Ambivalence and decisional conflict as a cause of psychological discomfort: Feeling tense before jumping off the fence

Wanting other attitudes: Actual–desired attitude discrepancies predict feelings of ambivalence and ambivalence consequences

“…Ambivalence is a central construct in the literature on attitudes, and it has been the focus of a recent resurgence in research interest (e.g., Cavazza & Butera, 2008;Clark et al, 2008;Clarkson, Tormala, & Rucker, 2008;Cowley & Czellar, 2012;DeMarree, Morrison, Wheeler, & Petty, 2011;Hormes & Rozin, 2011;Petty, Tormala, Briñol, & Jarvis, 2006;Priester et al, 2007;Sawicki et al, 2013;Schneider et al, 2013;van Harreveld, Rutjens, et al, 2009;Ziegler, Schlett, Casel, & Diehl, 2012). Although the subjective experience of conflict is important because it often drives ambivalence outcomes (e.g., attitudebehavior correspondence, information seeking), there is a current gap in our understanding of the factors that contribute to this sense of conflict.…”

The ABC of Ambivalence

“…Direct empirical evidence was provided in studies in which ambivalent attitude holders wrote about the attitude topic at hand. In doing so, they were either forced to commit to one side of the attitude object by writing a one-sided essay or could stay uncommitted (Van Harreveld, Rutjens, Rotteveel, Nordgren, & van der Pligt, 2009). These groups, as well as a univalent control group, were compared in terms of their physiological arousal (Galvanic Skin Response).…”

“…This is a particularly interesting finding, as it further supports the notion discussed earlier that ambivalence is inherently tied to the anticipation of regret about potentially making the wrong decision (cf. Van Harreveld, Rutjens, et al, 2009). Need for Cognition (NFC: the extent to which individuals are inclined toward effortful cognitive activities, cf.…”

Health in exchange for privacy : the adoption of personalised nutrition advices

“…Continuing this line of reasoning, it may also be that people actively suppress risk-or benefit-related relations to prevent conflicting thoughts that lead to discomfort in the form of attitudinal ambivalence (van Harreveld, Rutjens, Rotteveel, Nordgren, & van der Pligt, 2009;van Harreveld, van der Pligt, & de Liver, 2009) or cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1962). These explanations are supported by the counterintuitive finding that highly autonomous individuals with low levels of controlled motivation have lower perceptions of privacy risk when the required personal information becomes more intrusive.…”