Wanting other attitudes: Actual–desired attitude discrepancies predict feelings of ambivalence and ambivalence consequences

Abstract

Esta es la versión de autor del artículo publicado en: This is an author produced version of a paper published in: El acceso a la versión del editor puede requerir la suscripción del recurso Access to the published version may require subscription ACTUAL-DESIRED ATTITUDE DISCREPANCIES 2 AbstractFeelings of attitudinal ambivalence (subjective ambivalence) are important because they predict key consequences of attitudes (e.g., attitude-behavior correspondence, attitude stability).However, the field's understanding of the antecedents of subjective ambivalence is still developing. We explore a previously unexamined antecedent of subjective ambivalence.Specifically, we examined discrepancies between participants' actual attitudes and their desired attitudes as antecedents of subjective ambivalence and ambivalence consequences. Six studies using a variety of attitude objects were conducted to test these ideas. The first four studies demonstrated that actual-desired attitude discrepancies predicted subjective ambivalence over its previously documented antecedents. Critically, two additional studies showed that actual-desired attitude discrepancies predicted important consequences of ambivalence. As actual-desired attitude discrepancies increased, participants' attitude-behavior correspondence decreased (Study 5), and desire to reduce attitudinal conflict increased (Study 6). Process data in these latter studies revealed indirect effects through subjective ambivalence that held after controlling for the objective presence of evaluative conflict.

The ABC of Ambivalence

“…Also, most of the consequences of ambivalence discussed in this chapter have been obtained in the context of subjectively experienced ambivalence. Moreover, effects of objective ambivalence tend to be driven by subjective ambivalence (DeMarree, Wheeler, Brinol, & Petty, 2014). Although the existence of evaluatively incongruent associations (objective ambivalence) in our view is a prerequisite for experiencing subjective ambivalence, it is the more affective nature of the latter state that is the most consequential for what people think and do.…”

“…For example, ambivalence is known to lead to both elaboration and response amplification (i.e., the reduction of ambivalence; Hanze, 2001). Also, it has been shown that it is primarily subjective (and not objective) ambivalence, and the motivation to reduce it, that causes ambivalent attitude holders to have greater interest in attitude-relevant information (DeMarree et al, 2014). Along similar lines, egalitarian people who become aware of having prejudiced thoughts show increased attention to discrepancy-related information, supposedly with an aim to reduce this internal inconsistency (Devine, Monteith, Zuwerink, & Elliot, 1991;Monteith, 1993;Monteith et al, 1993).…”

“…As reflected in the model, we believe these paths have different subsequent effects. On the one hand, the effects of ambivalence on systematic processing seem to be guided by the motivation to reduce ambivalence altogether and obtain a more univalent attitude (e.g., DeMarree et al, 2014;Monteith, 1993). In other words, the ABC model predicts that systematic processing can directly influence objective ambivalence.…”

Unskilled and unaware in the classroom: College students’ desired grades predict their biased grade predictions

“…One possibility is based on the finding that discrepancies between a person's desires and the actual experience while taking the exam can create a sense of conflict, ambivalence, confusion, or lack of clarity. For example, discrepancies between people's actual and desired evaluations lead people to feel more ambivalent in that evaluation (DeMarree, Wheeler, Briñol, & Petty, 2014), and discrepancies between actual and desired levels of self-esteem undermine a person's self-clarity (DeMarree & Rios, 2014). This presumably occurs because, when a person's desired and actual evaluations are discrepant, their choices of behavioral responses to those two evaluations are likely to be in conflict.…”

Attitude ambivalence, social norms, and behavioral intentions: Developing effective antitobacco persuasive communications.

“…Today, the consensus is that attitudes can affect actions, but a number of variables moderate the attitude-behavior relation (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977; Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1997; Crano, 2012; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Petty & Krosnick, 1995). Of the variables identified as potential moderators of the attitude-behavior link, attitude ambivalence is one of the most promising, but has received perhaps the least attention (Conner & Armitage, 2008), though a resurgence of research on ambivalence has occurred over the last decade (e.g., DeMarree, Wheeler, Briñol, & Petty, 2014). …”