9(M(2ni:.Bw ~J Z &7|E%y>[ ԶZ5:XqznW_v*ۮM[ &lUr $PjVI&L˦߭k`- @@nBg:\G  _`J kn+R`_i`M b @^݄{7\]mt[&@OV5>Um3 k_j`h nŽYuJV~ @ YGhF6co*D{X2/TM74C2K \`-L`ǯ.  @ nBĬFrVG~¯>NWPmƯ.}zM/JNQ @CUo4*3`o%@ &wnN  EqUY-~^XM(H#&U%@ Q3l\Jnjj[XO _I@ @ nBe \e͜  0^?6>f!}5C n?%.%"@ZX7[zoN ,.xmOˉ p@m XMAǯ~.e&@ iS5p%5s&@},#/W{}WMՕ܆Iet hau`o'5! <& (#@"-Emq|*nnDFK &,țRr#6`ad.I%+_ DH- @-{ܭ*ۃLMNJn tԶ:(>~: @|݄曯6/'@@@m=|(}0 @ wo:6On-nBt `  @@nB3\ @K@K))Ww[M:wl^ݡnM,%T:SmF*UKk &Qr $DDŠ55jW D@7!I SɭK;!@}:Xﻲ_{;'@ U Jnt,.ºć>~0 @ o0LK.a5 @!tBe堔ٵ7Lʽb=umb&FQ(mZ@ jaAu@&H^!(mX@ b`k_ C@7!F6Bml[%@ [/ۃ[  @ nBd#vIyZX[ɷ˹ @@T݄Y6.%ljm haFW' @ nBt[!@`:XH8=H"mMX#v%K#'WY",'l"IlSɅH R}3W@ @Q@7AELPr-GmtIdK @*݄*.\ @X@ Ke1f!@#tFj@@ BZXp!} @@D݄YY:&%tzmw `ݝ`,)dZ#oJEΎ Iq >~u#  @'1Y@M/v}5J< @`npR~Pr*Zx}{p BSAɥJ`  T@ +in ǯn88MP"dp @`S-M߼mf: @) S--TL¼"=L*mVMX5a¦F`XM@ k^ @`n HӔ (R) @[@ p HM @@v݄LK2 @ VM ݷQ[t&tyE@ɵyZZvyǯvɴ} @@v݄LK2 @ V^ե&'@tbD@ɕ(Ctb.6o.P!@tVnȽ)iZ;V9 @tn@{I%w7 haxYxMPdp @,(ۃ*MȕUr $ R@ +e. ǯ.5-L@72Z (9Aw ha%m]h8M872bi2Zwo[;#@tNṋ)y6$WjMHA+;Z [о(S@7N-Vr[ݦ  H@+P2ۃ-H & 4M+2ºJ6>~=C#@tTd%7r p cYh_u{&@ute($&Z;Grn nR̰%!Kb$@ZX$}j|-,(`RcoIΏ >־'vJ &,ڨSrQ3#.'K}{pL',rvCMɅL l n9C%,!!@ZX?E@7aL٧  @oί @F %;V\<Z|jl']ް;'@-5Bjͼl*i۶ N@kjO n¾iJ&x @G- ǯV˨ @ W+$@"-"$$J @X@71JnY @`p&Կ @*݄dF@) +65Ui_UqLr&BQ*i+XO@ +N @n,&[tֿ ! @ MQ#j%@ZXǭ}5L @ nB|l ɶHZXi;8 $$& (#@zzOU,\$pi (9A $_˺kK  @FF PrC9MFW ha]%{Ѽ=xi  @@݄ ' %Ot2Ϸ3eK @E@7E3Jϣ 0U@ k*wbWx%@It$j0:/"Ǿ="M$@} }~Prd @t/]ǯJ#@tR/cJ.cLb'_*v~DG & 4Q+s2haIk =89B#@Ctr\@ɝAtb;q @ MQ@)'1gW"& pnU}#d 5  @+t5S R@+V|*V>DC.MJNE @@R-8Ӿ  @I -O@ɩH+$u=$ @t&b[귀S W@+B|*B@f &~=%} @@j-ӧ}uwOM}Uɷu,!uk}{V~ @tte%im`ݗK @f݄Jn1º'W[MPr;e^   -I&I.(]2mX[@kv~}j @@,݄X %Am[haLLmk @ tLJnšnFm! U@7!jfK-Z#@~:XsrWsBB &Nϊ)jOV@ k_]ol @@7!A QɭO!@ZXo^ lz D@7!I SɭK;!@:XWց_]kn I@7!SU-F @ZXWU%@t,yJ.yOZXo^jR S@7!gG'O N@k|mxS3 @ 3t%3o&@-%}5l @ nBfۀ˖1 @@V!T0,Q2$SCUɅH  @Q>~5J< @`݄urd'J.II ZX h/h_P4XM@7aߏ " @@VG}{ @`E݄zOJ.tzG:X}>~i n²1%53"@AZXWv$@ &,xSrr"",ۃp#@&lX[Tr!B@EǯZ @N@맗U]M&Jn2 @ ֿTh_)J @4 iRJJnL ha1ӿ/O @t/Jn @ Ur $)[KĪHM @@-,j @t6/WrͭHna_E @D FJn< ҾjO @tvWr-Hlai_+D @D FJn< lҿ+O @t6/WrͭHv`i_,B! @L DJn4 Ҿ3 @t6/WrͭHAia_@a @D FJn<أ}5VAvMؽ_M' X}F &$J*5h 0J`ըB1\@7a}%7܊ Z`U$)[KĪHM @HU[XW#\ @`s݄ `|s+ @@x%[XWN @ nBd[#vAc`i_ @tvWr-H)jai_(:A @D FJn<X5~zMR &N_\ƬҾR @{ &Ur H,ps ˷׎  @@f݄KK6A @@ >~BM+v$A [U=H-:}Wr&f&pK K*Xl%U#lVEȂ @ U Z@7!u22fM O`nK*^%WVH @` -,%*& @@f݄KK6A @@HI-,K@7a|ح ! @*3:XWT} @ ӗ1x%1kb&@^` @`+݄aJ.B@ \ҾZRlMH+Y3D}9b#@{ &Ur XLbub; @ nB쥌]ɥL  @ -,9K@7a|ح ! @z;XWՈ @ ӗ1x%1kb&@C[XW 2.D nV鎰Y%! b @%"@tR/cJ.cL9trd[ @`/݄gWr-H ha_mT/J&ՐHe3W߈><+6 T~\FS @ Í V! @`@Oh_Ά @AX L:{9 @bп $@h` a0]lxVɝAs -PSW& @.M6%ؓK8DC{T־ڣ0J/&-qVM%@p?6* @h` @ ?E V+|2HJ/.]8 @%X!Y~}Q @?= @It&&y%W;c  @@]1x 0@@7ab)*owS9Ͽ)"<XJR6C,"H"?l檁~I!$Py^  @@" Dj uصzKշ_ (5 \g`O\Y8h'|@Uz Tz< @`nXx^Xb<P^VrU @1ZXcB$pe+:Jvv)_ @f˿cټ  @ ݄'((};XUņXN  @y4($E +_V! @-k\J\/u+<]Tc*_i`Z'@;XGy>#&Rؚ*9IJ%6)(nak @R KyoXCXSrW @`cկ6u @ nBT\Ha_jX-!@CZWI @Xx *O{%"XI}R *5sEq~*CXܿ D tgÄ @@V%XzWY* ׾=)0 #գi V ,(ھzot% @ VT:UBVK=CWf*K @ UK0`~DMX:ϓXU=.9#@pWC!p  p(tai`|W.8#@xWZX2&" @@k(_ug>q߮ mn8m_t|ƌZl+X+~NXX+W @@,}0VDCh`\4ND%go I)kb!@tV) `go H}=@ A@k,:UrgB |+dR#W7 pnuGSޖ*/o7t _,#ܭ@\$uliR#5bV ]֮na(&@ h` 5]y[|Vƕ\1 @Yޏ_}E0  @ 'X5׷>& @`-?̋[Ykn @tn@ditU?p&R |8d{!@MC}ޚ*3G>J @_} +%^ @a (CNTxw,U{%Wne$'}󯤊[YIhMhKdwWr %Wne$+ۃ9)\( @f݄f=3vdrT(  @ @_}ha @tr'O>mby0dcX+G G lau?'A"%@fh`PjwG4ʷXtlF @b~{xlH@7"1_omOÿ)a XEkaMU@7!qXo{oj`%8 @l9Uʚh= @ V>\o.5ӟ}[8"'@,t;W%  @Xyt,*b2 էoyXM@+mF[H)ZRtJL(\ UW*o`'@t.n!U^(˶XVQ @A [% @r r`#[HU]<+$66Hؾ+  @J݄J8+ZH=XݶC  @NIW-,- ^  @@VߝW4BtCXR @ZV @Xi6u'@R~o @@VR!