Chapter 7 - Ambivalence attitudinale Flashcards Preview

Attitude et persuasion - CC1 > Chapter 7 - Ambivalence attitudinale > Flashcards

Flashcards in Chapter 7 - Ambivalence attitudinale Deck (12)
Loading flashcards...

1. Définitions -> Attitude

Eagly and Chaiken (1993)

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


1. Définitions -> Ambivalence attitudinale

Gardner (1987)

"State in which a person experiences feelings
shared (positive and negative) towards an object. »


2. Mesures -> Felt ambivalence

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


2. Mesures -> Potential ambivalence

- 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)


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

• 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


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

= 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)


Object: genetically modified food (OGM)
(Pillaud et al., 2013)

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


4. Conséquence -> Stabilité de l’attitude

= 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


4. Conséquences -> Flexibilité de l’attitude

= degree of resistance of our attitudes

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


4. Conséquences -> Traitement de l’information

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);


4. Conséquences -> Lien attitude – comportement

Assumption: ambivalent attitudes = weak attitudes = less behavioural predictive



4. Conséquences -> Autres conséquences

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