No abstract

This research investigated whether ambivalence-induced response amplification occurs because of a motivation to reduce ambivalence. In Study 1, participants' ambivalence toward Native people was assessed and they then read a positive or negative essay on Native land claims. As predicted, ambivalent participants displayed a significant difference between the positive and negative message conditions in their attitudes toward Native people, whereas nonambivalent participants did not. Study 2 followed the same procedure as Study 1 and also included motive manipulation essays designed to manipulate the motivation to reduce ambivalence. The negative motive essay emphasized the disadvantages of seeing both the good and the bad in another person or situation (i.e., ambivalence is negative), whereas the positive motive essay emphasized the advantages (i.e., ambivalence is positive). As predicted, ambivalent participants who received the negative motive manipulation displayed response amplification, whereas ambivalent participants who received the positive motive manipulation did not.

People who are ambivalent toward a group have attitudes that are based on conflicting positive and negative evaluations of the group (Katz & Hass, 1988;Olson & Zanna, 1993). The purpose of the present study was to demonstrate the utility of open-ended measures for assessing intergroup ambivalence. Forty-two Canadian undergraduates completed open-ended measures of stereotypes (beliefs about characteristics of group members), symbolic beliefs (beliefs that group members promote or threaten cherished values), and emotions, in order to determine their degree of ambivalence toward Native Peoples, French Canadians, Oriental Immigrants, and Canadians. They also completed an attitude measure assessing their overall evaluations of the groups. Examination and comparison of these measures revealed findings consistent with theoretical expectations, thus providing support for the open-ended measure of ambivalence. The advantages of the open-ended measure are discussed.strength: Antecedents and consequences,.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

No abstract

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.

People often receive information about new immigrant groups prior to any direct contact with group members. However, it is not clear how this information shapes attitudes toward the groups. To explore this issue, 204 subjects were told about an unknown immigrant group that was presented as high or low in personal relevance. Subjects were then given positive or negative consensus information about the emotions that group members elicit from others, group members' personality traits, and group members' values. As expected, results indicated that the presentation of positive information about emotional reactions, personality traits, and values caused attitudes to be more favorable than did the presentation of negative information. Importantly, however, the combined impact of the emotion and personality trait information depended on whether the group was perceived to be of high or low personal relevance. Specifically, when the information about emotions and personality traits was similarly valanced (i.e., both were positive or both were negative), attitudes toward the group tended to be less favorable in the high personal relevance condition than in the low personal relevance condition. In contrast, when mixed information was presented (i.e., positive emotions and negative personality traits or negative emotions and positive personality traits), attitudes tended to be more favorable in the high personal relevance condition. In addition, attitudes, once formed, predicted further perceptions of the group and behavioral intentions toward group members. The implications of the findings for the reduction of prejudice toward new immigrant groups are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract