The target article by Dalege, Borsboom, van Harreveld, and van der Maas (this issue) presents an attitude entropy framework (AEF) as a general theory of individual attitudes. Before turning to some points of issue with the framework, it is important to note that there is a lot to like about the proposed model. For example, the model focuses on understanding changes in attitudes that are assessed with both explicit and implicit measures. Other important aspects are the emphasis on elaboration and information integration as key psychological processes of attitude change. Elaboration is linked to the “dependency parameter,” defined in terms of attention and amount of thinking about an attitude object. In accord with prior attitude theorizing, the model highlights the importance of personal involvement as a key variable affecting elaboration (e.g., Petty & Cacioppo, 1990). Also in accord with prior research and theory, the AEF proposes a positive relationship between elaboration and attitude strength. Greater elaboration about an attitude object (i.e., greater the dependency in a network) is argued to lead to greater attitude strength (i.e., more attitude stability, more consistency; (see Petty & Krosnick, 1995). Furthermore, the AEF argues that the very same variable (e.g., number of strong arguments) can influence attitudes under both highand low-involvement conditions. All of these are very reasonable and interesting aspects of the proposed framework with which we agree. However, as positive as these features are, we also believe that the AEF provides more of a supplement to rather than a replacement for existing frameworks as it does not sufficiently articulate underlying mechanisms. We begin our assessment with the authors’ core entropy concept and then we turn to our comments on some of the other prominent ideas and specific hypotheses derived from the AEF.

中文翻译：

---

AEF：使用物理比喻加强我们对态度的了解

Dalege、Borsboom、van Harreveld 和 van der Maas 的目标文章（本期）将态度熵框架 (AEF) 作为个人态度的一般理论。在转向框架的某些问题之前，重要的是要注意所提出的模型有很多值得关注的地方。例如，该模型侧重于理解通过显性和隐性措施评估的态度变化。其他重要方面是强调阐述和信息整合作为态度转变的关键心理过程。细化与“依赖参数”相关联，根据对态度对象的注意力和思考量来定义。根据先前的态度理论，该模型强调了个人参与作为影响阐述的关键变量的重要性（例如，佩蒂和卡乔波，1990 年）。同样根据先前的研究和理论，AEF 提出了精细度和态度强度之间的正相关关系。对态度对象的更多详细说明（即，网络中更大的依赖性）被认为会导致更大的态度强度（即，更多的态度稳定性，更多的一致性；（参见 Petty & Krosnick，1995）。此外，AEF 认为非常相同的变量（例如，有力论据的数量）可以影响高参与度和低参与度条件下的态度。所有这些都是我们同意的拟议框架的非常合理和有趣的方面。然而，尽管这些特征是积极的，我们还认为 AEF 提供了更多对现有框架的补充而不是替代，因为它没有充分阐明底层机制。我们从作者的核心熵概念开始我们的评估，然后我们转向我们对来自 AEF 的其他一些突出思想和特定假设的评论。