Cross-dimension ambivalence refers to the experience of evaluating an attitude object positively on one dimension (e.g., admiration) but negatively on another (e.g., affection). In two studies, the authors examined cross-dimension ambivalence toward feminists. In Study 1, they found that, as expected, males exhibiting ambivalence toward feminists tended to rate them positively on the dimension of admiration but negatively on the dimension of affection. In Study 2, the authors primed participants by having them attend to positive agentic qualities or negative interpersonal qualities in an audio recording of a job interview. They were then asked to rate three resume's, one of which described a feminist. Participants exhibiting cross-dimension ambivalence toward feminists who received the positive prime reported more liking for, and great intentions to hire, the feminist than did ambivalent people receiving the negative prime. Nonambivalent participants, however, were unaffected by the priming manipulation. Implications of this research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, N. H. (1968). Likableness ratings of 555 personality-trait words. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 272-279.
2.
Bargh, J. A. , & Chartrand, T. L. (in press). Studying the mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In H. Reis & C. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
3.
Bell, D. W. , & Esses, V. M. (1993, May). Ambivalence and intergroup attitudes. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Canadian Psychological Association, Montreal, Quebec.
4.
Bell, D. W. , & Esses, V. M. (1997). Ambivalence and response amplification toward native peoples. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
5.
Bell, D. W. , Esses, V. M., & Maio, G. R. (1996). The utility of open-ended measures to assess intergroup ambivalence. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 28, 12-18.
6.
Berscheid, E. , & Walster, E. H. (1978). Interpersonal attraction (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
7.
Carter, J. , Lane, C., & Kite, M. (1991, June). Which sex is more likablet It depends on the subtype. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC.
8.
Clifton, A. K. , McGrath, D., & Wick, B. (1976). Stereotypes of woman: A single category? Sex Roles, Z135-148.
9.
Eagly, A. H. , & Mladinic, A. (1994). Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 1-35). New York: John Wiley.
10.
Fiske, S. T. , & Glick, P. (1995). Ambivalence and stereotypes cause sexual harassment: A theory with implications for organizational change. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 97-115.
11.
Gaertner, S. L. , & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Preudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61-89). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
12.
Glick, P. , Diebold, J., Bailey, B., & Zhu, L. (1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1324-1334.
13.
Glick, P. , & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.
14.
Glick, P. , & Fiske, S. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119-135.
15.
Haddock, G. , & Zanna, M. P. (1994). Preferring "housewives" to "feminists": Categorization and the favorability of attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 25-52.
16.
Hamilton, D. L. , & Fallot, R. D. (1974). Information salience as a weighting factor in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 444-448.
17.
Hass, R. G. , Katz, I., Rizzo, N., Bailey, J., & Moore, L. (1992). When racial ambivalence evokes negative affect, using a disguised measure of mood. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 786-797.
18.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley.
19.
Higgins, E. T. , Rholes, W. S., & Jones, C. R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 141-154.
20.
Kaplan, K. J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 361-372.
21.
Katz, I. (1981). Stigma: A social psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
Katz, I. , & Glass, D. C. (1979). An ambivalence-amplification theory of behavior toward the stigmatized. In W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 55-84). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
23.
Katz, I. , & Hass, R. G. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893-905.
24.
Kovel, J. (1970). White racism: A psychohistory. New York: Pantheon.
25.
Lydon, J. E. , Jamieson, D. W., & Zanna, M. P. (1988). Interpersonal similarity and the social and intellectual dimensions of first impressions. Social Cognition, 6, 269-286.
26.
Mason, K. O. (1974). Sex role attitude items and scales from U. S. sample surveys. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.
27.
Osgood, C. E. , Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
28.
Renzetti, C. M. (1987). New wave or second stage? Attitudes of college women toward feminism. Sex Roles, 16, 265-277.
29.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
30.
Rosenberg, M. J. (1968). Hedonism, in authenticity, and other goals toward expansion of a consistency theory. In R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire, T. M. Newcomb, M.J. Rosenberg, & P. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook (pp. 827-833). Chicago: Rand McNally.
31.
Rosenberg, S. , Nelson, C., & Vivekananthan, P. S. (1968). A multidi-mensional approach to the structure of personality impression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 295-300.
32.
Spence, J. T. , & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.
33.
Swim, J. K. , Aiken, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199-214.
34.
Swim, J. K. , & Cohen, L. (1997). Overt, covert, and subtle sexism: A comparison between the attitudes toward women and modern sexism scales. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 103-118.
35.
Thompson, M. M. , Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let's not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. E. Petty &J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361-386). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36.
Wyer, R. S., Jr. , & Srull, T. K. (1981). Category accessibility: Some theoretical and empirical issues concerning the processing of social stimulus information. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 1, pp. 161-197). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
Zanna, M. P. , & Hamilton, D. L. (1972). Attribute dimensions and patterns of trait inferences. Psychonomic Science, 27, 353-354.
