Divergence vs. ambivalence: effects of personal relevance on minority influence

According to the literature on social influence, a minority source can induce two main cognitive processes: validation and divergence. The aim of the present study was to determine if the two processes are jointly or alternatively activated. We hypothesized that the process stimulated by the minority source would be different according to the personal relevance of the issue for the participants. Specifically, we predicted that a minority would induce more validation (i.e. ambivalent thoughts about the issue) in the low relevance condition rather than in the high relevance condition. On the other hand, the minority would produce more divergence (i.e. alternative proposals) in the high relevance condition rather than in the low relevance condition. Two experiments in which the participants were exposed to a counter‐attitudinal message of a minority or a majority supported these predictions. Moreover, in Study 1 evidence has also been found that a minority source fosters more pertinent (but not more original) proposals in the high relevance condition rather than in the low relevance condition, whereas in Study 2 ambivalence (other than divergence) appeared to be correlated with, but not a significant mediator of, indirect influence. The implications of these findings for minority influence theory are discussed. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Ambivalence and Response Amplification Toward Native Peoples1

This study determined whether ambivalence toward Native peoples would result in amplified, or polarized, responses to members of the group, as assessed in terms of both general attitudes and social policy endorsements. In addition, it examined whether priming would mediate these effects, based on the notion that ambivalent attitudes contain both positive and negative dimensions that may be activated at different times. Induction of different mood states was used as an indirect priming manipulation. One hundred thirty-eight Canadian participants completed measures of ambivalence toward Native peoples and Canadians. One week later, these participants underwent a positive, neutral, or negative mood induction procedure. They then indicated their attitudes toward Native peoples and Canadians, and responded to social policy questions involving both groups. Participants who were highly ambivalent or not ambivalent toward Native peoples were retained for analysis; participants generally displayed low ambivalence toward Canadians. It was predicted and the results confirmed that only participants who were ambivalent toward Native peoples would display a relative response amplification effect: a greater difference between positive and negative mood states in their responses to Native peoples than in their responses to Canadians.     

Ambivalent Versus Univalent Voters: Perceived Media Influences and Third-Person Perceptions

By differentiating “ambivalent” from “univalent” voters, this study argues that ambivalent voters need information to reach a decision, which implies they are more open to persuasion through media coverage than are univalent voters. In turn, they may infer that election coverage exerts a greater influence on them, resulting in smaller self–other perceptual discrepancies in terms of their coverage susceptibility. Conversely, univalent voters have made their voting choices early during the campaign; for them, only when the intended influence seems desirable does the perceived influence of campaign news on them increase, leading to a smaller self–other perceptual gap. In other words, ambivalent voters engage in motivated inferences to reduce their ambivalence-aroused discomfort, whereas univalent voters engage in motivated inferences to avoid dissonance. The results of a survey conducted during the official campaign for the 2012 Taiwanese presidential election support these predictions, demonstrating the utility of categorizing voters as ambivalent or univalent when examining the perceived effects of election campaign news.     

Steering sheep: How expressed emotional ambivalence elicits dominance in interdependent decision making contexts

This research proposes that expressed emotional ambivalence elicits greater dominance in observers than expressed happiness or anger because ambivalence conveys deliberation and therefore submissiveness. Four laboratory studies yielded convergent findings across different measures of dominance and manipulations of emotional expressions (videos and vignettes). Study 1 showed that participants can identify the expression of tension and conflict as ambivalence and can reliably distinguish ambivalence expressions from the expression of a related emotion (sadness), as well as unrelated emotions (happiness and anger). Study 2 showed that participants intended to dominate the ambivalent partner significantly more than the happy, angry, or non-emotional partner. Study 3 provides evidence that negotiators dominated the ambivalent partner because they perceived the ambivalent partner as more deliberative, and thus submissive. Study 4 confirmed - using a different manipulation of ambivalence - that expressed ambivalence leads to perceived submissiveness because it suggests greater deliberation.     

