Feeling conflicted and seeking information: when ambivalence enhances and diminishes selective exposure to attitude-consistent information

How Attitudes Impact the Continued Influence Effect of Misinformation: The Mediating Role of Discomfort

Past research suggests that people continue believing retracted misinformation more when it is consistent versus inconsistent with their attitudes. However, the psychological mechanism responsible for this phenomenon remains unclear. We predicted that retractions of attitude-consistent misinformation produce greater feelings of discomfort than retractions of attitude-inconsistent misinformation and that this discomfort predicts continued belief in and use of the misinformation. We report combined analyses across 10 studies testing these predictions. Seven studies (total N = 1,323) used a mediational framework and found that the more consistent misinformation was with participants' attitudes, the more discomfort was elicited by a retraction of the misinformation. Greater discomfort then predicted greater continued belief in the misinformation, which, in turn, predicted greater use of the misinformation when participants made relevant inferences. Three additional studies (total N = 574) utilized misattribution paradigms to demonstrate that the relation between discomfort and belief in misinformation is causal in nature.

Selective exposure to COVID-19 vaccination information: the influence of prior attitude, perceived threat level and information limit

Purpose

The massive amount of available information and functionality of the Internet makes selective information seeking effortless. This paper aims to understand the selective exposure to information during a health decision-making task.

Design/methodology/approach

This study conducted an experiment with a sample of 36 students to examine the influence of prior attitude, perceived threat level and information limit on users’ selective exposure to and recall of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination information. Participants were assigned to two conditions with or without an upper limit of the number of articles to be examined, and this study collected the number of articles read, the number of articles included in the report and recall score of the articles after one day of the experiment.

Findings

This study found that (1) participants with a negative attitude were more inclined to view attitude-consistent information and recalled attitude-consistent information more accurately, while participants with a positive attitude viewed more balanced information; (2) participants perceiving higher health threat level recalled attitude-consistent information more accurately; and (3) an upper limit on the number of articles to be viewed does not have any impact on selective exposure.

Research limitations/implications

The findings of this paper pinpoint the disparity of influence of positive and negative attitudes on selective exposure to and selective recall of health information, which was not previously recognized.

Practical implications

Vaccination campaigns should focus on reaching people with negative attitudes who are more prone to selective exposure to encourage them to seek more balanced information.

Originality/value

This is the first paper to explore selective exposure to COVID-19 vaccination information. This study found that people with a negative attitude and a higher level of perceived health threat are more prone to selective exposure, which was not found in previous research.

The role of dialecticism in objective and subjective attitudinal ambivalence

Although attitudes are often considered positive or negative evaluations, people often have both positive and negative associations with a target object or issue, and when people are ambivalent, they are typically presumed to find the experience aversive because they are motivated to hold clear, univalent attitudes. Cross-cultural research, however, has shown cultural variation in the propensity for dialectical thinking, which is characterized by a tolerance for contradiction. Two studies examined the role of dialectical thinking tendencies in the occurrence of attitudinal ambivalence and how much people subjectively experience their state of ambivalence. Study 1 measured individual differences in dialectical thinking within a culture, and Study 2 compared participants across two cultures (United States and Taiwan) that differ in dialecticism. Across studies, greater dialectical thinking was associated with holding both positive and negative evaluations of the same topic (objective ambivalence) and weaker correlations between objective ambivalence and subjective reports of being conflicted (subjective ambivalence).

The Role of Fairness in Early Characterization of New Technologies: Effects on Selective Exposure and Risk Perception

Previous research suggests that when individuals have limited knowledge to make sense of new or emerging technologies, they may rely more on available cues, such as the fairness of those managing the risks, when developing their attitudinal and behavioral responses to the technology. To examine this further, we designed an online experiment (N = 1,042) to test the effects of risk managers' nonoutcome fairness on individuals' selective exposure to additional information and perceived risk. As the study context, we used the development of enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), which uses drilling to tap deep underground sources of heat for district heating and electricity and remains low in familiarity among the U.S. public. The results suggest that participants who read about the fair risk manager were subsequently more likely to have positive attitudes toward EGS development. In turn, those with more positive attitudes were more likely to select and read positively valenced articles about EGS, resulting in an indirect effect of the fairness condition. Although this study also explored whether uncertainty moderated this fairness effect on information seeking, it found no evidence. Additionally, when participants were exposed to information featuring fair risk managers, perceived risk decreased, an effect that was mediated by beliefs that EGS was controllable and not dreadful. These results underscore the importance of using practices that will increase nonoutcome fairness in the introduction of new technologies.

