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.

[1]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  A model of dual attitudes. , 2000, Psychological review.

[2]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Positive mood can increase or decrease message scrutiny: the hedonic contingency view of mood and message processing. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[3]  D. Wegener,et al.  The Structure of Attitudes. , 2005 .

[4]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion. , 1979 .

[5]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. , 1998 .

[6]  Diane M. Mackie,et al.  Cognitive Mediation of Positive Affect in Persuasion , 1987 .

[7]  D. Wegener,et al.  Attitude accessibility and message processing: The moderating role of message position , 2008 .

[8]  Bell,et al.  Ambivalence and Persuasion: The Processing of Messages about Immigrant Groups , 1996, Journal of experimental social psychology.

[9]  M. Zanna,et al.  Thinking and caring about cognitive inconsistency: when and for whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel uncomfortable? , 2002, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[10]  V. Esses,et al.  Ambivalence and Response Amplification: A Motivational Perspective , 2002 .

[11]  J. Pligt,et al.  Ambivalence, discomfort, and motivated information processing , 2006 .

[12]  Laura A. Brannon,et al.  Why Counterattitudinal Messages Are as Memorable as Proattitudinal Messages: The Importance of Active Defense Against Attack , 2000 .

[13]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[14]  G. Maio,et al.  The Epistemic-Teleologic Model of Deliberate Self-Persuasion , 2007, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[15]  Jaideep Sengupta,et al.  Effects of Inconsistent Attribute Information on the Predictive Value of Product Attitudes: Toward a Resolution of Opposing Perspectives , 2002 .

[16]  L. Festinger,et al.  A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance , 2017 .

[17]  Mark Conner,et al.  Attitudinal Ambivalence: A Test of Three Key Hypotheses , 2000 .

[18]  L. Festinger.  A Theory of Social Comparison Processes , 1954 .

[19]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. , 1979 .

[20]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  Attitude Importance and Attitude Accessibility , 1989 .

[21]  R. Petty,et al.  The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. , 1996, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[22]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Selective Use of Heunrstic and Systematic Processing Under Defense Motivation , 1997 .

[23]  Curtis P. Haugtvedt,et al.  Message Order Effects in Persuasion: An Attitude Strength Perspective , 1994 .

[24]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Attitudes and attitude change. , 1997, Annual review of psychology.

[25]  C. Judd,et al.  When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. , 2005, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[26]  R. Rosenthal.  Meta-analytic procedures for social research , 1984 .

[27]  M. Diehl,et al.  Effects of Attitudinal Ambivalence on Information Processing and Attitude-Intention Consistency☆ , 1997 .

[28]  L. Festinger.  Conflict, Decision, and Dissonance , 1964 .

[29]  Peter H. Ditto,et al.  Motivated Skepticism: Use of Differential Decision Criteria for Preferred and Nonpreferred Conclusions , 1992 .

[30]  Larry E. Toothaker,et al.  Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions , 1991 .

[31]  J. N. Bassili.  Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: The case of measures of attitude strength. , 1996 .

[32]  Randall R. Kleinhesselink,et al.  Seeking and avoiding belief-discrepant information as a function of its perceived refutability. , 1975 .

[33]  R. Petty,et al.  Implicit ambivalence from attitude change: an exploration of the PAST model. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[34]  K. Kaplan.  On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. , 1972 .

[35]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  Measures and manipulations of strength-related properties of attitudes: Current practice and future directions. , 1995 .

[36]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. , 1996 .

[37]  Gregory R. Maio,et al.  The Role of Attitudinal Ambivalence in Susceptibility to Consensus Information , 2001 .

[38]  S. Chaiken,et al.  The impact of attitudes on memory: an affair to remember. , 1999, Psychological bulletin.