Attitudinal ambivalence is one of the most widely studied structural properties in the attitudes literature. The current research compared two commonly used measures of structural ambivalence. Both measures separately assess the positive and negative components of ambivalence; however, one approach instructs participants to partition their oppositely valenced evaluative responses whereas the other does not. Using both experimental and nonexperimental designs, four studies revealed that the nonpartitioned measure was more sensitive to manipulations of attitudinal ambivalence (Studies 1 and 2) and was a better predictor of subjective ambivalence (Studies 1– 4). Potential reasons for this distinction are discussed.
ArmitageC. J. (2003). Beyond attitudinal ambivalence: Effects of belief homogeneity on attitude-intention-behaviour relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 551–563. doi:10.1002/ejsp.164
2.
BassiliJ. N. (1996). Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: The case of measures of attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 637–653. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.637
3.
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. doi:10.1177/0146167207312527
4.
CostarelliS.CollocaP. (2007). The moderation of ambivalence on attitude-intention relations as mediated by attitude importance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 923–933. doi:10.1002/ejsp.403
5.
CritesS. L.JrFabrigarL. R.PettyR. E. (1994). Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 619–634. doi:10.1177/0146167294206001
6.
FabrigarL. R.MacDonaldT. K.WegenerD. T. (2005). The structure of attitudes. In AlbarricinD.JohnsonB. T.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), Handbook of attitudes and attitude change (pp. 79–124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
JonasK.DiehlM.BrömerP. (1997). Effects of attitudinal ambivalence on information processing and attitude-intention consistency. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 190–210. doi:10.1006/jesp.1996.1317
8.
KaplanK. J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 361–338. doi: 10.1037/h0032590
9.
MaioG. R.GreenlandK.BernardM.EssesV. M. (2001). Effects of intergroup ambivalence on information processing: The role of physiological arousal. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4, 355–372. doi: 10.1177/1368430201004004005
10.
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. doi:10.1037/00223514.82.2.157
11.
NisbettR.WilsonT. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231
12.
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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.431
13.
PriesterJ. R.PettyR. E. (2001). Extending the bases of subjective attitudinal ambivalence: Interpersonal and intrapersonal antecedents of evaluative tension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 19–34. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.19
14.
PriesterJ. R.PettyR. E.ParkK. (2007). Whence univalent ambivalence? From the anticipation of conflicting reactions. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 11–21. doi:10.1086/513042
15.
ScottW. A. (1966). Brief report: Measures of cognitive structure. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 391–395.
16.
ScottW. A. (1969). Structure of natural cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 261–278. doi: 10.1037/h0027734
17.
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). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
TourangeauR.RasinskiK. A.BradburnK. A.D’AndradeR. (1989). Carryover effects in attitude surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53, 495–524. doi:10.1086/269169
19.
WegenerD. T.PettyR. E. (1997). The flexible correction model: The role of naïve theories of bias in bias correction. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 141–208). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
20.
WilsonT. D.DunnD. S.KraftD.LisleD. J. (1989). Introspection, attitude change, and attitude-behavior consistency: The disruptive effects of explaining why we feel the way we do. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 287–343). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