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

Literature on attitude similarity suggests that sharing similar attitudes enhances interpersonal liking, but it remains unanswered whether this effect also holds for ambivalent attitudes. In the present research, we shed light on the role attitudinal ambivalence plays in interpersonal liking. Specifically, we examine whether people express ambivalence strategically to generate a positive or negative social image, and whether this is dependent on the attitudinal ambivalence of their perceiver. We test two alternative hypotheses. In line with the attitude-similarity effect, people should express ambivalence toward ambivalent others to enhance interpersonal liking, as sharing ambivalence might socially validate the latter’s experience of attitudinal conflict. On the other hand, people might express more univalence, as ambivalence may drive ambivalent others toward the resolution of their attitudinal conflict, and univalent stances could help to achieve that goal. In two studies (N = 449, 149), people expressed similar attitudes to those of their perceivers, even when the latter experienced attitudinal conflict (Studies 1 and 2). Moreover, they composed an essay, the message of which validated their perceiver’s attitudinal conflict (Study 2). In line with these results, we further observe that the more people experienced their ambivalence as conflicting, the more they liked others who similarly experienced attitudinal conflict (Study 1). These findings suggest that the expression of ambivalence can have important interpersonal functions, as it might lead to an enhanced social image when interacting with those coping with attitudinal conflict.

Benefits of being ambivalent: The relationship between trait ambivalence and attribution biases

Ambivalence refers to the experience of having both positive and negative thoughts and feelings at the same time about the same object, person, or issue. Although ambivalence research has focused extensively on negative consequences, recently, scholars turned their lens to the positive effects of ambivalence, demonstrating beneficial effects on judgements and decision-making processes. So far, this work has focused on state ambivalence, which is ambivalence as a direct response to a specific stimulus. However, there are substantial individual differences in ambivalence: Some people are just more ambivalent than others. Taking a first step in understanding how these individual differences relate to judgement and decision-making, we examine the relationship between trait ambivalence and cognitive bias in social judgements tasks. Specifically, we look at two of the most pervasive and consequential attribution biases in person perception: correspondence bias and self-serving bias. We find a negative relationship between trait ambivalence and correspondence bias. The higher individuals are in trait ambivalence, the smaller their bias towards attributing behaviour to a person's disposition (Study 1A and B). We find the same for self-serving bias (Study 2A and B). In sum, we show that trait ambivalence is negatively related to cognitive bias in person perception.

The interactive effects of ambivalence and certainty on political opinion stability

Some political attitudes and opinions shift and fluctuate over time whereas others remain fairly stable. Prior research on attitude strength has documented several features of attitudes that predict their temporal stability. The present analysis focuses on two of them: attitudinal ambivalence and certainty. Each of these variables has received mixed support for its relationship with attitude stability. A recent set of studies, however, has addressed this link by showing that ambivalence and certainty interact to predict stability. Because those studies relied exclusively on college student samples and considered issues that may have been especially likely to evince change over time, the present analysis aimed to replicate the original findings in a sample of registered Florida voters with an important politically relevant issue: abortion. Results of these analyses replicated the previous findings and support the generalizability of the ambivalence × certainty interaction on attitude stability to a sample of registered voters reporting their attitudes toward abortion. Implications for public opinion and the psychology of political attitudes are discussed.

Change Appeals: How Referencing Change Boosts Curiosity and Promotes Persuasion

Does merely referencing that an object or entity has changed affect people's attitudes and intentions toward it? This research investigates the possibility that change references spark curiosity and information seeking, which can have a positive or negative effect on people's evaluations of a target stimulus, depending on the information environment. Seven experiments reveal that referencing that an object or entity has changed decreases perceptions of its longevity, but also sparks curiosity about it-a desire to learn more. This curiosity motivates people to seek information about the object or entity, which can enhance or depress their evaluations depending on whether that information search leads to favorable or unfavorable information. When further information is unavailable, change references appear to have a negative impact on people's evaluations, consistent with well-established longevity biases. This research suggests that change references have an important and generalizable impact on persuasive outcomes and pinpoints the conditions surrounding and processes driving this effect.