Family as a salient source of meaning in young adulthood

Five studies demonstrated the role of family relationships as an important source of perceived meaning in life. In Study 1 (n?=?50), 68% participants reported that their families were the single most significant contributor to personal meaning. Study 2 (n?=?231) participants ranked family above 12 likely sources of meaning. Studies 3 (n?=?87) and 4 (n?=?130) demonstrated that participants’ reports of their closeness to family (Study 3) and support from family (Study 4) predicted perceived meaning in life, even when controlling for several competing variables. Study 5 (n?=?261) ruled out social desirability as an alternative explanation to the proposed relationship between family and meaning. We conclude that for young adults, family relationships are a primary source of meaning in life and they contribute to their sense of meaning.     

Ambivalence and decisional conflict as a cause of psychological discomfort: Feeling tense before jumping off the fence

It has long been assumed that people experience evaluative conflict or ambivalence as unpleasant. In three studies we provide direct evidence for the assumption that ambivalence is unpleasant, but only when one has to commit to one side of the issue. In those situations ambivalence will be related to outcome uncertainty and feelings of discomfort. We examined this prediction using both self-reports and physiological measures. In a first study we manipulated ambivalence and whether or not participants had to take a clear stand vis-a vis the attitudinal issue and choose a position for or against it. Results indicate ambivalence was only related to physiological arousal when a choice had to be made. Feeling ambivalent about an issue without the necessity to choose did not result in higher levels of arousal. A second study replicated and extended these findings by including a measure of subjective uncertainty about the decision. Results showed the same pattern as in Study 1, and indicate that the relation between ambivalence and arousal is mediated by uncertainty about decisional outcomes. In the third and final study these findings are corroborated using self-report measures; these indicated that ambivalence-induced discomfort is related to specific (negative) emotions.     

危机应对策略对消费者矛盾态度和购买意愿的影响

采用2×2两因素被试间实验设计探讨初始矛盾态度及危机应对策略对消费者矛盾态度和购买意愿的影响。结果表明:当消费者初始矛盾态度水平较低时更可能受辩解策略的影响,从而使其负面态度和矛盾态度下降; 当消费者初始矛盾态度水平较高时更可能受和解策略的影响,从而使其负面态度和矛盾态度下降; 正面态度/负面态度可以显著正向/负向预测消费者的购买意愿,矛盾态度在其中起调节作用,即矛盾态度水平越高,正面/负面态度与购买意愿之间关系的不确定性越高。     

Positive and negative associations underlying ambivalent attitudes

In two studies, we compared the strength of positive and negative associations of ambivalent attitudes to those of nonambivalent attitudes. In Study 1, results from an implicit association task showed that, in contrast to nonambivalent attitudes, ambivalent attitudes were characterized by strong positive and negative associations. In Study 2 responses to ambivalent attitude objects were faster following a positive as well as following a negative prime, compared to a non-word prime, whereas for neutral attitude objects prime type did not influence response times. Results provide direct evidence for the assumption that both positive and negative associations of ambivalent attitudes are relatively strong. Implications for attitude strength and attitude structure are discussed.     

Subconscious performance goals: Investigating the moderating effect of negative goal-discrepancy feedback

ABSTRACT

Building on theories of conscious goals and feedback, we investigated the moderating effect of negative feedback on the relation between subconscious goals and performance. In two lab experiments, we manipulated subconscious performance goals and negative feedback about personal performance as well as social comparison information. In Study 1 (n = 80), subconscious goals positively influenced performance in an attention and concentration task when participants had received no feedback and negatively when participants had been confronted with negative performance feedback. In Study 2 (n = 90), additional comparison feedback indicating a higher performance of others led to higher performance of participants with versus without subconscious performance goals. The moderating effect of feedback was visible in self-efficacy, and we found partial support for its mediating role.     

Ambivalent Attitudes in a Communication Process: An Integrated Model

In a communication process that involves a target subject (what is being communicated about) and a source, existing attitudes (positive or negative) toward the target or the source influence communication effects. People also may hold ambivalent attitudes (positive and negative) toward the target or the source, but the implications of such ambivalent attitudes on communication effects remain unclear in communication research. This study tries to fill that void by exploring ambivalent attitudes toward the target and source on communication effects and proposing an integrated model to demonstrate that ambivalent attitudes encourage systematic processing (Experiments 1 and 2) and that identification with the target or the source further encourages motivated processing among ambivalent people (Experiments 3 and 4).     