Ó ; b*  @@@UKK B %@ h`M}MC+(4* %@+ZZX> @ h`%Kn.N?U0Cj46vX};e׎ ۩$xmD0'P:Km_h p*P{b[a26{6Ap p"VD @j[ 0c T{{X{7x/\V}P @4Y_-%7Z| ^ӓ~OM,#\"6A.Mդ @K~}K @tAT@ɕJG{,ܾڣLMlo% @>b<=*v @݄1f)PrT @o[X  @j݄j2 (>?O @B[X[!@7 &܈Jnϼ5M74C2naSvB4 &4y]@ɵy h_=%O +q5  pK*oT__=M&@td%7r @ǯP J! @7 &Jn9vоzy-]_ &@ dPr}~&@l=)c,# MiR%W*e,!W'ina-Q6A &Ԋ):=N Ud^@7a f[n2EVMX))RI 0@ǯ[X3H,"H"lCɕH  @G@JO ` n~9yJX`-suk'@tR/cJ.cL>~U {xu a  @Ytf.mJ.mNWRO㴰~U- @H@. M@VMX1BGp %ۃ]|_Ww|p9 @@p݄ Z/<%^Nv^4 TV I@7!SU-F @WXZX1MEMX"62eK P,ۃTE;XGXjH+6uYWrY3'n$W룺5< @t%cPyK%}uI.a5))3oVr't8 {W¼ @v݄S[Jn/ S\º0S @w &ܩJn˴4о8ZX$MHuTrN @|{"`I/0|`XJǯ5%* @Str[H.}5-ZXӨ-D h`E̲q)eSkcLg&{3c- 0A@7a%~ (9@K4V&g9 @Z݄k}", }uCn@$#&vɴ} @`a',#'QV%@W&\jJNy @@v--"0 0X@7a0ܙ?'@>~uk~n8O@7>MWVr&޶  ݉`)>"0$JH'ۃRR  @^݄^AW (J0  @ _ɅVDLMmJN @@R8`a䉄 MxE\R0a @@ aTBE/ @Zn:g=tM%w~-LkU9`a섊M|(ӏy22쒋g1 @@^ V 8M8aH*%m!@T>~"]g̗?O+A @s ׋Â- оʒ+,;' O`n7},3G=isK  `UM @o݄w5fOTT $}SZ  @@,Y݄uzV:*3T `z˩ @ E4KKь{$1.%.WDK|jV狀{ @&n}b3eQ) * v)?pu  pnB:o}Pi$ۃK@ K) @t E7~͘.,q$  Sǯb喨;XGxK,Jfu9t_(Q H\[h_mMVʧ6@`V7hAWXTÔ)JaJ$!@|{pdnU T8 A`V7hAoWXʧ%Rh3 @ୀ_)# pnB:~+f$Nm @li֫naٙ@  @r E|l`=͸\ؐ-D[ @@*LjahM(Ze/G~cEp" @U|jL^^  @ E<B ]T iw'p&},!énaE܄ @ E|h`&hp0iB&@@V̚qkaMhM(ZiЧ/VCc~p^*e@Q) ^t _=WW  $0PVѝ CJavP#@K*m> 8  @Ӻ  aٍBjSTB}B ` y[X@`Z7`!  | p> @_&V*"@Zu j`g *!ݞLB#U0,{ R L&,J/ҩ#@=8<#0CjaeȒ  @`KiW4(J&  @Q:ct<_TVum8f'@ L&,EUT6IW j_}haE}4aL^{'  @@K -n=l$0ۃ &l#S0[T &u?XwL3K7V @@x_^ܦq>7 6{,M &|yX'GhH'0ۃ^٨8z뉗ug2V(n޺! @S oT +XncZrYME#?~UD֮PMM h%E P-0}U>co>UMiN B @` Zf:71:c8< @VRˤ/OxxQ$A n~Wa|. qv$@ՈOIwdw~>TG8I.Gyz @` gCg|5, qt$@_W|{-vnjh`YAvE &~UZG^*98_ byϪ5H;4~M @S`|7l?rNlFOi"@zW}]oj:X>^Qu k5Lc  V`|7tw?+ OשI7 2XOKzeմVwϊMz,"0P0jςul ,)z͢oZtЃHfSޜYM(/߸|$n}4 \ƔVc|eaXAnXྒ+@'pqm~=LT"Pb%qCMX3w'Gh*poU#&} ¨Vֿj3,%T:3lFeȒ  J_i`Jw`[Xsj,$Ḇ%#O$@@ >#X>:`}пљ' @ $1\|w \?,b`ȧY g]SZXA=L&$I:a*uri'^`ǯ.k`=~h_]_:3WnaUo XM@7aߏ " @ UzqɅ@> TwGs @{ &wnķ4r oRؗr:W4׈ @@nB+\%U`f)U37]ӻ޾[XUW=i0XE@7aLهK* @N+?u;=VU=ʶ؍MPr%V  ,0ۃBiԌ=Gi"׵.  @@nB5\  ܏_!{U^%>6@k Z5c?suEpWx) Mؾf(#@@*>~˧)1Mk#U{.P:4, @T݄;  ,pMOI,md(J=3|8:72bi2,%pi`1ʢ(՝P @`7݄2~~) vGfWM#hJ.P?c?,u?9)| @ WJn|- i_i`);X>w[M}PrN  I RjW?XsY[uhvGtTd%7r)}K_f#Y28]T ji3ykN1.<3 @ `tJn*R7UlTwJ L6M$qB$I ^-uS,lIGrR>6C &Jn2 M `sUXJ)g<9DMjtjŌPr'@@n+ E,Td%@m mnjPrt$@AWB@m%Betx  &yI@5yKDm_|o3qc}\%J& `%@;&P{Tr!L۾zm(6Ut*NL.kP<^  @tf(n'U§]4oXv8mJ ^  @`[݄mSƕ]%@W!,S7|fj:TgcoA 0]@7a: *+ S`exm3B+U#1-;? FL- @D ǯ~v`i_t [UEu2tU!"@ &(Jn2 p@Uw ?U {ݞ) 0uC$@Str[/0 @`'0XaS_{Tƻژ  @` MgJ.N.DB Q>~5!ٖhj[S @ nBT[%AP`|?*p6$Vr @%2Y@Mno8 t :XCnL ` j @`nlSrۗ㿙U5mJf獎hag nIE%+!@U-V~!v??p8,Ttc"@ct8X@SH>`TfDl}@}U2~*;%@ t6L[Vr[B4&d:[X0'/'GO @"}{w:Y&3mn|k°QqA`g @.`j`޶}k:@MDo$%@;tPzM%umⵯj>2}+$午ٌEnFd n†IwJ^ @R) V.͉ɓ >W A< &(Jn2 0O ǯ~!A!jl@Y|M @ [M+;M XEªP1XN@7aFߐ! @P #p*Pޘ*y @ nBWɥO  @ව_JR5g" D@7!H" Ck;%@`akkjRco @Z݄k}" _ϡ(IUA @! CMR.ʭ$@@LyUNT&@td%7r,}5t{ T k nz9 #%6LDM t&tyE@ɵy7 _ݜ˯&Ҍjzf58!@t6N=[Wr[Wx%p ԋjz?XF@7aTfو˒)q @K@J)^;U[Ml\Q1H!@ PZAfC__A dhh==GnB, $x c 0J־&4FR@7a˴߹i%w? 0Z3F#@|Hn!E#mRɝfcO+ @X 39o%0猴ʒ K5YvBx N0N-N*嘴 k1.Y) _LK@6'r &[⨕I/$#t s@)yv=_@7 UJN+W C7N1q>"nBƬYi`!*"NR<}Nm 0]`3{tz=_)4 G~M@AHa$MH!+9 ?MH @@g & zR@i`U T DCxr@ #nB¤Yi`)N@>?yDO`_| X_`3{tz=_)jX @`yܴf"@`yx+0RCt0\@i`W(y# "4].>MP 䒳mmn"J*!hݹnPN (9 *1 ^^A 0Da4$ j`\r#@MUSB xCC0p;Mis%u^%F @U3@@W+y80D7A LPrXKr jy@(/rt}s?t C9Mv.4ΫjH x{=OF&JNkrY6W67O%EWao\7a(yA@WI^/r "0h50Y@i`M.9 &)ȡ! 8Н& 4ٹ:#  B +E<CFCM& (9 %g9\5ӽljJ(~c&@Z'@Q]""JgؗfoFNM芓4%GJW Q3@@+ Ѕf##50#`M.9!@f7EE /hw'ciJ+@ f$pV.r+A@ ͨ FF j`2%G\rC:F:nv!