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.