Chapter 7 - Ambivalence attitudinale

Question 1

1. Définitions -> Attitude

Eagly and Chaiken (1993)

Answer 1

“Attitude is a psychological trend that
is expressed through the evaluation of a particular entity across a continuum from’favourable/positive’ to “unfavourable/negative””

Question 2

1. Définitions -> Ambivalence attitudinale

Gardner (1987)

Answer 2

“State in which a person experiences feelings

shared (positive and negative) towards an object. »

Question 3

2. Mesures -> Felt ambivalence

Answer 3

Meta-judgments on its own levels of ambivalence:

Evaluate your ambivalence:
Feels no conflict at all (0) - Feels maximum conflict (11)
(e.g. Priestler and Petty, 1996)

Consequence of:

• Feeling uncomfortable
• External influences

Question 4

2. Mesures -> Potential ambivalence

Answer 4

• Combination of measured positive and negative evaluations separately
• There is not necessarily a feeling of ambivalence
• Calculation of this measurement?
  Ambivalence = (P + N)/2 - | P - N| (Griffin measure)

Question 5

3. Antécédents -> Top-down processes (Dispositions psychologiques)

Answer 5

• Type de personnalité (e.g., préférence pour consistance)
• Conflit de valeurs
• Actual-desired discrepancies (DeMarree et al., 2014) -= discrepancy between the attitude that we have now and the one that we think we should have

Question 6

3. Antécédents -> Bottom-up processes (Caractéristiques de l’environnement)

Answer 6

= situations that will make me be + or - ambivalent towards an object

• Attitude object itself: condom ambivalence, consumption alcohol, low-calorie diet // no ambivalence to ecstasy)
• Incentive-aroused ambivalence hypothesis (overjustification; Crano et al, 1984) = the chair : we may have loved it at the beginning of the day, but by having the prof try to convince us how good it is, it might make us become ambivalent towards the chair
• Inconsistent evaluative information (Jonas et al., 1997)
• Interpersonal ambivalence (Priester & Petty, 2001) = others are a source of inconsistency
• Opposite social norms:
  
  • Ambivalent sexism (Glick and Fiske, 2001) & racism (Katz & Hass, 1988; chap. 4)
  • Ingroup bias vs. fairness (e.g., Mucchi-Faina et al, 2002)
  • System justification (e.g., Jost and Burgess, 2000)
  • implicit vs. explicit ambivalence
• Self-presentation (ambivalence = social adaptation function if social controversy; Pillaud et al. 2013)

Question 7

Object: genetically modified food (OGM)

Pillaud et al., 2013

Answer 7

ambivalence is used in this case to give more positive image of ourselves

Question 8

4. Conséquence -> Stabilité de l’attitude

Answer 8

= if the attitude is strong it will not be ambivalent

Assumption: ambivalent attitudes = low attitudes = low stability
-> Inconsistent results, depending on the sample or attitude object

Question 9

4. Conséquences -> Flexibilité de l’attitude

Answer 9

= degree of resistance of our attitudes

Assumption: ambivalent attitudes = high flexibility
-> studies confirm this effect

Question 10

4. Conséquences -> Traitement de l’information

Answer 10

Accessibility: = ambivalent attitudes are less accesible

• less accessible (Bargh et al., 1992; Broemer, 1998)
• more latent (Van der Pligt et al., 2000; van Harreveld, 2004)

Type of treatment:
- more objective treatment (Broemer, 1998; Maio et al., 1996à) (=the stronger the attitude the more it will influence the treatment of information)
Mediator: ambivalence reduces trust, which increases objective treatment (Jonas et al., 1997) (=ambivalence leads to both objective and subjective treatment)

• more Biased treatment
  
  • If so little knowledge is available, it is believed that the new information would reduce ambivalence (Sawicki et al., 2013)
    - pro-attitudinal messages perceived as potentially reducing ambivalence (Clark et al, 2008);

Question 11

4. Conséquences -> Lien attitude – comportement

Answer 11

Assumption: ambivalent attitudes = weak attitudes = less behavioural predictive

THE STRONGER THE ATTTUDE THE MORE IT IS STABLE, PREDICT A BEHAIOR, ETC..

Question 12

4. Conséquences -> Autres conséquences

Answer 12

Assumption: ambivalent attitudes = motivation to change = behavioural change (reduction in dissonance)

• Consistent with the explanation in terms of strength (e.g., flexibility) but different explanation