Perceived Responsiveness Increases Tolerance of Attitude Ambivalence and Enhances Intentions to Behave in an Open-Minded Manner

Can perceived responsiveness, the belief that meaningful others attend to and react supportively to core defining feature of the self, shape the structure of attitudes? We predicted that perceived responsiveness fosters open-mindedness, which, in turn, allows people to be simultaneously aware of opposing evaluations of an attitude object. We also hypothesized that this process will result in behavior intentions to consider multiple perspectives about the topic. Furthermore, we predicted that perceived responsiveness will enable people to tolerate accessible opposing evaluations without feeling discomfort. We found consistent support for our hypotheses in four laboratory experiments (Studies 1-3, 5) and a diary study (Study 4). Moreover, we found that perceived responsiveness reduces the perception that one's initial attitude is correct and valid. These findings indicate that attitude structure and behavior intentions can be changed by an interpersonal variable, unrelated to the attitude itself.

Social Ambivalence and Disease (SAD): A Theoretical Model Aimed at Understanding the Health Implications of Ambivalent Relationships

The protective influence of social relationships on health is widely documented; however, not all relationships are positive, and negative aspects of relationships may be detrimental. Much less is known about the relationships characterized by both positivity and negativity (i.e., ambivalence). This article provides a theoretical framework for considering the influence of ambivalent relationships on physical health, including reasons why ambivalence should be considered separately from relationships characterized as primarily positive (supportive) or primarily negative (aversive). We introduce the social ambivalence and disease (SAD) model as a guide to understanding the social psychological antecedents, processes, and consequences of ambivalent relationships. We conclude by highlighting gaps in the literature and features of the SAD model that may serve as a guide to future research on potential health-relevant pathways of ambivalent relationships.

Perceived Knowledge Moderates the Relation Between Subjective Ambivalence and the “Impact” of Attitudes: An Attitude Strength Perspective

Previous work has reliably demonstrated that when people experience more subjective ambivalence about an attitude object, their attitudes have less impact on strength-related outcomes such as attitude-related thinking, judging, or behaving. However, previous research has not considered whether the amount of perceived knowledge a person has about the topic might moderate these effects. Across eight studies on different topics using a variety of outcome measures, the current research demonstrates that perceived knowledge can moderate the relation between ambivalence and the impact of attitudes on related thinking, judging, and behaving. Although the typical Attitude × Ambivalence effect emerged when participants had relatively high perceived knowledge, this interaction did not emerge when participants were lower in perceived knowledge. This work provides a more nuanced view of the effects of subjective ambivalence on attitude impact and highlights the importance of understanding the combined impact of attitude strength antecedents.

The moderating effects of information overload and academic procrastination on the information avoidance behavior among Filipino undergraduate thesis writers

Information avoidance is a behavior that could either prevent or delay consumption of information. While information avoidance has been documented in various fields of interest, its overall dynamics in the context of library and information science remains a research blankspot. The overall intent of this paper is to develop a model that examines the moderating effect of information overload and academic procrastination on the information avoidance behavior among Filipino undergraduate thesis writers. Capitalizing on Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) design, a total of 215 Filipino undergraduate thesis writers participated in the study. A multi-aspect questionnaire was used to measure the following variables: information overload, academic procrastination and information avoidance. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data. Results show that when students have a positive attitude towards reading, the more likely they are to employ better reading strategies and the less likely they are to exhibit information avoidance. On the other hand, the more reading strategies are used, the lower is information avoidance. Additionally, the tendency to procrastinate has less effect on the relationship between reading strategies and information avoidance and the tendency to procrastinate and acquire excessive information has less effect on the relationship between reading attitudes and information avoidance. Implications for university settings are also discussed in this paper.