Positive and negative intergroup contact and shared reality: Contact effects among host society and refugees

Two cross-sectional studies examined the relationship between positive and negative intergroup contact and shared reality from a majority and a minority group perspective and indirect effects via two types of intergroup threat (threat to identity for the majority, discrimination fear for the minority) and differential closeness. Research was conducted in the context of German–Syrian relations to contrast contact effects on shared reality among German host society members and Syrian refugees. Study 1 revealed unique and asymmetrical effects of valenced contact on shared reality and indirect effects via threat to identity and differential closeness (N = 226). In Study 2, positive contact among Syrian refugees (N = 121) increased shared reality via differential closeness. Negative contact showed no relation to shared reality, but mediation analyses indicated an indirect effect via discrimination fear. Differences between majority and minority contact effects on shared reality are discussed along with the studies’ limitations and implications.     

Imagined contact in high conflict settings: The role of ethnic group identification and the perspective of minority group members

Recent contact literature has shown that imagining a positive intergroup encounter improves intergroup attitudes and behaviors, yet less is known about the effects of imagined contact in high conflict settings. We conducted three studies to understand the potential effects of imagined intergroup contact among ethnic Turks (majority status) and ethnic Kurds (minority status) in the Turkish‐Kurdish interethnic conflict setting. Study 1 (N = 47, Turkish) tested standard imagined contact effects (neutral vs. standard imagined contact condition) among majority Turks and showed that imagined contact was effective on outgroup attitudes, perceived threat, intergroup anxiety, and support for multiculturalism only among participants with higher ethnic identification. Study 2 (N = 107, Turkish) examined how ethnic identification of the contact partner would influence the effectiveness of the standard imagined contact scenario (neutral vs. standard vs. ethnic identification condition) and demonstrated that imagined contact effects were more negative when the contact partner identified with his/her ethnic group during imagined contact. Study 3 (N = 55, Kurdish) investigated imagined contact effects (neutral vs. standard imagined contact condition) among an ethnic minority group and showed that imagined contact did not improve minority group members' outgroup attitudes, but did decrease intergroup anxiety and perceived discrimination (marginally significantly) and increased perceived positive attitudes from the majority group. Practical implications of the use of imagined intergroup contact strategy in conflict‐ridden settings were discussed.     

Ambivalence,prejudice and negative behavioural tendencies towards out-groups: The moderating role of attitude basis

Two experiments explored the relations between prejudice (suppression), (cognitive) ambivalence and negative behavioural tendencies towards out-groups. The current work argues that expressing out-group ambivalence based on cognitive, but not affective, information is a strategy to justify one's otherwise suppressed prejudice, which may ultimately “cover” the discriminatory nature of out-group-directed negative behavioural tendencies. Two experiments show that (1) participants evaluating the out-group in a normative context inducing prejudice suppression are more likely to self-report ambivalent beliefs rather than ambivalent emotions concerning the out-group as compared with participants whose prejudice expression is induced and (2) high-prejudice participants compared with low-prejudice participants are more prone to out-group-directed negative behavioural tendencies when these latter are self-reported after the expression of ambivalent beliefs but not ambivalent emotions concerning the out-group, and when the expression of their prejudicial evaluations is salient but not when it is not. In light of the extent to which ambivalent attitudes towards out-groups are often seamlessly integrated into public discourse, the implications of the findings are discussed not only for intergroup research but also at the societal level.     

Ambivalence, discomfort, and motivated information processing

In two studies we examined the nature and consequence of ambivalent attitudes. In the first study, we assessed whether holding ambivalent attitudes was aversive, and tested whether this aversion was resolved through biased information processing. To do this we manipulated participants’ attributions of the discomfort associated with an ambivalent message through a pill manipulation (tense vs. relaxed). Participants who attributed their discomfort to their ambivalence reported more negative emotions and generated more one-sided thoughts than participants who attributed their discomfort to the pill. In the second study, we examined the conditions necessary for ambivalence reduction. Results suggest that people spontaneously engage in biased information processing in order to resolve their ambivalence.     

Is subjective ambivalence toward gays a modern form of bias?