*A`_Ѿ95+N+]%V @FI\V#@QPdJ5uuB 9T:84}s5rjBW (9VJ@Z ȭG.4.&kr95م@(.rtp} hFkԄ8KPrtX5$ p[ ڏ]hF]02BMP (9s0jq P\P Ќ}ȩ ]q2&X*0jHh%"Ќ`d&Pr%8#`Ԭfȡ%Sd,M@Ub ` . JEn%h?t!u5A L&XKq PGY.BpC3K@37]#&tX#` @ \@J~B@3ꂑjL@&@Q]""JgؗfoFNM芓4%GJW Q3@@+ Ѕf##50#`M.9!@f7EE /hw'ciJ+@ f$pV.r+A@ ͨ FF j`2%G\rC:F:nv!*A`_Ѿ95+N+]%V @FI\V#@QPdJ5uu܁uIDATB 9T:84}s5rjBW (9VJ@Z ȭG.4.&kr95م@(.rtp} hFkԄ8KPrtX5$ p[ ڏ]hF]02BMP (9s0jq P\P Ќ}ȩ ]q2&X*0jHh%"Ќ`d&Pr%8#`Ԭfȡ%Sd,M@Ub ` . JEn%h?t!u5A L&XKq PGY.BpC3K@37]#&tX#` @ \@J~B@3ꂑjL@&@Q]""JgؗfoFNM芓4%GJW Q3@@+ Ѕf##50#`M.9!@f7EE /hw'ciJ+@ f$pV.r+A@ ͨ FF j`2%G\rC:F:nv!*A`_Ѿ95+N+]%V @FI\V#@QPdJ5uuB 9T:84}s5rjBW (9VJ@Z ȭG.4.&kr95م@(.rtp} hFkԄ8KPrtX5$ p[ ڏ]hF]02BMP (9s0jq P\P Ќ}ȩ ]q2&X*0jHh%"Ќ`d&Pr%8#`Ԭfȡ%Sd,M@Ub ` . JEn%h?t!u5A L&XKq PGY.BpC3K@37]#&tX#` @ \@J~B@3ꂑjL@&@Q]""JgؗfoFNM芓4%GJW Q3@@+ Ѕf##50#`M.9!@f7EE /hw'ciJ+@ f$pV.r+A@ ͨ FF j`2%G\rC:F:nv!*A`_Ѿ95+N+]%V @FI\V#@QPdJ5uuB 9T:84}s5rjBW (9VJ@Z ȭG.4.&kr95م@(.rtp} hFkԄ8KPrtX5$ p[ ڏ]hF]02BMP (9s0jq P\P Ќ}ȩ ]q2&X*0jHh%"Ќ`d&Pr%8#`Ԭfȡ%Sd,M@Ub ` . JEn%h?t!u5A L&XKq PGY.BpC3K@37]#&tX#` @ \@J~B@3ꂑjL@&@Q]""JgؗfoFNM芓4%GJW Q3@@+ Ѕf##50#`M.9!@f7EE /hw'ciJ+@ f$pV.r+A@ ͨ FF j`2%G\rC:F:nv!*A`_Ѿ95+N+]%V @FI\V#@QPdJ5uuB 9T:84}s5rjBW (9VJ@Z ȭG.4.&kr95م@(.rtp} hFkԄ8KPrtX5$ p[ ڏ]hF]02BMP (9s0jq P\P Ќ}ȩ ]q2&X*0jHh%"Ќ`d&Pr%8#`Ԭfȡ%Sd,M@Ub ` . JEn%h?t!u5A L&XKq PGY.BpC3K@37]#&tX#` @ \@J~B@3ꂑjL@&@Q]""JgؗfoFNM芓4%GJW Q3@@+ Ѕf##50#`M.9!@f7EE /hw'ciJ+@ f$pV.r+A@ ͨ FF j`2%G\rC:F:nv!*A`_Ѿ95+N+]%V @FI\V#@QPdJ5uuB 9T:84}s5rjBW (9VJ@Z ȭG.4.&kr95م@(.rtp} hFkԄ8KPrtX5$ p[ ڏ]hF]02BMP (9s0jq P\P Ќ}ȩ ]q2&X*0jHh%"Ќ`d&Pr%8#`Ԭfȡ%Sd,M@Ub ` . JEn%h?t!u5A L&XKq PGY.BpC3K@37]#&tX#` @ \@J~B@3ꂑjL@&@Q]""JgؗfoFNM芓4%GJW Q3@@+ Ѕf##50#`M.9!@f7EE /hw'ciJ+@ f$pV.r+A@ ͨ FF j`2%G\rC:F:nv!*A`_Ѿ95+N+]%V @FI\V#@QPdJ5uuB 9T:84}s5rjBW (9VJ@Z ȭG.4.&kr95م@(.rtp} hFkԄ8KPrtX5$ p[ ڏ]hF]02BMP (9s0jq P\P Ќ}ȩ ]q2&X*0jHh%"Ќ`d&Pr%8#`Ԭfȡ%Sd,M@Ub ` . JEn%h?t!u5A L&XKq PGY.BpC3K@37]#&tX#` @ \@J~B@3ꂑjL@&@Q]""JgؗfoFNM芓4%GJW Q3@@+ Ѕf##50#`M.9!@f7EE /hw'ciJ+@ f$pV.r+A@ ͨ FF j`2%G\rC:F:nv!*A`_Ѿ95+N+]%V @FI\V#@QPdJ5uuB 9T:84}s5rjBW (9VJ@Z ȭG.4.&kr95م@(.rtp} hFkԄ8KPrtX5$ p[ ڏ]hF]02BMP (9s0jq P\P Ќ}ȩ ]q2&X*0jHh%"Ќ`d&Pr%8#`Ԭfȡ%Sd,M@Ub ` . JEn%h?t!u5A L&XKq PGY.BpC3K@37]#&tX#` @ \@J~B@3ꂑjL@&@Q]""JgؗfoFNM芓4%GJW Q3@@+ Ѕf##50#`M.9!@f7EE /hw'ciJ+@ f$pV.r+A@ ͨ FF j`2%G\rC:F:nv!*A`_Ѿ95+N+]%V @FI\V#@QPdJ5uuB 9T:84}s5rjBW (9VJ@Z ȭG.4.&kr95م@(.rtp} hFkԄ8KPrtX5$ p[ ڏ]hF]02BMP (9s0jq P\P Ќ}ȩ ]q2&X*0jHh%"Ќ`d&Pr%8#`Ԭfȡ%Sd,M@Ub ` . JEn%h?t!u5A L&XKq PGY.BpC3K@37]#&tX#` @ \@J~B@3ꂑjL@&@Q]""JgؗfoFNM芓4%GJW Q3@@+ Ѕf##50#`M.9!@f7EE /hw'ciJ+@ f$pV.r+A@ ͨ FF j`2%G\rC:F:nv!*A`_Ѿ95+N+]%V @FI\V#@QPdJ5uuB 9T:84}s5rjBW (9VJ@Z ȭG.4.&kr95م@(.rtp} hFkԄ8KPrtX5$ p[ ڏ]hF]02BMP (9s0jq P\P Ќ}ȩ ]q2&X*0jHh%"Ќ`d&Pr%8#`Ԭfȡ%Sd,M@Ub ` . JEn%h?t!u5A L&XKq PGY.BpC3K@37]#&tX#` @ \@J~B@3ꂑjL@&@Q]""JgؗfoFNM芓4%GJW Q3@@+ Ѕf##505UW?x:\-,HЌh  XKQNtj*w 0hqo.Z@4iX b9\-5GZf{]#"?,A`UѪ 71!XB6pG6(s!"F$QjBЌBa}' pk/{0jwQ? U hFf.Ą` 5Gڠ̅5D! "A@3 &"PsjIgE0.*V%`~%dwk2" `|@@ (Dw~W_Z9js8;Rt!?G`.I";Ќv X ;╀݅AtyM\&|6#@/Q/ۡ%l^wXwԝ3@QD$"G ؐfaGLKA<#@tyM\&|6#@/Q/!`m^w_ȏ3@ pD!  ZB$悢#`VE`IF%i^ *BЌBa}'h pk0;0ju1? 5 hFk-״p)yC*! `|@@ (Dw~_Zk3(;t4#+OE""h<5>]A@7^ DEng3""RpKuK95pY@L.r̼ hFۥ|L1\Y͒h`: + A@7^ DEng3""pK.K8ExIO =!b %Hv.W XXQsqw.@4iX 9\0ew4}2$=2ڍ[ŋ@PQĬ%a=_eGzD! g0j>;ۄI@tQ -%aD=MuwPa.%-:#@ (Dw~W@V[>#^C MXfZƂKHX/q!F$QjBЌBa}' pi4%+ hF+e+dyk* `|@@ (Dw~@$Ns_FKv$"u1#f0)+DEX1kYQȂ@ͭ6""ol"f9; FEX(YsVs8{3B@ ݨ FF|/#RB##14ͽlAtPD`6y6q!!Hat!