Over the past two decades, social psychologists have identified various properties of attitudes that moderate the impact of attitudes on behaviors and decisions.  Two properties that were identified relatively early on and that have received substantial empirical attention, are the constructs of attitude-relevant knowledge and attitudinal ambivalence.  Numerous studies have demonstrated that these properties are associated with attitude-behavior/decision consistency.  However, nearly all of these studies have used non-experimental designs thereby making it difficult to reach firm conclusions regarding the causal role of these constructs.  Additionally, the mechanisms underlying the associations of these constructs with attitude-behavior/decision consistency are poorly understood.  This talk reviews a series of experiments testing the notion that people consider the relevancy of the bases of their attitudes to decisions when deciding if they should use their attitudes as a guide to decisions.  Evidence is presented indicating that the match between the nature of attitude bases and decisions, the number of distinct attitude bases, and the consistency among attitude bases can all regulate the magnitude of attitude-decision consistency.  The implications of these findings for understanding why attitude-relevant knowledge and attitudinal ambivalence have been associated with attitude-behavior consistency are discussed.