态度研究的新进展——双重态度模型

态度一直是社会心理学领域一个极为重要的研究课题,一直以来研究只关注有意识状态下人们的外显态度,对于无意识状态下的内隐态度最近才引起人们的意识。双重态度模型理论认为,人们对同一态度客体可能同时拥有两种不同的态度－－外显态度和内隐态度,这一理论对传统的态度概念及测量技术都提出了新的挑战。该对双重态度模型的理论来源、基本观点、双重态度类型及相关的研究证据作了详细介绍,最后探讨了双重态度模型理论对态度改变、态度测量及态度与行为一致性等未来研究方向的意义与启示。     

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。     

矛盾态度心理机制的理论模型述评

矛盾态度已发展为态度研究领域一个重要方面,在理论和实证研究都取得重要进展,但是对矛盾态度心理机制的探究还处于滞后的态势。本研究试图对矛盾态度心理机制研究做一个较系统的梳理,引入对象与评价的联结模型、态度元认知模型、重复加工模型和表征分布式联结主义模型等四种态度理论模型有关解析,并结合相关实证研究予以阐述和评价。未来该领域的研究应加强矛盾态度研究的元分析、各研究之间的沟通和整合、实证研究范畴的拓展、新技术的引入等问题的研究。     

态度及其与行为模式述评

态度一直是社会心理学的核心问题,态度对于预测行为具有重要作用。本文阐述了态度的界定、态度的结构模型及态度预测行为模型的各种理论,在这些理论的基础上,提出了态度预测行为的另一模型。     

一般矛盾态度及其相关研究进展

该文主要就国外关于一般矛盾态度的研究进展进行了介绍分析.矛盾态度是指个体或群体对某种态度目标同时存在积极和消极的认知评价和情绪体验及其程度.相关研究是传统态度研究的进一步深化,为态度改变和行为预测提供了新的视角.     

关于矛盾态度的研究述评

矛盾态度是个体对同一客体同时存在的积极和消极评价与情感。本文主要阐述了矛盾态度的概念界定与测量方法,矛盾态度的相关因素与基本特性,以及矛盾态度对信息加工、行为意图和实际行为的影响。最后,文章指出矛盾态度的界定与测量还需扩展,对引发矛盾的客体、矛盾态度特性有待深入研究。     

现代认知心理学对态度研究的影响述评

社会学家托马斯认为“社会心理学就是研究态度的科学”,到目前为止,态度仍然是社会心理学研究的重要领域,据统计,近几年关于态度的研究论文每年均超过１０００篇。这与认知心理学的兴起有密切关系,本文以态度为例,浅谈现代认知心理学对它的影响。１态度的认知编码认知心理学家已经提出了多种不同的认知编码类型,如命题单元（ｐｒ０００ｓｉｔｉｏｎａｌｕｎｉｔｓ）｛类似物表征（ａｎａｌｏｇｒｅｎｒｅｓｅｎｔａｔｌｏｎｓ）、情节和语义表征（ｅｎｌｓｏｄｌｃａｎｄｓｅｍａｎｔｉｃｒｅｎｒｅｓｅｎｔａｔｌｏｎｓ）及产生式系…     

矛盾的消费者是如何解读多元化口碑信息的?

以消费者态度的矛盾性为基础前提, 来探究消费者自身的矛盾态度与外界的多元化口碑信息之间的交互机制。通过两个现场实验发现, 消费者态度的矛盾性程度稳健地调节着消费者对外界信息的选择和处理。具体而言, 高矛盾性的消费者由于具有显著的减少矛盾的动机, 会选择性注意外界的正面信息和态度, 而低矛盾性的消费者减少矛盾的动机并不显著, 更倾向于选择性注意外界的负面信息和态度; 另一方面, 矛盾消费者的选择性注意效应受从众压力和群体共识的影响很小, 也即那些不处于消费者选择性关注范围内的信息和态度, 即使是多数人形成的共识, 对消费者仍然不会有显著影响。     

矛盾态度的成因与应对

矛盾态度是指个体或群体对某一态度客体同时存在的积极与消极的认知评价和情绪体验。近年来, 学者们从认知、社会、个体差异等角度探讨了矛盾态度的成因, 并指出个体主要使用情绪中心策略、信息加工策略和补偿性策略以应对矛盾态度带来的不适。未来研究需要继续整合矛盾态度的测量方式, 考察矛盾态度在不同文化和不同个体发展阶段的差异, 并进一步深入探索影响矛盾态度与个体行为后果的变量。     

矛盾态度对个体信息加工的影响：外显与内隐层面的比较

本研究采用“学习—再认”范式从外显和内隐两个层面探讨了矛盾态度对个体信息加工的影响。结果发现：（1）在两种加工条件下,高外显矛盾态度个体对态度客体信息再认反应时均显著短于低外显矛盾态度个体;（2）在有意加工条件下高内隐矛盾态度个体再认反应时显著长于低内隐矛盾态度个体,在无意加工条件下高低内隐矛盾组的再认反应时差异不显著;（3）对态度客体无关材料高内隐矛盾态度个体再认反应时显著长于低内隐矛盾态度个体,对有关材料二者的反应时差异不显著。该结果表明,外显与内隐的矛盾态度对个体的信息加工具有不同的影响路径,这为进一步探讨外显和内隐矛盾态度对个体心理与行为的影响机制提供了借鉴。     

