AUTHORS’ RESPONSE The Illusory Second Mode or, the Cue Is the Message

We were delighted at the magnitude of response to our target article. No less than 15 author teams obviously put in considerable time and effort in preparing thoughtful commentaries on this work. Participants in the debate included some of the most distinguished and productive theorists and researchers in the attitudes and persuasion domain. Evidently, our article hit a spot where discussion was badly needed. Indeed, we could not have asked for a fuller, more thorough, creative, and multifaceted discussion than what we have here. Our theoretical framework has been described in turn as “radical” and a “major theoretical contribution” (Stroebe), “provocative” and “a fundamental challenge” (Lavine), a “theoretical and empirical challenge,” “daring” (Kerkhof), a “serious challenge” (Ajzen), a “bold enterprise” (Manstead & van der Pligt), and “provocative and cleverly insightful” (Miller & Pedersen). If these epithets are even somewhat accurate we were pleasantly surprised by the amount of agreement our position elicited. Historians and philosophers of science (Kuhn, 1962; Popper, 1959; Sulloway, 1996) highlight the considerable resistance new scientific notions typically encounter. By contrast, the gist of our innovation has been accepted by most of our commentators, albeit in different forms and degrees. We first characterize those differences, and then discuss the major themes that emerge from this set of articles. Unavoidably, space constraints prevent us from discussing all of our commentators’ points in the detail they merit. Hopefully, there will be other avenues to continue our conversation.