Understanding when people are likely to feel ambivalent is important, as ambivalence is associated with key attitude outcomes, such as attitude-behavior consistency. Interestingly, the presence of conflicting positive and negative reactions (objective ambivalence) is weakly related to feeling conflicted (subjective ambivalence). We tested a novel situation that can influence the correspondence between objective and subjective ambivalence: whether a message and a recipient’s topic match in affective versus cognitive orientation. When a person encounters a message with an affective or cognitive match to the topic, conflicting reactions may be more accessible, increasing feelings of ambivalence. Across five studies, greater objective–subjective ambivalence correspondence occurred with an affective–cognitive match between message and topic orientation. Studies 4 and 5 also demonstrated that this primarily occurred when the message was counterattitudinal. This work contributes to the literature explaining the gap between measures of objective and subjective ambivalence as well as how messages can influence attitude strength properties.
ArmitageC. J. (2003). Beyond attitudinal ambivalence: Effects of belief homogeneity on attitude-intention-behaviour relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.164
3.
ArmitageC. J.ConnerM. (2004). The effects of attitudinal ambivalence on attitude-intention-behavior relations. In HaddockG.MaioG. R. (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the psychology of attitudes (pp. 121–144). Psychology Press Inc.
ClarkJ. K.WegenerD. T.FabrigarL. R. (2008). Attitudinal ambivalence and message-based persuasion: Motivated processing of proattitudinal information and avoidance of counterattitudinal information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 565–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207312527
6.
CohenJ.CohenP.WestS. G.AikenL. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
ConnerM.WildingS.van HarreveldF.DalegeJ. (2020). Cognitive-affective inconsistency and ambivalence: Impact on the overall attitude-behavior relationship. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47, 673–687. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220945900
9.
CritesS. L.FabrigarL. R.PettyR. E. (1994). Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 619–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294206001
10.
DeMarreeK. G.BriñolP.PettyR. E. (2015). Reducing subjective ambivalence by creating doubt: A metacognitive approach. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 73–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615581497
11.
DeMarreeK. G.WheelerS. C.BriñolP.PettyR. E. (2014). Wanting other attitudes: Actual-desired attitude discrepancies predict feelings of ambivalence and ambivalence consequences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.02.001
12.
EaglyA. H.ChaikenS. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
13.
EaglyA. H.MladinicA.OttoS. (1994). Cognitive and affective bases of attitudes toward social groups and social policies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 113–137. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1994.1006
14.
FarleyS. D.StassonM. F. (2003). Relative influences of affect and cognition on behavior: Are feelings more related to blood donation intentions?Experimental Psychology, 50, 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1026/1618-3169.50.1.55
15.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
16.
GibsonE. L. (2006). Emotional influences on food choice: Sensory, physiological and psychological pathways. Physiology & Behavior, 89, 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.01.024
17.
Giner-SorollaR. (2004). Is affective material in attitudes more accessible than cognitive material? The moderating role of attitude basis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 761–780. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.229
18.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
19.
HaddockG.FoadC.Windsor-ShellardB.DummelS.Adarves-YornoI. (2017). On the attitudinal consequences of being mindful: Links between mindfulness and attitudinal ambivalence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216688204
20.
HaddockG.MaioG. R. (2019). Inter-individual differences in attitude content: Cognition, affect, and attitudes. In OlsonJ. M. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 53–102). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2018.10.002
21.
HaddockG.MaioG. R.ArnoldK.HuskinsonT. (2008). Should persuasion be affective or cognitive? The moderating effects of need for affect and need for cognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 769–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208314871
22.
HassR. G.KatzI.RizzoN.BaileyJ.MooreL. (1992). When racial ambivalence evokes negative affect, using a disguised measure of mood. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 786–797. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292186015
HodsonG.MaioG. R.EssesV. M. (2001). The role of attitudinal ambivalence in susceptibility to consensus information. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2303_6
KeerM.van den PutteB.NeijensP.de WitJ. (2013). The influence of affective and cognitive arguments on message judgement and attitude change: The moderating effects of meta-bases and structural bases. Psychology & Health, 28, 895–908. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2013.764428
KimS.PjesivacI.JinY. (2019). Effects of message framing on influenza vaccination: Understanding the role of risk disclosure, perceived vaccine efficacy, and felt ambivalence. Health Communication, 34, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1384353
29.
KrosnickJ. A.PettyR. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 1–24). Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
LarsenJ. T.McGrawA. P.CacioppoJ. T. (2001). Can people feel happy and sad at the same time?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 684–696. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.684
LuttrellA.PettyR. E.BriñolP. (2020). The interactive effects of ambivalence and certainty on political opinion stability. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 8, 525–541. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v8i2.1247
33.
LuttrellA.Phillip-MullerA.PettyR. E. (2019). Challenging moral attitudes with moral messages. Psychological Science, 30, 1136–1150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619854706
34.
MaioG. R.BellD. W.EssesV. M. (1996). Ambivalence in persuasion: The processing of messages about immigrant groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 513–536. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1996.0023
35.
MaioG. R.HaddockG. (2004). Theories of attitude: Creating a witches’ brew. In HaddockG.MaioG. R. (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the psychology of attitudes (pp. 425–453). Psychology Press.