An Examination of Whether Mindfulness Can Predict the Relationship Between Objective and Subjective Attitudinal Ambivalence

Ambivalence is a mixed reaction toward an attitudinal object. Ambivalence is often viewed as aversive and people are motivated to reduce it. However, the presence of both strong positive and negative attitudes toward an object (objective ambivalence; OA) does not always lead to consciously experienced conflicted and torn feelings (subjective ambivalence; SA) or psychological discomfort. We hypothesized that the way people think about their inner experience can affect whether ambivalent attitudes lead to increased conflicted feelings. In five studies, we examined whether mindfulness predicts the relationship between objective and subjective ambivalence. We predicted that the acceptance aspect of mindfulness would attenuate the relationship between OA and SA, based on the idea that acceptance makes people more tolerant and less judgmental toward their inner states in general (and OA in particular). Although some findings across five studies were consistent with the prediction showing that acceptance attenuated the OA–SA relationship, other findings were not and even showed that acceptance strengthened the OA–SA relationship. A meta-analysis of the interaction effect across all studies failed to find support for predictions (r = -0.036 and 95% CI [-0.087; 0.022]). We discuss possible reasons for these mixed findings, and the implications of these studies.

Ambivalence: A Key to Clinical Trial Participation?

Trust exerts a multidimensional influence at the interpersonal level in the clinical trials setting. Trust and distrust are dynamic states that are impacted, either positively or negatively, with each participant-clinical trials team interaction. Currently, accepted models of trust posit that trust and distrust coexist and their effects on engagement and retention in clinical trials are mediated by ambivalence. While understanding of trust has been informed by a robust body of work, the role of distrust and ambivalence in the trust building process are less well understood. Furthermore, the role of ambivalence and its relationship to trust and distrust in the clinical trials and oncology settings are not known. Ambivalence is a normal and uncomfortable state in the complex decision making process that characterizes the recruitment and active treatment phases of the clinical trials experience. The current review was conducted to understand the constructs of ambivalence as a mediator of trust and distrust among vulnerable, minority participants through different stages of the oncology clinical trials continuum, its triggers and the contextual factors that might influence it in the setting of minority participation in oncology clinical trials. In addition, the researchers have sought to link theory to clinical intervention by investigating the feasibility and role of Motivational Interviewing in different stages of the clinical trials continuum. Findings suggest that ambivalence can be processed and managed to enable a participant to generate a response to their ambivalence. Thus, recognizing and managing triggers of ambivalence, which include, contradictory goals, role conflicts, membership dualities, and supporting participants through the process of reducing ambivalence is critical to successfully managing trust. Contextual factors related to the totality of one's previous health-care experience, specifically among the marginalized or vulnerable, can contribute to interpersonal ambivalence. In addition, changes in information gathering as a moderator of interpersonal ambivalence may have enormous implications for gathering, assessing, and accepting health information. Finally, motivational Interviewing has widespread applications in healthcare settings, which includes enabling participants to navigate ambivalence in shared-decision making with their clinician, as well as executing changes in participant behavior. Ultimately, the Integrated Model of Trust can incorporate the role of therapeutic techniques like Motivational Interviewing in different stages of the clinical trials continuum. Ambivalence is a key component of clinical trial participation; like trust, ambivalence can be managed and plays a major role in the management of trust in interpersonal relationships over time. The management of ambivalence may play a major role in increasing clinical trial participation particularly among the marginalized or the vulnerable, who may be more susceptible to feelings of ambivalence.

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

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.

Metacognitive Reflection as a Moderator of Attitude Strength Versus Attitude Bolstering: Implications for Attitude Similarity and Attraction

"Strong" attitudes often have greater impact than "weak" attitudes. However, emerging research suggests that weak (uncertain) attitudes can substantially influence thinking or behavior. We propose metacognitive reflection as a moderator between traditional strength patterns and these emerging attitude bolstering patterns. Across six studies, research participants encountered a target person who agreed or disagreed with participants' attitudes. When focused on evaluating the target, attitudes predicted target evaluations better when the attitude was held with certainty (Study 1A), or after certainty had been primed (Studies 2A and 3; strength effects). However, when engaged in attitudinal social comparison (metacognitive reflection), attitudes better predicted target evaluation when the attitudes were held with doubt (Study 1B), or after doubt had been primed (Studies 2B and 3; bolstering effects). Expected change in certainty served as a mediator of attitude effects in metacognitive reflection but not target-focus conditions when doubt had been primed (Study 4).