@D肑 jUQ6 4Fi8.8,#@ͨ6o'n+>#@Q3 pçA@3#ã$` G3v @`F\\R!PP!p*>V#`T <$ 'Ќ1$a[TQ5m/F@7  PCEft'uGAžy#`ŨD^ nx(MXfZƂKB-ƶ73H=e=|[K60luKnԍLx%"Ds?; XC_؅?SgBM1v 'D7 3&}xyE6H e4ŏ[Df47H'@ p`=.2WЅ_U*Y!ѣ`8#0z7]dqkx~I$"mqFA8'qN;&9ڎؼ~Ql|/e_u8K`P}2AbN*y wsMe{!]6#4s[Ξ2CʲS.W6u^}fu$9Tn4*6vE`X}wEm;}B Q.`'-+IZ; ׅ#oFc|f~"@no;\dDF55HDliFtppIErEn!YnOa5oݓGឋLrA,tO3=l&@MBJ X~6vC/_k,~s#;B'ms쐝]\"$:e/m#0\3[E?$r2wK3q̚PBA70w:+ 0x|u0g/7j>; EP-T2HtIj #OqD|-yЛ7QJ Wb\9Pf.Bo;eU+٪ W8~8^|E6Ht\|eU_iJEƦ[Q_,FxXO Xc_>fr˪_iJEގ3JΞ1hhN2͙˪Bη QMw4 ,Yk=_BIu;h+œB(UյSC+mQ3ZFhOcw\  јPCy.$B(DK՗'k 3ӧ ;_+^dEu^%]ݨuXyT,eg=n>h\(-f1N;xnn'X/NVYܽsR/r"#`%ĨDd zpEґ5S7Ęy1rPF`p VWX/Ab|,uB8/Y^*oFNYz9{I֟Ęy1nB@@%οȩ8cci1gy8?=x^jx ps5s8/Y~@e5D!D %|49Gi/N ƃv,/+Qi߬Â(XW4K>(zbegy\sF ,9FV/O ƃv,/*QPV%2 Y2kwëg:]m?/}g9/Ы*Fp_J~ao!Ϯ K[ьd`'w~jEsHAl`ڼy1r^dW܍B5~a `ɮ _87*P+Q $ !PfwDdG)Ed89!Leij`{f>wfncY}g"T<"/3o"]$Nqdx &z8*VlYV4r};>vw} ]\Ibݑ%u?KfxEd_9l3,ַ#.sh6Hbc `{wʷځ@G?xG+=i?YTFJMv65u澐0%0ׅHu۔qd˒Q8{@ ]+^y'_dD{wAVƵ^rG>u sf,`n3ͬwr8}|do;É/';#EEwvbv.鯥O 2]l D f);)gN^dM6 *QI&F[ nXC ɜ;޹gt7`Ig,w$(=uPF;? lvX 5{rHZS1jr] ݚ^љ{ U7ua8 5ٗ6;+[/W4{< DpBvgrN_?jC]o9rr^v45HG.d+M:nus/A"/T9E[\قfscOSפ`Hu| #[ss }AU4^~{Vwwe 4;TuܙsFM PrO;ԋl(ԯr^}t*yes]0H$QXPьNZ o@F8 ?ԃ* p:{9LNTML5vƻ =wV3,]pc77p#pkS/A߸RV^Sx11y~R5ͨJלn @#O ~s7V~;=$?׺,41x[,[R ;2e<Kɤ:V|%O^ d<^dDEb4mAu]2 * ]u~+=#?ֺ,4{yMEEdc*;L7 X0V|'ˏ^7س@g^SauRprJB0+.7)j YSьR? N ;Ɋi\ݙ @d 1v}tt5Vh.JBb{;λTQab\<,Dux^x?]zbhz&7+JJr'4Q{X$w8wh,Ў ෡EdGvsVA;+x4]D`;#wOH8k(^k l`ԗS.95k7|u##Ko HQ}ZҢe X^Ź26K o 0 7zƊwM:v ̶ `}hX;5]|r%RB`+q/X]'6[K"\|tEXM$JsƗ+DE߷Bz:**80@!pA`xK@ty7wVF32ׅg X uWqN"@)#h.~>H~Lm8>볿GsqY$ 8RE;vvoDC`tSQxW)d:wVDh64w^7TsgWK{KߊG%/ԣDtM$| 1s?sy;αTQahfL50^t%ӓO3i6XUlWcPH~1igAUhm<0͝o#@YO䂉O0+T 2ʜ28gRE:q v uOGN%dlT\FΝR*U47|ΑW ҩڲī8'@ M'VMnXhx!`}(:F&k fw\Us*UT S `݊؆- 9=vVrɲI%_HY][hheK' XY7o9f '?+ Yל8kIWcoYJR9]v,x9**!&&|6&7 >);DA$zq{5۞ ʙ5Ʋe 6[rOyfD&)Z &֖LlWc? a1c ye8REH0ROU 6ThYT֢Ϛ6 -TqTeʛ;3;{͝`Uޝ&,Dܰ$.Ubmv3H$ߢw+\Ö$ ;qH(7FYZU9Rd1e XY>4{rEu?$K'/J,Ǒ.dXQPo"@8Ȝ" 2z] ;W,G or o=Wwgi_V"pYpSL/ďTMxhJ6?m;sEKsOp$'f7dv,()8k@ 3)OsbgYYl 7 .=dx Z0X[ `Kw.{xnřT沋gUs}ɒytm399.Me\rҢes3mz8oAO愐lS?EPU z 1\ JF?c,`kTKm:={s݁+r@8w"_3oe{2Re1Ek1!T2V@?D~]7a?I~H6lb@(ڄ@Wݼ)aGc!ڴ/N gGXeGWU;OxLdͽ ҏj@}+ ]Rˬ'  g< :\ޤ*f4=O<]b.yMˬB9Lۙ ,s癹V$&Xp6R&LI묎Je .rKӵ ' HXJ/(]V pm) `:(Xр.d}'܂3פ!wA⁃ ZAzT:L}u &ɟ XteM*rٺnI9gnkVX@"Wz{\ ast3忽)t&kWfIAfcT:p{s=K +n <ۃgda"%Ro3;O3wNane&X@^_Xu\uޛҜYq坔e*WU#[$8HEE3l3eG'vQfI|ܛ uY%myZhŹQ 0$- SõY+(xsrA$g 'G$>~*EN\x 1M`uO^ d }zoNs5w RcY>,0]LZ{܍jE\uq_,ސd/ZيgedW9wATb-++-i?*Z+`RtJ൅?>v<obS~gˍb(ݒ4 -|_UQin7>C왜\D$:i%-+{2-7ܩuDֈU *gX$;v$ğI`n0w as?sgf? gc1w;ϢuaQ_Qmn7.D䙜\t27YDN]’gdܘ I_x RcU$E5qlKk<ޯT;ozL}s9m!`kUߑKfnT=<@3 9 M>T 24ٟa3Xn崳%\+f -_&T9$ߴ܄±j;F c,+)Ԗϳ'sw'XtV>9eup:,0[hp`Q\xF8%L.b8xvjaex#)lc[D?p/W4BXw8`Mm]b+ԂQbj}ߟw'X-.LfMF7NFcad> #|3N,+U |.ߞ˞=$r䆜}@ѿc/'J_5/,*џ-H+ȶma yE+XS;=sߜ.>w^&`N- ; XiviQ9YN' X oANWgZPlhFo{'QdI୽<ͽˬez:_՘qPI0~䞿ܙHKfvHq5c/r9K 5WMk q2ťh+GOXӌWsHyKo'@="L4<(s֬?xkcʦ͝r -ׅ2_ BS[mVgv6OFܪ(^ϙ U)ٟuJGa {b4Y) hl3z)Ak,?2+X32Y/%ocU%90;%,zxvQs]+`WR5:3B D*{ 旅OI2ɍ$)~\gT zul3cqalޞX\Į[4#?jzPSe^7w=;XwBua^r]XeLձj؍b֯}z NƮgg}$S~RoAڌ~D4[ nwv`MlΊߜmTJn8>xv&aM5㹂.)a7b_r'S$"ׅw+fOߣ~H/pىxZ7./afE6H|L3Zj,E5$nם(-Z±Ĥ@`wC0oA˃fo.Z"\c]u"9GQqbG]a;+? gI  ΂`i.'}5~Ñ9$$!@s)oLMcgտZISd^w[j@9;f,5wf\2ezcO&urE6H>8s:w`:(Xj@_dX3p3kؓEɢe|<IL_R-&]7`WcM_`$2ɦ@C+[Z1w^~5'y*5~QN peϩ".A4d*M$稱֪ď (Yu 5+wn9]I\g(y4ōiRm;YH,kWM:e0XRS^u#ΝWg XĬGoxacA<_3H\"0w9rt?L${pb95955sYz(y8E cNm;+0[)KNhWd2bk͏˽,'zH.~ҢɞƓ)0;spc9(x0ߗmP|.A"Yr1l(.4:sT3J{ӱ)~^NU̎>zp|=e;{ dWZIecq\fX0?f;~^\bN7r&E`|5o %oͭ2+a 擟؛DM*:7 ĂBB`/B'9My:0rp714|Te+̝{k,\k*2U*_ї}Iyd&ȟ$-Ӎ| '|N!u I/Dd-5H$ҥ'֏jFI7o;8E$h@?