36.
MaioG. R.OlsonJ. M. (2000). What is a “value-expressive” attitude? In MaioG. R.OlsonJ. M. (Eds.), Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes (pp. 249–269). Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
MayerN. D.TormalaZ. L. (2010). “Think” versus “feel” framing effects in persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 443–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210362981
38.
McGrawK. M.HaseckeE.CongerK. (2003). Ambivalence, uncertainty, and processes of candidate evaluation. Political Psychology, 24, 421–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00335
39.
MillarM. G.TesserA. (1986). Effects of affective and cognitive focus on the attitude-behavior relation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 270–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.270
40.
Newby-ClarkI. R.McGregorI.ZannaM. P. (2002). Thinking and caring about cognitive inconsistency: When and for whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel uncomfortable?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.2.157
41.
NgA. H.HynieM.MacDonaldT. K. (2012). Culture moderates the pliability of ambivalent attitudes. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 1313–1324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111429
42.
NordgrenL. F.van HarreveldF.van der PligtJ. (2006). Ambivalence, discomfort, and motivated information processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 252–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.004
PettyR. E.WegenerD. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In ChaikenS.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 37–72). The Guilford Press.
45.
Philipp-MullerA.WallaceL. E.WegenerD. T. (2020). Where does moral conviction fit? A factor analytic approach examining antecedents to attitude strength. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 86, Article 103900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103900
46.
PillaudV.CavazzaN.ButeraF. (2013). The social value of being ambivalent: Self-presentational concerns in the expression of attitudinal ambivalence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1139–1151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213490806
47.
PriesterJ. R.PettyR. E. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: Relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.431
48.
PriesterJ. R.PettyR. E.ParkK. (2007). Whence univalent ambivalence? From the anticipation of conflicting reactions. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1086/513042
49.
PrislinR.DyerJ. A.BlakelyC. J.JohnsonC. D. (1998). Immunization status and sociodemographic characteristics: The mediating role of beliefs, attitudes, and perceived control. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 1821–1826. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.88.12.1821
50.
ReflingE. J.CalnanC. M.FabrigarL. R.MacDonaldT. K.JohnsonV. C.SmithS. M. (2013). To partition or not to partition evaluative judgments: Comparing measures of structural ambivalence. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 387–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612460060
51.
ReichT.WheelerS. C. (2016). The good and bad of ambivalence: Desiring ambivalence under outcome uncertainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 493–508. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000047
52.
RocklageM. D.FazioR. H. (2020). The enhancing versus backfiring effects of positive emotion in consumer reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 57, 332–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243719892594
53.
RosterC. A.RichinsM. L. (2009). Ambivalence and attitudes in consumer replacement decisions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 48–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2008.12.008
54.
SeeY. H. M.LuttrellA. (2021). When dueling emotions and conflicting beliefs predict subjective ambivalence: The role of meta-bases. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 97, Article 104204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104204
55.
SeeY. H. M.PettyR. E.FabrigarL. R. (2008). Affective and cognitive meta-bases of attitudes: Unique effects on information interest and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 938–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.938
56.
SeeY. H. M.PettyR. E.FabrigarL. R. (2013). Affective-cognitive meta-bases versus structural bases of attitudes predict processing interest versus efficiency. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1111–1123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213490807
57.
SeeY. H. M.ValentiG.HoA. Y. Y.TanM. S. Q. (2013). When message tailoring backfires: The role of initial attitudes in affect-cognition matching. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 570–584. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1967
SmithC. T.NosekB. A. (2011). Affective focus increases the concordance between implicit and explicit attitudes. Social Psychology, 42, 300–313. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000072
60.
TeenyJ. D.PettyR. E. (2018). The role of perceived attitudinal bases on spontaneous and requested advocacy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.02.003
61.
ThompsonM. M.ZannaM. P.GriffinD. W. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361–386). Lawrence Erlbaum.
62.
TormalaZ. L.DeSensiV. L. (2008). The perceived informational basis of attitudes: Implications for subjective ambivalence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 275–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207310029
63.
TormalaZ. L.PettyR. E. (2002). What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger: The effects of resisting persuasion on attitude certainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1298–1313. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1298
64.
van den BergH.MansteadA. S. R.van der PligtJ.WigboldusD. H. J. (2006). The impact of affective and cognitive focus on attitude formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 373–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.009
65.
van HarreveldF.NohlenH.SchneiderI. K. (2015). The ABC of ambivalence: Affective, behavioral, and cognitive consequences of attitudinal conflict. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 285–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2015.01.002
66.
van HarreveldF.RutjensB. T.RotteveelM.NordgrenL. F.van der PligtJ. (2009). Ambivalence and decisional conflict as a cause of psychological discomfort: Feeling tense before jumping off the fence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.015
67.
WilliamsP.AakerJ. L. (2002). Can mixed emotions peacefully coexist?Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 636–649. https://doi.org/10.1086/338206
68.
ZannaM. P.RempelJ. K. (1988). Attitudes: A new look at an old concept. In Bar-TalD.KruglanskiA. W. (Eds.), The social psychology of knowledge (pp. 315–334). Cambridge University Press and Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