Winding paths: Ambivalence in consumers' buying processes

This paper investigates ambivalence in the buying process. The existing literature has rarely studied ambivalence in longitudinal processes and has therefore not been able to capture its dynamics. Those studies that have studied ambivalence longitudinally have focused on general attitudinal ambivalence rather than its subtypes (cognitive, affective, and intercomponent ambivalence) and have therefore ignored some of the more detailed dynamics. Hence, this study addresses these different types of ambivalence longitudinally, exploring what these different ambivalences consist of, what their roles are in the buying process, and how they occur under different types of involvement conditions. A longitudinal video diary method is used in conjunction with a multimodal analysis technique to explore not only the verbally expressed aspects of ambivalence but also its nonverbal expression, which further reveals differences between different types of ambivalence. The findings suggest that cognitive ambivalence involves conflicting evaluations of utilitarian brand and product aspects and is resolved through more effortful mechanisms, whereas intercomponent ambivalence involves conflicting evaluations of varying utilitarian, hedonic, and symbolic brand and product aspects and is resolved through both more and less effortful mechanisms. Finally, affective ambivalence involves conflicting anticipations about the outcome of the buying process but is not resolved through similarly clear mechanisms. As the key outcome of the exploration, propositions and a synthesising framework about the different types of ambivalence in the buying process are developed for future research. This paper hence contributes to the ambivalence literature and offers managerial implications especially for marketers of multifaceted and high‐involvement products.     

British Citizenship and the ‘Other’: An Analysis of the Earned Citizenship Discourse

This paper presents an analysis of interviews conducted with citizenship officers in London, working within the field of British naturalisation. We draw from a rhetorical psychology perspective to study the dilemmatic tensions that exist in the participants' discourse about naturalisation applicants who are constructed as ‘good’ and ‘bad’, as both ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ of British citizenship. In line with a rhetorical approach, we argue that these different constructions of the migrant are strategic and are associated with different constructions of Britain as humanitarian and tolerant, on the one hand, and as being under threat by the influx of immigration, on the other hand. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of this ambivalence for processes of inclusion and exclusion. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An Information Processing Theory of Ambivalence

This paper analyzes the sources of ambivalence toward political parties and candidates. We propose and test an information-processing theory of ambivalence in which systematic processing is hypothesized to heighten partisan and candidate ambivalence. We show that ambivalence is linked to several dispositional sources of systematic processing, including individuals' information, motivation, and cognitive style. Specifically, we find that ambivalence tends to be greater among the well informed and those who are high in need for cognition while it tends to be lower among those motivated by directional goals. Collectively, our results suggest that levels of partisan and candidate ambivalence are greatest among those most likely to engage in effortful processing of information and that these effects are independent of value conflict. The results further suggest that the effects of effortful processing on ambivalence are moderated by attitude commitment.     

Swindell,Frankfurt, and ambivalence

J.S. Swindell has argued that Harry Frankfurt's analysis of ambivalence is ambiguous and that it fails to do justice to the full range of this psychological phenomenon. Building on her criticism of Frankfurt, Swindell offers an analysis of ambivalence which is supposed to clarify ambiguities in Frankfurt's analysis and reveal varieties of ambivalence that Frankfurt's analysis allegedly overlooks. In this brief reply, I argue that Frankfurt's analysis of ambivalence is neither ambiguous nor objectionably narrow. I conclude with remarks on Swindell's analysis of the relationship between ambivalence and weakness of the will.     

Dueling Experiences and Dual Ambivalences: Emotional and Motivational Ambivalence of Women in High Status Positions

A laboratory study demonstrates that women in high status positions experience emotional ambivalence (simultaneous experience of positive and negative affect) and motivational ambivalence (simultaneous desires to build relationships and display power). These effects were found with 2 different measures of ambivalence, 1 derived from the attitudinal ambivalence literature and the other from the structure of affect literature. These findings have implications about the experience of women in the workplace, as well as the current debates concerning structure of affect.     

Group Attachment and the Reduction of Value-Driven Ambivalence

This article analyzes the effects of value-driven ambivalence and group attachment on response variability in public attitudes toward campaign finance reform. The analysis demonstrates that group attachment, when activated by affective cues, moderates the effects of ambivalence on response variability. By tipping the balance of considerations in one direction or the other, group attachments make it easier for ambivalent respondents to make tradeoffs between competing values during policy choices and, as a result, dampen response variability. Methodologically, the results offer an important cautionary note about the use of linear ambivalence scales by calling into question the assumption that indifference is an intermediate state between preference and ambivalence.     

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.     

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.