Attitudinal Ambivalence: A Test of Three Key Hypotheses

By Christopher J. Armitage, Mark Conner. 2000

364 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Literature and Literary Theory, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/61f33adecd5b8b8e6ce012ead905a6458c91c40f

How researchers see this paper

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

In Applied Psychology

In Literature and Literary Theory

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Social psychology of exercise and sport (2005, background): “Ambivalence has been shown to be a moderator of the attitude–intention relationship, so that high levels of ambivalence compromise the motivational efficacy of attitudes (Armitage and Conner 2000).”
Wanting other attitudes: Actual–desired attitude discrepancies predict feelings of ambivalence and ambivalence consequences (2014, methodology): “…was chosen because the prediction of behavior is one of the central goals of attitude research (e.g., Fazio & Olson, in press; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), and because unambivalent attitudes in particular are better predictors of behavior than are ambivalent attitudes (e.g., Armitage & Conner, 2000 ).”
The performance implications of ambivalent initiative: The interplay of autonomous and controlled motivations (2011, background): “Indeed, research has shown that ambivalence tends to result in less predictable, more erratic behaviors (Armitage & Conner, 2000).”
Understanding The Dual Nature of Ambivalence: Why and When Ambivalence Leads to Good and Bad Outcomes (2017, neutral): “…30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 including effects such as greater susceptibility to change (Armitage & Conner, 2000; Bassili, 1996) and lower attitude-behavior consistency (Armitage, 2003; Fabrigar, MacDonald & Wegener, 2005; Jonas, Diehl,…”
Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: a meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. (2006, result): “…work by disentangling prior controversial findings regarding the roles of ambivalence and inconsistency (see null findings regarding attitude stability by Armitage & Conner, 2000; Bassili, 1996; and reversals regarding attitude–intentions correlation by Jonas et al., 1997; Sengupta & Johar, 2002).”
Mapping symbolic (anti-) consumption (2009, background): “In addition earlier work on attitudes and ambivalence assumes a global view of attitudes and ambivalence (Armitage and Connor, 2000) whereas Chaiken et al. (1995) conceptualize “three forms of evaluative inconsistency: cognitive–affective; affective–evaluative, and evaluative–cognitive” (Armitage…”
Ambivalence and certainty can interact to predict attitude stability over time (2016, background): “…previously, a distinction has been made between “objective” and “subjective” ambivalence in the literature, and the existing cases of ambivalence–stability research focus on objective ambivalence (Armitage & Conner, 2000; Bargh et al., 1992; Bassili, 1996; Craig et al., 2005; Karpen et al., 2012).”
Feeling Ambivalent About Going Green (2011, background): “Ambivalent people respond differently to persuasive messages (e.g., Armitage and Conner 2000).”
Recycling and Ambivalence (2008, background): “Accordingly, studies have indicated that ambivalent attitudes moderate the attitude–intention and attitude–behavior relations (Armitage & Conner, 2000; Conner et al., 2002; Lavine, Thomsen, Zanna, & Borgida, 1998; Povey, Wellens, & Conner, 2001; Sparks, Conner, James, Shepherd, & Povey, 2001).”
Identifying the Role of Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Components in Understanding Residents’ Attitudes toward Place Marketing (2010, methodology): “Using the TRA model, many researchers studying buying behavior (e.g., Armitage and Conner 2000; Fazio and Williams 1986; Fazio and Zanna 1982; Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983; Petty and Krosnick 1995) presented correlation values between attitudes and intention (support) and between attitudes…”
Ambivalence, discomfort, and motivated information processing (2006, background): “Ambivalent attitudes are generally conceptualized as weak attitudes, as they are less predictive of behavior (Armitage & Conner, 2000; Conner, Sparks, Povey, James, & Sheperd, 2002), less stable (Armitage & Conner, 2000), and less resistant to persuasion ( Armitage & Conner, 2000 ).”