Ambivalence and Attitudes

By Mark Conner, Paul Sparks. 2002

304 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This chapter explores the concept of ambivalence and its relationship to attitudes. Definitions and different measures of ambivalence are reviewed. We present three dimensions on which measures of ambivalence can be classified. We then go on to examine some of the elicitors of ambivalence and present some preliminary findings on attitude objects that generate high levels of ambivalence. The major section of the chapter then reviews findings related to treating the ambivalence construct as an aspect of attitude strength. Research is presented in relation to four major predictions: (a) temporal stability of attitudes; (b) impact of attitudes on intentions and behavior, (c) pliability of attitudes; and (d) impacts on information processing. The final section offers suggestions for further research in this area.

Subfields: Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0a1e559c34049c462b8aa380cddc53246d446212

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Contemporary perspectives on the psychology of attitudes (2004, background): “Conner and Sparks (2002) identify two defining characteristics of attitudinal ambivalence, namely: (a) how intense the positive and negative evaluations are; (b) the extent to which the positive and negative evaluations are similar.”
The Handbook of Attitudes (2005, result): “As stated earlier, nonexperimental studies have demonstrated that subjective judgments of ambivalence are positively associated with actualleve1s of evaluative inconsistency (Conner & Sparks, 2002; Lipkus, Green, D ow nl oa de d B y: 1 0.”
Positive and negative associations underlying ambivalent attitudes (2007, background): “Eventually, results may help to shed some light on mixed Wndings regarding eVects of ambivalence (see Conner & Sparks, 2002 for an overview).”
Social psychological factors in lifestyle change and their relevance to policy (2007, background): “Rather than such positive and negative outcomes canceling one another out, recent research on attitudinal ambivalence would suggest that the two components may have distinct effects on behavior (Conner & Sparks, 2002).”
From attitudes to behaviour: Basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour (2003, background): “For example, attitudes are generally more predictive of subsequent behaviour if they are: univalent rather than ambivalent (e.g., Conner & Sparks, 2002 ), accessible in memory (e.g., Kokkinaki & Lunt, 1998), or are personally involving (e.g., Thomsen, Borgida, & Lavine, 1995).”
Ambivalence in Organizations: A Multilevel Approach (2014, background): “, Coser 1966, Horney 1945, Katz and Glass 1979, Tracy 2004; see Pratt and Doucet 2000 for a review). However, what is sorely lacking is a clear conceptual framework for organizing these disparate responses to ambivalence and applying them systematically to organizational contexts. Such a framework w”
Attitudes and persuasion. (2006, unknown): “A related line of research experiencing a renaissance is concerned with attitudinal ambivalence (Conner & Sparks 2002, Jones et al. 2000).”