The Social Utility of Ambivalence: Being Ambivalent on Controversial Issues Is Recognized as Competence

Abstract

Research on attitudinal ambivalence is flourishing, but no research has studied how others perceive its expression. We tested the hypothesis that the expression of attitudinal ambivalence could be positively valued if it signals careful consideration of an issue. More specifically, ambivalence should be judged higher on social utility (competence) but not on social desirability (warmth), compared to clear-cut attitudes. This should be the case for controversial (vs. consensual) issues, where ambivalence can signal some competence. The participants in four experiments indeed evaluated ambivalence higher on a measure of social utility, compared to clear-cut (pro-normative and counter-normative) attitudes, when the attitude objects were controversial; they judged pro-normative attitudes higher for both social utility and social desirability when the attitude objects were consensual. Attitudinal ambivalence can therefore be positively valued, as it is perceived as competence when the expression of criticism is socially accepted.

Ambivalence and Interpersonal Liking: The Expression of Ambivalence as Social Validation of Attitudinal Conflict

“…Study 2 examined whether people’s intention when expressing ambivalence is indeed the social validation of the attitudinal conflict experienced by ambivalent others. While it has been suggested that ambivalence functions as a cue of social competence when addressing a controversial topic ( Pillaud et al, 2013 , 2018 ), the expression of ambivalence may also be intended as a validating framework for those ambivalent others who experience an attitudinal conflict. The aim of Study 2 was to address this issue directly and, at the same time, offer a conceptual replication of Study 1.…”

“…Specifically, people reported more ambivalence when they aimed to generate a positive impression, which they seemed to do by default in a baseline condition, in comparison with when they intended to generate a negative impression ( Pillaud et al, 2013 ). The authors argue that the expression of ambivalence can function as a cue of social competence when discussing controversial topics, i.e., when others may appreciate pondered and balanced information about both sides of a controversy ( Pillaud et al, 2013 , 2018 ).…”

Ambivalence and interpersonal liking: The expression of ambivalence as social validation of attitudinal conflict

“…Although our interpretation of the link between ambivalence and interpersonal liking has mainly focused on its affective nature, this does not exclude the possibility that people strategically express ambivalence for other reasons. Ambivalent individuals might indeed be positively perceived based on their image of competence for offering pondered and balanced perspectives about controversial topics (Pillaud et al, 2013(Pillaud et al, , 2018. Furthermore, a growing line of research highlights the benefits of ambivalence for cognitive and emotional regulation, such as increase of attention and creativity (Fong, 2006), less biased decision-making (Guarana and Hernandez, 2016), higher estimation accuracy (Rees et al, 2013), and more effective coping with outcome uncertainty (Plambeck and Weber, 2009;Reich and Wheeler, 2016).…”

“…Study 2 examined whether people's intention when expressing ambivalence is indeed the social validation of the attitudinal conflict experienced by ambivalent others. While it has been suggested that ambivalence functions as a cue of social competence when addressing a controversial topic (Pillaud et al, 2013(Pillaud et al, , 2018, the expression of ambivalence may also be intended as a validating framework for those ambivalent others who experience an attitudinal conflict. The aim of Study 2 was to address this issue directly and, at the same time, offer a conceptual replication of Study 1.…”

“…Specifically, people reported more ambivalence when they aimed to generate a positive impressionwhich they seemed to do by default in a baseline condition -, in comparison to when they intended to generate a negative impression (Pillaud et al, 2013). The authors argue that the expression of ambivalence can function as a cue of social competence when discussing controversial topics, i.e., when others may appreciate pondered and balanced information about both sides of a controversy (Pillaud et al, 2013(Pillaud et al, , 2018.…”