Past research has shown that thinking of reasons as to why one likes or dislikes an object can disrupt attitude stability, even though other forms of effortful processing (such as that induced by high involvement) typically produce strengthening effects on stability. The current article addresses this dilemma by showing that, depending on specific theoretically derived moderating factors, reasons analysis can produce either a disruptive or a strengthening effect on attitude stability. Our findings help to resolve the conflict surrounding the effects of reasons analysis and also provide support for a construction-based match-mismatch account of the underlying process.