Porous Chambers, Echoes of Valence and Stereotypes

Selective exposure to one-sided news coverage, especially of controversial geopolitical events, may contribute to growing social polarization. Existing research on “echo chambers”—fragmented information environments that amplify homogeneous perspectives—focuses on the degree to which individuals and social media platforms shape informational segregation. Here, we explore whether news organizations directly contribute to echo chambers through the hyperlinks they embed in online articles. Using network and text analysis, we examined coverage of the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, and found that online news media exhibited weak community structure and high connectivity across news outlets. However, analyses also indicated that media sources were more likely to link to coverage that was similar to their own in terms of emotional valence and stereotype-relevant aspects of the events. While hyperlinking to diverse news sources may ameliorate fragmented information environments, selectively linking to similar coverage may contribute to growing polarization.

Association between felt ambivalence and the desire to quit waterpipe use among college students

College waterpipe tobacco smokers who feel more ambivalence, that is, conflicted about its use, may have a stronger desire to quit. Using baseline survey data of 315 college waterpipe smokers, we examined this relationship. While frequency of feeling ambivalence was low, greater ambivalence was related with desire to quit ( r = .46, p < .001). This relationship remained significant after accounting for several correlates of desire to quit (e.g. perceived risk and worries about harm and addiction). Findings suggest that ambivalence may be an important independent variable linked with desire to quit and should be explored further as a factor influencing waterpipe tobacco use.

Results of a Community Randomized Study of a Faith-Based Education Program to Improve Clinical Trial Participation among African Americans

This is a report of a cluster randomized clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of a church-based educational intervention aimed at improving African Americans’ (AA) participation in clinical trials. Two hundred and twenty-one AA subjects ages ≥50 years from six predominantly AA churches were randomized to intervention or control condition. The intervention included three educational sessions about clinical trials and health disparities; control participants completed questionnaires. Primary endpoints of the study were differences in individual subjects' intentions to obtain clinical trial information and intention to join a clinical trial, as determined by 10 point scale items at baseline, three and six months. A statistically significant increase in the intention to obtain clinical trial information at the three and six month time points was observed in the intervention group, but not the control group. Older participants (65–95 years) were less likely than younger participants (50–64 years) to increase their motivation to seek clinical trial information by the three and six month time points. No significant increases were observed in intention to join clinical trials. This randomized trial shows that AA church-based educational interventions are likely to increase the motivation of AA subjects to obtain clinical trial information and are therefore potentially effective at ameliorating the underrepresentation of AA subjects in clinical trials.

Strategies and motives for resistance to persuasion: an integrative framework

Persuasion is an important element of human communication. But in many situations, we resist rather than embrace persuasive attempts. Resistance to persuasion has been studied in many different disciplines, including communication science, psychology, and marketing. The present paper reviews and connects these diverse literatures, and provides an organizing framework for understanding and studying resistance. Four clusters of resistance strategies are defined (avoidance, contesting, biased processing, and empowerment), and these clusters are related to different motivations for resisting persuasion (threat to freedom, reluctance to change, and concerns of deception). We propose that, while avoidance strategies may be triggered by any of these motivations, contesting strategies are linked primarily to concerns of deception, while empowerment and biased processing strategies are most common when people are reluctant to change.

Reducing Subjective Ambivalence by Creating Doubt

Ambivalence, the presence of positive and negative reactions toward an object, typically involves the subjective experience of conflict. We investigate the role that the perceived validity of each side of an ambivalent attitude plays in producing subjective ambivalence (SA). Consistent with the metacognitive model of attitudes, we demonstrated that SA is reduced when people doubt either the positive or the negative reactions. Thus, inducing doubt (in one side) can reduce SA. We further explored whether viewing both sides as invalid would lead to relatively low or to relatively high levels of SA. Consistent with the idea that equivalent perceived validity increases the difficulty of ambivalence reduction, when both sides were doubted, conflict was as high as when both sides were validated.