Attitudinal Ambivalence and Message-Based Persuasion: Motivated Processing of Proattitudinal Information and Avoidance of Counterattitudinal Information
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2008
Attitudinal Ambivalence and Message-Based Persuasion: Motivated Processing of Proattitudinal Information and Avoidance of Counterattitudinal Information
Attitudinal ambivalence has been found to increase processing of attitude-relevant information. In this research, the authors suggest that ambivalence can also create the opposite effect: avoidance of thinking about persuasive messages. If processing is intended to reduce experienced ambivalence, then ambivalent people should increase processing of information perceived as proattitudinal (agreeable) and able to decrease ambivalence. However, ambivalence should also lead people to avoid processing of counterattitudinal (disagreeable) information that threatens to increase ambivalence. Three studies provide evidence consistent with this proposal. When participants were relatively ambivalent, they processed messages to a greater extent when the messages were proattitudinal rather than counterattitudinal. However, when participants were relatively unambivalent, they processed messages more when the messages were counterattitudinal rather than proattitudinal. In addition, ambivalent participants perceived proattitudinal messages as more likely than counterattitudinal messages to reduce ambivalence, and these perceptions accounted for message position effects on amount of processing.
Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
Armitage, C.J., & Conner, M. (2000). Attitude ambivalence: A test of three key hypotheses . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1421-1432.
3.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
4.
Bassili, J.N. (1996). Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: The case of measures of attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 637-653.
5.
Bell, D.W., & Esses, V.M. (2002). Ambivalence and response amplification: A motivational perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1143-1152.
6.
Cacioppo, J.T., & Petty, R.E. (1979). Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive responses, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 97-109.
7.
Clark, J.K., Wegener, D.T., & Fabrigar, L.R. (in press). Attitude accessibility and message processing: The moderating role of message position. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
8.
Ditto, P.H., & Lopez, D.F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 568-584.
9.
Eagly, A.H., Chen, S., Chaiken, S., & Shaw-Barnes, K. (1999). The impact of attitudes on memory: An affair to remember. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 64-89.
10.
Eagly, A.H., Kulesa, P., Brannon, L.A., Shaw, K., & Hutson-Comeaux, S. (2000). Why counterattitudinal messages are as memorable as proattitudinal messages: The importance of active defense against attack. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1392-1408.
11.
Edwards, K. & Smith, E.E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 5-24.
12.
Fabrigar, L.R., MacDonald, T., & Wegener, D.T. (2005). The structure of attitudes. In D. Albarracin, B. Johnson , & M. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 79-124). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
14.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
15.
Festinger, L. (1964). Conflict, decision, and dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
16.
Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chaiken, S. (1997). Selective use of heuristic and systematic processing under defense motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 84-97.
17.
Haugtvedt, C.P., & Wegener, D.T. (1994). Message order effects in persuasion: An attitude strength perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 205-218.
18.
Hodson, G., Maio, G.R., & Esses, V.M. (2001). The role of attitudinal ambivalence in susceptibility to consensus information. Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 23, 197-205.
19.
Jonas, K., Diehl, M., & Brömer, P. (1997). Effects of attitudinal ambivalence on information processing and attitude-intention consistency. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 190-210.
20.
Kaplan, K.J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 361-372.
21.
Kleinhesselink, R.R., & Edwards, R.E. (1975). Seeking and avoiding belief-discrepant information as a function of its perceived refutability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 787-790.
22.
Krosnick, J.A. (1989). Attitude importance and attitude accessibility . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 297-308.
23.
Maio, G.R., Bell, D.W., & Esses, V.M. (1996). Ambivalence and persuasion: The processing of messages about immigrant groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 513-536.
24.
Maio, G.R., & Thomas, G. (2007). The epistemic-teleologic model of deliberate self-persuasion . Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 46-67.
25.
Muller, D., Judd, C.M., & Yzerbyt, V.Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852-863.
26.
Newby-Clark, I.R., McGregor, I., & Zanna, M.P. (2002). Thinking and caring about cognitive inconsistency: When and for whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel uncomfortable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 157-166.
27.
Nordgren, L.F., van Harreveld, F., & van der Pligt, J. (2006). Ambivalence, discomfort, and motivated information processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 252-258.
28.
Olson, J.M., & Zanna, M.P. (1993). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 117-154.
29.
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1979). Issue-involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915-1926.
30.
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
31.
Petty, R.E., Tormala, Z.L., Briñol, P., & Jarvis, W.B.G. (2006). Implicit ambivalence from attitude change: An exploration of the PAST model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 21-41.
32.
Petty, R.E., & Wegener, D.T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 323-390). New York: McGraw-Hill.
33.
Priester, J.R., & Petty, R.E. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: Relating positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 431-449.
34.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (Vol. 6). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
35.
Sengupta, J., & Johar, G.V. (2002). The effects of inconsistent attribute information on the predictive value of product attitudes: Toward a resolution of opposing perspectives. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 39-56.
36.
Wegener, D.T., Downing, J., Krosnick, J.A., & Petty, R.E. (1995). Measures and manipulations of strength-related properties of attitudes: Current practice and future directions. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 455-487). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
Wegener, D.T., & Fabrigar, L.R. (2000). Analysis and design for nonexperimental data: Addressing causal and noncausal hypotheses. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 412-450). New York: Cambridge University Press.
38.
Wegener, D.T., Petty, R.E., & Smith, S.M. (1995). Positive mood can increase or decrease message scrutiny: The hedonic contingency view of mood and message processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 5-15.
39.
Wegener, D.T., Petty, R.E., Smoak, N.D., & Fabrigar, L.R. (2004). Multiple routes to resisting attitude change. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 13-38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
Wilson, T.D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T.Y. (2000). A model of dual attitudes . Psychological Review, 107, 101-126.
41.
Worth, L.T., & Mackie, D.M. (1987). Cognitive mediation of positive affect in persuasion . Social Cognition, 5, 76-94.
