Benefits of being ambivalent: The relationship between trait ambivalence and attribution biases

Abstract

Ambivalence refers to the experience of having both positive and negative thoughts and feelings at the same time about the same object, person, or issue. Although ambivalence research has focused extensively on negative consequences, recently, scholars turned their lens to the positive effects of ambivalence, demonstrating beneficial effects on judgements and decision-making processes. So far, this work has focused on state ambivalence, which is ambivalence as a direct response to a specific stimulus. However, there are substantial individual differences in ambivalence: Some people are just more ambivalent than others. Taking a first step in understanding how these individual differences relate to judgement and decision-making, we examine the relationship between trait ambivalence and cognitive bias in social judgements tasks. Specifically, we look at two of the most pervasive and consequential attribution biases in person perception: correspondence bias and self-serving bias. We find a negative relationship between trait ambivalence and correspondence bias. The higher individuals are in trait ambivalence, the smaller their bias towards attributing behaviour to a person's disposition (Study 1A and B). We find the same for self-serving bias (Study 2A and B). In sum, we show that trait ambivalence is negatively related to cognitive bias in person perception. In everyday life, people often encounter situations in which they have mixed feelings (Trampe et al., 2015). For instance, people can love a pecan pie for its great taste, while disliking it at the same time because of its high-calorie content. This experience, having both positive and negative thoughts and feelings at the same time, is called ambivalence

Cross‐valence inhibition in forming and retrieving ambivalent attitudes

“…Starting with a score of 100 points, participants were presented twice with the full set of stimuli (in random order) and asked whether they would like to trade with the face or not. Responses were collected following common mouse-tracking procedures (e.g., Schneider et al, 2021), which allowed us to collect process data unrelated to the goals of the present paper. A feedback screen revealed the outcome along with participants' response (trade or not trade) and-after a trade decision-the updated score.…”

Emotional Intelligence Predicts Accuracy of Perceived Emotional Intent in Email Communication

“…Participants should also be asked whether they felt they identified with one person or the other to eliminate the selfserving biases (Sedikides et al, 1998) they would likely engage in if placing themselves in the scenario. Measuring ambivalence, too, would allow us to control for possible correspondence bias of ignoring situational factors (Schneider et al, 2020).…”

Can the Cognitive Processes of Reading Student Evaluations Influence Their Utility?

“…A recent article by Schneider et al 12 makes an interesting argument that suggests the answer to this question is likely "no". Treating conflicting feedback from student evaluations with ambivalence may be both appropriate and positive.…”

“…These lower bias observations have also been studied when considering ambivalence and decision making. 14,15 Thus, while the experimental studies 12 have not considered the reading of student evaluations as a trait, the general picture emerging from the literature seem positive.…”

“…To the extent that finding actionable feedback among the contradictory statements on student evaluations is helpful to the instructor, it may be that the ambivalence supporting strategies for reading can produce a less biased, more actionable model for the idea. These lower bias observations have also been studied when considering ambivalence and decision making. , Thus, while the experimental studies have not considered the reading of student evaluations as a trait, the general picture emerging from the literature seem positive.…”