Attitudinal Ambivalence as a Protective Factor Against Junk Food Advertisements: A Moderated Mediation Model of Behavioral Intention

Abstract

This study investigates the role of attitudinal ambivalence in moderating the effects of junk food advertisements on behavioral intentions by tapping different facets of this construct-felt ambivalence, potential ambivalence, and affective-cognitive ambivalence. Results based on an online survey of college students indicate that attention to junk food advertisements has an indirect positive effect on intentions to eat junk food through its positive effect on attitudes toward junk food. A moderated mediation model reveals that this indirect effect of junk food advertisements is weakened as respondents' levels of felt ambivalence increase. This moderating role is not observed for the measures of potential ambivalence and affective-cognitive ambivalence. Implications are discussed for health interventions.

The Impact of Coworkers’ Safety Violations on an Individual Worker: A Social Contagion Effect within the Construction Crew

“…Positive and negative attitudes toward safety compliance were assessed separately. The four items include “Following safety procedures makes working more difficult,” “Wearing personal protective equipment bothers my daily work,” “Wearing personal protective equipment helps me avoid possible damage,” and “Following safety procedures makes me feel safe.” Finally, a global ambivalence score was calculated using the formula suggested by Ran and Yamamoto (2015) [ 64 ]. Specifically, the average of the positive and negative attitude scores was determined, and then the absolute difference between the two components was subtracted from the average (as shown in Equation (1)).…”

“…According to social information processing theory, the social environment (e.g., behaviors and attitudes of others) can provide such conflicting information about the safety-production relationship, which could facilitate individuals’ attitudinal ambivalence. Individuals with high attitudinal ambivalence are receptive to opposing views of organizational safety procedures, and are more likely to violate safety rules because they have not yet established firm beliefs regarding safety behaviors [ 64 ].…”

The Impact of Supervisor–worker Relationship on Workers’ Safety Violations: A Modified Theory of Planned Behaviour

“…By contrast, two reverse items are also used including "Following safety procedures makes working more difficult", and "Wearing personal protective equipment bothers my daily work". Finally, an integrated ambivalence score was calculated using the formula suggested by Ran and Yamamoto (2015), the absolute difference between two components was subtracted from the…”

The impact of attitudinal ambivalence on information processing and resistance to anti-smoking persuasion

“…It is presumably undesirable because it is viewed as a violation of fundamental consistency motives (Van Harreveld et al, 2014). Ambivalence is also characterized by the co-existence of both positive and negative evaluations of an attitude object that may trigger an uncomfortable emotional state in a decision-making situation (Ran and Yamamoto, 2015;Bui et al, 2014;Huang et al, 2012;Conner et al, 2002). In the anti-smoking persuasion context, attitudes become ambivalent when individuals simultaneously evaluate the anti-smoking message positively and negatively (Clarkson et al, 2009;Zemborain and Johar, 2007).…”

“…Indeed, previous research indicates that individuals tend to process persuasive message analytically when they experience a high attitudinal ambivalence. Indeed, several researchers (Van Harreveld et al, 2015;Ran and Yamamoto, 2015;Barden and Tormala, 2014;Heuvinck et al, 2011) show that exposure to inconsistencies triggers ambivalence and decreases an individual's confidence toward their attitudes, which may lead to a higher level of cognitive elaboration and to processing the message analytically. In this respect, they doubt their opinions and visions; thus, they perceive them as incorrect and tend to seek relevant information (Soane et al, 2015) to process it analytically and to pay careful attention to information that might help them resolve their ambivalence to ensure their positions (DeMarree et al, 2014;Brinol et al, 2007).…”