汳odPlH ˌ:?"MzE,> ;88@g_O4A^ į2ο&xF %C L{;*L$0|te(FpGeQU_ft٣d;C ܎, ח J7T2A`$y$]A`s>_:wk3w6E9[ľnQ|0sX.OGX_E: ?\B_n͂^T2inV}cD7zZqgK.i.@`=򇀆|az%㿩 'M`߁1iC ic狼4(phXfIEIY4;H;(E0x!I`:j7A`9sj(DMq6.r?L` /+|]>{7x&;$0U:}f6A`9QQm\6~v#0A" X鴿3APªSR7&\?G .snx@69 0sS`(bޭϲH%VLlҌT1|AA)_Ubv%`5^AbSs1%amI5#p7%`ݖg#cJ-'qQO}!`=<»&p"au k*e L; X IX1h$0uV VcNN܁IX=53J7iвH掝H a +¦c|;H&`Lc"RVW[[&HXoG'BCge%̝; X0VM 8 0w)T3 L?DzhbUDT٨,D s'+X@LƊyGg95XTɶ$^a"pB\aU?S%o}]:nv!cf &YHxkFy|X zi&G`IW?b35`kXu Fس >?:VXHA{K甄lF! ~qs4.]1"0}$`J%yXyn_e=@ A[Go-y^篊ٌbzO+ O\JX+0m-v#pc'L;rZ0V,(nnO` ϯ;+h3 }$4R҄?w)Z7TXC3KI` EfկŶm::iXuf4;Sl* Loc_gFмl5h3il7m< h!p Y'mFakNSħ?iЈ:, #(G_0珎ր?,$`X1 X,*Ŵɰk$R"VZhb &ݥGOM{4ch#2iUɨ5L~%P@ &gn!+XB:~j4%Tِ[3i; t4\EmwbZe 'HN@ޏIl#@2FGkm}#`X1 X@Os/nF[9l膒dSXv{Uh%@%t_#z+KJlDX1 cXahQl&&I#J 砟@ZB V|4zHǎ3E?O:֢nP2Lկ#W+oUph5螫cN{^rl?g }9Zӑ#LxGآ7O<x9тJ^2~<, .#p GY(Q:mgZ:bZXd*'Ne?Ɗ7 #PQcsXFQ?uYS䀌.>?8֒\0BI^ #ߌ{8>KNVdpe}oy XWF5  ?; #\2sf\Qa3L`#$Iڴ<~ʍ'/@LvqcĎF; 7)P%zpʈ# g,""Wa gAZ ,KVDp:X&B$@r[Zc~hF~k>!PϔViFِ[Wsg&c= h@#VGJey>,U٫&< PLi mf-YzW_.‰@@[Jq_kF+KЯ$ {(z4|W5=s+j `HTgOaUjxMEŅcX@F7"֌Vw_H ,BѠY._n"p3 ~|@j~ŁihN--r'i@p%OC1r#@='NGbUWk'l@5zh=P$Q2U.pn#0k2+w.>º +TMт./_S(U >>)WM9K5 XZU# q@ @{uy&ӫV|Yt&"_EߞM p@|vauFrU=//4r.+p d3Zt/!@-ж>Y>K@7˳ZtȅJEq%f3Zܜ[p)> mr") FS(=.G|+)p h3Z)/wX@~u~.' @+ݨ`_< Ug\PYMEM="j3Z$ݼ~us3k늌&s݈Ht@(|(ww"ߝ#o6e_r)\ Xa* 4(N|'y"/2#L6u=_Wk勷#p*`%",@)t)s)ϵ :s 5wpL p3Z R4gUF:d$K@`h# ?ߏ#X Op-KE˓5$r3ZtF܉%p ~ '؋рI@e & gyrRu.~US Sq; ݌~_-$.>@{`=>0ĆJt_mat-_Q"Ṫ.rȴp ,ތw?zW!@#~Ic -k@`hl?ߙ_`W'fj0.0 #@ ՛jZtD_Gs,e5""mD1Q Xo]ˎ9\9 7\0pr& YoܡDĈ ttz^]KT-of X$+x9tz8>oFGWQ3ï]klAtP LW?k>,)`3‚^"&<8$fB'*dZ8w*f M Нni*'jh㋀k\rC 1nUU ={h':ـCFC_UL_îZ#bU-} Е##vc?[c Żnى= F=i:ھ(S`%ybyj!g4gDRW= 4Wo{5 `H+ u_eSU٦ύs_ BxH3zH!J?q'D뫷Kjj'bEhݑ_}U!`oj?bU%m ЗSSjkjt6"$@`{=%0N*7:Oh{{?TY xL3zL Fh"'6Ѝ,0T+_eaRx(`Q r=i< c@ss"fW42]F]0_5~ɱ%1nDAAtJnU%8D@G 3h~OG^x36{5Z X/2Y+FpGf<=)YDÕUvЍfơ|ٷ[y)_ۏ~s}n$y$]@ ѣNa?(6L#NC $M.&N?|O1Lq.@Ռ--@wrw "@ݨ [#ũX`ϯ[xo8.8,#@5SNK&2ߝ#hj%4Wþ:sؕ4 iL.&w2Et"\""`!b9`R׌Ī|Y&(N@/쎔A"Ua?"`fM@lkFϋhVѯfvh ;2F-!`uC+YE @lF iJ\>YAFmF 1ۻ!cj5AtL-+׮#+\sss#\]ξ1Zr!@_Q_XHoye@<nFgѯzd 0t0ЍoVs  lE!'7'֭F_gnfB h7' nԩRk7RaME! 9)U`o\_vЯ%+$ЍAVЬdH ]&LP(U' .f!@DQpd\ 6K`x3uPTփe@A bc+G@7꒒4F_`u tBL 0Wm|~%@`oT&@nTsK}WfʆMHVj$0?3 h5 X:%M*(BKX#mtӚg6^pB"0tzfHׅC#)6U,aahF"Qh "7ٌ|Hm#C}Ser FzPdVG``3J}ʜ#Y ڧ7үnNN@ E@7”XDA.r<[@q(_Q4dɸ }*E!)l $lC@71=U2kSh.rp} kF?H+[}^v}0v3dC dЍ2 %7V-\z"@7Úѹ?I(nyX-NAѮ @ ^\@t/&`uYm @ѕ?FSj$2Kj0 @679:ЍMb$`uK @haY1JOlhWZ+Z1X3 fr%ᛚ X}8rBEV fx=sנH޿_5VnyrFENpd\ 6K`P3~<k |Pne_el J`ݎ*q~#1ݨSe$~ Nq&0hH4Gfbm+e~UT?G y8 )_)YU)-E^{q~l"4C &Ѝ&@v ȣ Y4,(%`}e,+ֿ,4}u~E3"'< 2teRQ ȪBҌ4k,c!XuQzSޱ icD$E ($"Ҍ4KGYzZުv+U{X@`mCHxЍnPpd * iFYɢ_K,Y*?>cIV~!_GR4pbЍb4pٌ iFYөZ8򤩼U4W?lM,H`Hs_@np> 24,)kkf'Mjt^:}$0/I p/^NG  FF@f9e-S֯W~C`Hs  <(yK؃9~xnkFٺT|ISyj|`P % FX񴌊E ֌u셭ȓVUBfK @Rp%+L`P3JNyZW^(X;H#Љ;f@`> NXfPJDMTUMO%@`S4tzvv"&A`oѵS$(`k[)z:;xE@7+ߢ}(Ԍ~$R_'!ZDXnx/.:@F5 P , V &0/ p E//O@ftRWw| eUf VlEM j6TЍو@.r\ 46ϣ~I? _`Shlۏ!)@E~@46<ߊiW2aL뫤[Dhl! nty"Б&S PO]Kbt,(QZًD Fa2]\;^46+7\?1 *s+e Nt"u wplK]KOrpuׁg9J`Vu Ft"u wpl `}@_N(X*0iq zЍze7@w$\6*Q`e'#Xo aXG. @'z@tyM\&|6#@/Z]:W ܿE:~;SQ}wFeGhlf#8I@7IY "",hlF uL*Cr?oJZCt"u wplK%ե# 2s]~OX_J0;lEoJ 0n4.L""O&،2ԥ+](';GIy؟/T8ږ $Q"Ȏ@`4y4a@ f,nZte]` <#0?@;ݨ;ROE܉ p@@3 %%`}/$A@7^ DEng3"z; (\A`kSOɤ8XfDZG4wu1F1 MlF^4#VZb%+lM@7: )ЌX0@.@ (Fx@  Ћf7^`A$I nxIO Pb@7@tyM\&|6#@/W-h&m~?L hFoO(@_4wu1F1 MlF^4/8" p#FFt#Hx͈:ܕ /h""7zЌXjD@s 5h )\dR,N@3"`-^G#@tyM\&|6#@/o?0" p#FFt#Hx͈:ܕ /h""7zЌXjD@s 5h )\dR,N@3J?' kSAFyz#Џ܏%K @@3"`5 53B`7n# ȏLXfDZjyI{ 0n4CKE˗u$ "e @h{pF%[%"?7"C`)ѫT8 /h""7zЌVv@{ hw:|Ѝ "? B@ 4'dQ  ]I @ Q<&.r>@ͨIv@@4@ [ЍNBE~J&Ł4}@.