Theoretically, modern racism and sexism are characterized by ambivalence. We directly examined the consequence of being higher in subjective ambivalence toward gays (i.e. attitudes that feel “torn”) with regard to gay rights support. In Study 1, greater subjective ambivalence was associated with more negative attitudes (and not more positive attitudes), more ideological opposition to gays, more negative intergroup emotions, and less gay rights support. In Study 2, less opposition to gay bullying was predicted by: (a) greater subjective ambivalence (through lower intergroup empathy); and (b) experimentally-salient bullying justification norms (through lower collective guilt). These effects held controlling for Attitudes toward Lesbians and Gay Men (i.e., traditional negative attitudes). Although not overtly negative, individual differences in subjective ambivalence tap a unique, subtle, and less objectionable form of bias, consistent with aversive racism and justification–suppression frameworks of explaining modern biases.     

Sometimes You Feel Like a Nut, Sometimes You Don't: Citizens' Ambivalence About Abortion

Recent research has recognized that many people simultaneously hold positive and negative attitudes about important political issues. This paper reviews the concept of attitudinal ambivalence and introduces a survey measure of ambivalence adapted from the experimental literature. An analysis of two statewide telephone surveys of Florida voters reveals that (1) a number of voters have ambivalent attitudes about abortion rights; (2) the amount of ambivalence varies according to the circumstances (elective versus traumatic) under which an abortion is obtained; (3) ambivalence about elective abortions is essentially unrelated to ambivalence about traumatic abortions; (4) voters who support abortion rights are more ambivalent about elective abortions than about traumatic abortions, whereas the pattern is reversed for abortion rights opponents; and (5) extreme views in support of or opposition to abortion rights can sometimes mitigate the amount of ambivalence felt by voters.     

Promiscuous or Confident? Attitudinal Ambivalence Toward Condom Purchase1

This research examined attitudes toward condom purchase. Recent evidence is mixed. While some studies show attitudes have become more positive, other studies suggest that negative attitudes still dominate. Our own research examined the possibility that such attitudes may be ambivalent, meaning that the same individuals may simultaneously hold both positive and negative beliefs about condom purchase. The results confirmed this prediction. Study 1 showed that condom purchase evoked a combination of both negative beliefs about lifestyles and positive beliefs concerning the personal confidence of the consumer. These beliefs had competing effects on more global attitudes toward condom purchase. Specific beliefs about condoms were shown to provide the best indication of. whether participants actually used condoms. Study 2 employed standard measures of attitudinal ambivalence. The results conceptually replicated the finding that ambivalence was greater for those who purchased condoms compared to controls.     

Intrusion-based reasoning and depression: Cross-sectional and prospective relationships

Intrusion-based reasoning refers to the tendency to form interpretations about oneself or a situation based on the occurrence of a negative intrusive autobiographical memory. Intrusion-based reasoning characterises post-traumatic stress disorder, but has not yet been investigated in depression. We report two studies that aimed to investigate this. In Study 1 both high (n = 42) and low (n = 28) dysphoric participants demonstrated intrusion-based reasoning. High-dysphoric individuals engaged in self-referent intrusion-based reasoning to a greater extent than did low-dysphoric participants. In Study 2 there were no significant differences in intrusion-based reasoning between currently depressed (n = 27) and non-depressed (n = 51) participants, and intrusion-based reasoning did not predict depressive symptoms at 6-month follow-up. Interestingly, previously (n = 26) but not currently (n = 27) depressed participants engaged in intrusion-based reasoning to a greater extent than never-depressed participants (n = 25), indicating the possibility that intrusion-based reasoning may serve as a “scar” from previous episodes. The implications of these findings are discussed.     

Extending the bases of subjective attitudinal ambivalence: interpersonal and intrapersonal antecedents of evaluative tension

Researchers have conceptualized ambivalence as resulting from the conflicting positive and negative thoughts and feelings that a person holds toward an attitude object (intrapersonal discrepancy). The authors investigated the hypothesis that perceived interpersonal attitudinal discrepancies can also contribute to feelings of subjective ambivalence beyond that determined by intrapersonal discrepancy. Study 1 revealed that the perception of attitudinal discrepancy with one's parents was associated with greater feelings of ambivalence. Studies 2 and 3 found increased ambivalence as a function of manipulated interpersonal discrepancies. Study 4 replicated and reversed the effect, revealing that interpersonal attitudinal discrepancy with a disliked other was associated with less ambivalence. Together, these studies provide support for the proposition that, because of balance processes, interpersonal relationships influence feelings of subjective ambivalence.