Ambivalence and Persuasion: The Processing of Messages about Immigrant Groups

Ambivalence and decisional conflict as a cause of psychological discomfort: Feeling tense before jumping off the fence

“…For this reason ambivalent attitude holders are expected to process attitude relevant information thoroughly. Jonas and colleagues (1997) and Maio, Bell and Esses (1996) This does not mean that ambivalence is never unpleasant. The distinction between judgment and choice can help to predict when ambivalence is unpleasant.…”

Ambivalencia Actitudinal Ante el Cambio Organizacional: Un Análisis Desde el Individuo en Contexto Laboral

“…A su vez, en la investigación en psicología social existe consenso en torno al poder explicativo que poseen las variables vinculadas al procesamiento y características de la información que se entrega a las personas, específicamente, sobre la posibilidad de manipular la ambivalencia (Hmielowsky, 2008, Junio;Jonas, Diehl & Brömer, 1997;Maio, Bell & Esses, 1996;Van Harreveld, Van der Pligt, de Vries, Wenneker & Verhue, 2004). También, existen antecedentes teóricos y empíricos en psicología social que demuestran el rol moderador de la ambivalencia actitudinal sobre la relación entre la actitud que tienen las personas y su correspondiente intención conductual (Armitage & Conner, 2000;Conner et al, 2002;Costarelli & Colloca, 2007;Eagly & Chaiken, 1993;Jonas et al, 1997;Mladinic, 1998;Thompson, Zanna & Griffin, 1995).…”

“…Estos hallazgos son concordantes con lo reportado en investigaciones anteriores en psicología social (Hmielowsky, 2008, Junio;Jonas et al, 1997;Maio et al, 1996;Van Harreveld et al, 2004) y se constituyen en una transferencia de conocimiento teórico y empírico a la investigación en el área de la psicología organizacional.…”

Conceptualizing leadership perceptions as attitudes: Using attitude theory to further understand the leadership process

“…A central tenet of the theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) is that people are motivated to maintain consistency of their cognitive structure. Because cognitive inconsistency is aversive (e.g., Jonas, Diehl, & Brömer, 1997;Maio, Bell, & Esses, 1996;Nordgren, van Harreveld, & van der Pligt, 2006) it is argued that people predominantly seek out and pay close attention to new information that confirms their existing attitudes and avoid information that might contradict their attitudes (see meta-analysis by Hart et al, 2009). This preference for supportive information over opposing information has traditionally been termed 'selective exposure' and as a 'confirmation bias' (Jonas, SchulzHardt, Frey, & Thelen, 2001).…”

“…Interestingly, attitudinal ambivalence can have differing effects on the processing of attitude-relevant information. Some research shows that ambivalent respondents use more effort and deliberation in processing information, due to the motivation to seek out and scrutinize any information that can resolve the tension, than do respondents low in ambivalence (Brömer, 1998;Jonas et al, 1997;Maio et al, 1996;Nordgren et al 2006). This suggests that one way for leaders to create attitude change in their followers is to first try to create attitudinal ambivalence.…”