@ (Fx@  Ћfԋ$; @ {dp F[_O!"?%@`q > pD@sW n#@܄fE@3E@ =P2t/pIq 8hr8" A@7^ DEng3"" (\A`kSOɤ8Xfx /h""7zЌzdD@s 5h )\dR,N@3Z@ͨIv@@4@ [ЍNBE~J&Ł4}@.@ (Fx@  Ћfԋ$; @ {dp F[_O!"?%@`q > pD@sW n#@܄fE@3E@ =P2t/pIq 8hr8" A@7^ DEng3"" (\A`kSOɤ8Xfxxi@  $I`~k@wn @@5I `;lO`~k@pXfkXv#f?5 k'xXfkXpN`~k@C4kX3:(@Y짼F `=y,J@F5 <% &f?5 k/؅fkإGV"f?5 k-_ؖfkضi X@5&Y#t1@ 5)@>{Ь@`Q  > LЪ@`U  >L|Ъ@`Y:  `T <x- EAU(                                                                                             <x@D IENDB`# i<@< Normal1$CJ_HhmH sH tH n@n Heading 1=$$ &  ` 0p@ "d@&a$ >*OJQJh@h Heading 27$ & p@ P !d@& >*OJQJ~@~ Heading 3F$ 2`0p@ P !$d1$@&>*B*OJQJphp@p Heading 4=$$ & p@ P !d@&a$5OJQJ\jj Heading 57$ & p@ P !d@&5OJQJ\r@r Heading 6=$$ & p@ P !d@&a$>*CJOJQJl@l Heading 77$ & p@ P !d@&>*CJOJQJ Heading 8C$ 2`0p@ P !$d@&>*B*CJOJQJphr @r Heading 9= $$ ) 0p@ P !1$@&a$>*CJOJQJ<A@< Default Paragraph Font4&@4 Footnote Reference,@, Header  !, , Footer  !&)@!& Page NumberzC@2z Body Text Indent9 & p@ P !d`5OJQJ\xR@Bx Body Text Indent 29 & p@ P !d`OJQJpB@Rp Body Text: 2`0p@ P !$1$B*OJQJphhPbh Body Text 2.$ HP !$d1$a$B*OJQJphSr Body Text Indent 3E 2`0p@ P !$d`B*OJQJphQ@ Body Text 3C 5`0p@ P !$`'d1$B*CJOJQJphb>@b Title:$ & p@ P !d1$a$ 5OJQJ.U@. Hyperlink >*B*ph(O( endnote refe>@>  Footnote TextOJQJaJh>V@> FollowedHyperlink >*B* phV^@V Normal (Web)dd1$[$\$OJPJQJ^JaJhBOB HTML BodyOJQJ_HhmH sH tH <Z< Plain Text 1$CJOJQJh&X@& Emphasis6]e@" HTML Preformatted:"1$ 2( Px 4 #\'*.25@9CJOJPJQJh /A^t|       1/0DC426789:;<=5>?@ /A^t|"      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0iV 8E&HpѮ#ZUz !%)+/,R1@369J<@BFILLGNSSgTnT{TVVZ2\]__"acc8gh hlqs-v5vYv'xUx%z1zM}a}{~~FMZ'S ֋ދō 'Ô͔\!*9PZ !ϼּؾz!3CgT]4<jHSEOd)>G\NXZ`%~B$# I#"FY##&((..00$000244l567 78!8E8:?;<<??B3G>GJLwQ~QQ'R2RRRS>UV=Y ]]P]_`dfjl mmquWx{H{~?'u({H[7ПyhisRаԱljvtJoÿUB|x#n5kr9Pa#F4[0c@UsH/!zK1N{:{ 8t$)qv.@f7l?@/0MZ[| -.Vcd  3 4 U V ^ _    ) * O    . / Y q r          , ? @ b u v           3 4 O b c {        =>OP^78@AZ[pIJ12HPv2k/;34Eefghwx?A   d./0DEFLMNSTUZ[\abcw~jk~00000000000000000000h0000X0X000h0000000000h00000000h0000h0000000h0000000X000000000000000000000000(000000000000 000000000h000000000(00000000000000000000000h000h00000000X000h0000000h000h00000h0000h0000000000000h000h00000h00000000000000h00h000h000000h00000000000000X0h0000h000000000000000000000000000000h00h000000 0X00000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000"000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000@000000000000000000000@000000000 00@00@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ((((((,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,......000000000000222225x2r^m$0,3$-26:?ADFLT@DcLɑ{K #0F$c3ڝP?s y,!x#v%8*+~./1112,3%'()*+,./01345789;<=>@BCEGHIJKMNOPQRSUV+3& !$5!!!48DE@ND(  \B  S D"\B  S D"\B  S D"\B  S D"\B  S D"\B  S D"\B  S D"\B  S D">   "L>   "K>   "G>   "F>   "E>   "D\  3 "% \  3 !" !>   "C>2    "J>2    "B>2    "A>    ">>    "=T  C  \  3 ") \  3 "* bB  c $D>"IbB  c $D>"HbB @ c $D>"@bB  c $D>"?bB @ c $D>"<bB  c $D>";bB  c $D>":bB @ c $D>"9bB @ c $D>"8>2   "1>2   "0\  3 "( b  C  "#  bB  c $D>""bB  c $D>"!bB   c $D>"bB ! c $D>"hB " s *D"> #  "7> $  "6> %  "5> &  "4> '  "3> (  "2\B ) S D"-\B * S D" \B + S D",\B ,@ S D"+\B - S D".\B . S D"/\ / 3 /"& \ 0 3 0"$ \ 1 3 1"' \ 2 3 %2" % 3 BC DEF+VTR# @  S"\ 4 3 $4" $V 5 # ."  .V 6 # &" &V 7 # '" 'V 8 # (" (V 9 # )" )V : # *" *V ; # +" +V < # ,"  ,V = # -"  -V > # /"  /V ? # 0"  0V @ # 1" 1\B A@ S D"\B B@ S D"\ C 3 #C" #\ D 3 "D" "B S  ?hxy?   defghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~rw#t#=,Ut6't tT$T.,tEEtHt L, t@I v'8t?IXt>I # ' t5+ t=_()t<A(? m)/ t;,.3t:? y t9t8mt7/ t6?t d t0 ttA*i , tB*,t2(+t403t3,.H0tCd, &.tD,D.-t"'-(t!$3$tL&6+t*`'<P+#td0!td@ 0!Ct#p)t0}Pt  t/,t1 !dc$t(#k |),t t `  t,X <$(#t+%<%(#t) !8$ t-`'8+ t.%8% t!*<t! *Ht(|)(#h.%t'#(#(%t&<(#(#%t%|)hh.8t$#h(8t#<h(#8tT@ tTd@ 4tT HtT,@ tT@ t T(#%t (#4%td(#t <\ (#t @ dt @ d4thPT thTthHTthTth@ Tt8t 8t @ dth8t hx8t+1 #=Dx """""%","""]#d#''''''''5*9*,+/+8+?+s+z+2-:-B-G-----(/0/ 0000T2Y23 33"3$3-3N4X4\4c466::;;;;T=\=h=n=r=z=>&>??DDDDHHHHJJJJJJJJN$N6N=NTTVV;e@eTh^hiii%i8i=iCiHiKlYlenknoo զpu07 W^$+!(ip%V]FM.5@Gov  w~")  U \   $$%%''''))9+@+f+m+337788`;g;R=W=,?3? AAB!BE EEEHHLLLLNN\\\\\\c]k]n]t]R_X_``KeSehhhhjjk kssMuXuVv\vwwwxxxHyMy{{J}S}5=MS_dŁ́ՁƔ˔Дڔw|$,47>QV")HUśʛ',ġ v}dl5:!CF%+2<u|@G05nwGPkpJU 9>QX0B`nBJbfFPYb4;"'9?19AG@G /6ov|!$-19@NU)/R[NT ({8?)0qy{~hmCK_ m AO1: _cI!\!|''++0033RRSSTT\\ccccIeJettvv!x$xyy |#|||}} NJيTXQVȭ˭.1!$jmӽ "%JM!$QTLUrt69hkQU15DV 9<gkx|YiWZ~ 03?B` c S!V!""$$S'W')0)z+}+,,@-C-118899::;;<<*=W=5?8?5A8ABBCCjDmDEEO$O%_(_``aabbcchhUiXijjkkYըϯү߰JPou׿T (egtbACMXg YkBz_gAWYmn~"su 5T\Fj/g|CEr9op:,PowN)`r"#42~ 24?!)IC/3Pc@NV|TlLr G(ac$/:BgR&.MJrRgMN7WYz{9k{8@vx  uw#<[q )+uwz-.8  s~?hfn67R6 7 */567mn3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 /eq"4 i(O E?]4 > D E G Q T T !+6>>``..55>>DD.0DFKKLNRRSUYYZ\``ac~(ku}}Jon A. KrosnickJon A. KrosnickJon A. KrosnickJon A. Krosnick Penny VisserJon A. Krosnick#C:\PAPERS\Importance and Memory.docJon A. Krosnick#C:\PAPERS\Importance and Memory.docJon A. Krosnick#C:\PAPERS\Importance and Memory.docJon A. Krosnick#C:\PAPERS\Importance and Memory.docJon A. Krosnick#C:\PAPERS\Importance and Memory.doc [+D^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(opp^p`CJOJQJo(@ @ ^@ `CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(PP^P`CJOJQJo( [+~930@Hlyz"#$%S'S(S>S@S^S_`aghjkǻǼp@p~p@pp,@ppp@p ppp$@p.p`@p2ph@p6pp@pNp@ppp@ptp@p|p@pp@pp@UnknownG: Times New Roman5Symbol3& : ArialI& ??Arial Unicode MSG5  hMS Mincho-3 fg5& zaTahoma?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"A hsFsFsFL7N Q2d3q QH#Attitude Importance and Memory for Jon A. KrosnickJon A. KrosnickOh+'0 0< X d p |$Attitude Importance and Memory for ttiJon A. Krosnickon on NormalKJon A. Krosnick6n Microsoft Word 9.0 @0@0@(>/@0L՜.+,D՜.+,x4 px  The Ohio State Universityc $Attitude Importance and Memory for Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSAHsyP0figure2  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmopqrstuwxyz{|}Root Entry F` 1Data X1TableWordDocumentSummaryInformation(nDocumentSummaryInformation8vCompObjjObjectPool` 1` 1  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q0i0i0i0i0i0i0i0i0i0i@0i0i0i0i0i0i0i0i0i`0i0i@00@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0 00000000000000000000000000000000@000@000@000@000@000@000@0@000@0@0000000@000@00000000000000000000000000000 ((((((,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,......000000000000222225¡H1p2l"/?1kty}@PjRdJT$d6D+a3ڛP?s y,u!s#1(), ./-//0?1lnopqrsuvwxz{|~>1m !$5!!!48DE@ND(  \B  S D"\B  S D"\B  S D"\B  S D"\B  S D"\B  S D"\B  S D"\B  S D">   "L>   "K>   "G>   "F>   "E>   "D\  3 "% \  3 !" !>   "C>2    "J>2    "B>2    "A>    ">>    "=T  C  \  3 ") \  3 "* bB  c $D>"IbB  c $D>"HbB @ c $D>"@bB  c $D>"?bB @ c $D>"<bB  c $D>";bB  c $D>":bB @ c $D>"9bB @ c $D>"8>2   "1>2   "0\  3 "( b  C  "#  bB  c $D>""bB  c $D>"!bB   c $D>"bB ! c $D>"hB " s *D"> #  "7> $  "6> %  "5> &  "4> '  "3> (  "2\B ) S D"-\B * S D" \B + S D",\B ,@ S D"+\B - S D".\B . S D"/\ / 3 /"& \ 0 3 0"$ \ 1 3 1"' \ 2 3 %2" % 3 BC DEF+VTR# @  S"\ 4 3 $4" $V 5 # ."  .V 6 # &" &V 7 # '" 'V 8 # (" (V 9 # )" )V : # *" *V ; # +" +V < # ,"  ,V = # -"  -V > # /"  /V ? # 0"  0V @ # 1" 1\B A@ S D"\B B@ S D"\ C 3 #C" #\ D 3 "D" "B S  ?YZ[abcdefghijklJrw#t#=,Ut6't tT$T.,tEEtHt L, t@I v'8t?IXt>I # ' t5+ t=_()t<A(? m)/ t;,.3t:? y t9t8mt7/ t6?t d t0 ttA*i , tB*,t2(+t403t3,.H0tCd, &.tD,D.-t"'-(t!$3$tL&6+t*`'<P+#td0!td@ 0!Ct#p)t0}Pt  t/,t1 !dc$t(#k |),t t `  t,X <$(#t+%<%(#t) !8$ t-`'8+ t.%8% t!*<t! *Ht(|)(#h.%t'#(#(%t&<(#(#%t%|)hh.8t$#h(8t#<h(#8tT@ tTd@ 4tT HtT,@ tT@ t T(#%t (#4%td(#t <\ (#t @ dt @ d4thPT thTthHTthTth@ Tt8t 8t @ dth8t hx8t+1 #=D| "#"/"4"7">"""o#v#''''''''Z*^*Q+T+]+d+++W-_-g-l-----M/U/.06000y2~2-323A3G3I3R3s4}44496A6;;&;-;;;y======C>K>??E EEEHHHHJJJJJJJJNN-N4N,T4T>VGVddghhhhhhhhhkkn nDoPoGL&Ѽܼ9@t{JOhoel biry  fmHO""8$?$%%%%''}))))K1R1556699;;p=w=O?V?^@e@JCQCCCGGJJK KLLZZ[[#[,[[[[[]]=_C_ccfffgiiKiQiVq^qsstt/v5v:vDvvvwwzz{{y~~~~~~ $'/6?Za ƕЕ8=EJLSU_chpx{fm kpGN38y~]e&.-4 #'-iov[aty08RW 0S)0}"+1Sat*27@  RW xfk}u}JOszehqu}\c/2>G;BCIms+0DIKVdlT[|mt &/4 #*Z^5C~  KR'(K1: _c[!n!''++11 44?RIRkSnSfTrTZZ1\\BcMcncocddktrtOvRvwwxx{{||i}l}Ňvux?I 9<ۭޭrueh(νӽ",JMfieh,=$z}EHuyKM }!PRtw:!=!""%%`'t'))**++R//66-808"9%9::;;n;;y=|=y?|?@@RAUABBCC[MhMi]l]#_&___``aaffgg0i3iii+.#Dacɾ  23OH(IJlBC_,-;2cO% @ Z[*D/f;QyRs0S<[})T!)~LpZm"*2DFfgx?cvQSvx,\em+-ST9s$<w)3;Y4_aOl';hs~*,[\jrR577^1{C}+L-]^|(P\d$,-g%F  FNmo9qr| NQSH@z{ ABbz{Y Z   \gsy{|'(K33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333Jon A. Krosnick-C:\Attach\Importance and Memory Shortened.docJon A. Krosnick-C:\Attach\Importance and Memory Shortened.docJon A. Krosnick-C:\Attach\Importance and Memory Shortened.docJon A. Krosnick-C:\Attach\Importance and Memory Shortened.docJon A. Krosnick-C:\Attach\Importance and Memory Shortened.docJon A. Krosnick-C:\Attach\Importance and Memory Shortened.docJon A. Krosnick-C:\Attach\Importance and Memory Shortened.docJon A. Krosnick-C:\Attach\Importance and Memory Shortened.docJon A. Krosnick#C:\Papers\Importance and Memory.docJon A. Krosnick#C:\Papers\Importance and Memory.doc [+D^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(opp^p`CJOJQJo(@ @ ^@ `CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(PP^P`CJOJQJo( [+%'K@dA`xyz !"#%&<>\] _ ` f g i j  J@|~@,@@  @,\@0d@4l@L@n@r@z@~@@Unknown Gz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z ArialG5  hMS Mincho-3 fgCGreek Symbols5& z!TahomaI& ??Arial Unicode MS?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"A h8A욂yLm_x,! Q2dQi2q Q#Attitude Importance and Memory for Jon A. KrosnickJon A. KrosnickOh+'0 4@ \ h t $Attitude Importance and Memory for ttiJon A. Krosnickon on  Normal.dotnJon A. Krosnick3n Microsoft Word 9.0 @Ik@S @pZ@*?yL՜.+,D՜.+,h$ hp  The Ohio State University!mQ $Attitude Importance and Memory for Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSAxi4b.E:\JPSP ARTICLE!!!\figure2.gif  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry FKEData 1TabledWordDocument=SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjjObjectPoolKEKE  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q