Cognitive structure of neutral attitudes

Edwards, John D.; Ostrom, Thomas M.

doi:10.1016/0022-1031(71)90053-9

Cited by 24 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the context of impression formation, ambivalent versus indifferent targets are reminiscent of the concept of stimulus heterogeneity versus homogeneity. Targets described with a number of very positive and very negative adjectives (i.e., evaluatively heterogeneous) tend to elicit a similar affective response as targets described with a number of neutral adjectives (i.e., evaluatively homogeneous), although people are more certain about their reaction to the latter (Edwards & Ostrom, 1971;Singh & Byrne, 1971). Note, however, that heterogeneity refers to multiple adjectives or attitude objects, whereas ambivalence refers to a single attitude object.…”

Section: Interpersonal Liking From Bivariate Attitude Similarity?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpersonal Liking From Bivariate Attitude Similarity

Ullrich

Krueger

2010

Social Psychological and Personality Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There exists robust evidence for attitude similarity as a major cause of interpersonal liking, but previous research has ignored the case of similarity in attitudinal ambivalence or indifference. Whereas extensions of Heider's balance theory predict that people are indifferent toward other's ambivalence versus indifference, Byrne's reinforcement theory of attraction predicts that people prefer interaction partners that match their own degree of ambivalence and indifference. Furthermore, Shafir's principle of compatibility predicts preferences for ambivalent over indifferent partners in a choosing mode and the reverse in a rejecting mode. In a withinparticipants experiment (N ¼ 42), the authors found that regardless of decision mode, (a) ambivalent individuals preferred ambivalent partners over indifferent ones and (b) indifferent individuals preferred indifferent partners over ambivalent ones, thus supporting reinforcement theory. The experiment provides the first evidence of interpersonal sensitivity to gradations of neutral attitudes.

show abstract

Section: Interpersonal Liking From Bivariate Attitude Similarity?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpersonal Liking From Bivariate Attitude Similarity

Ullrich

Krueger

2010

Social Psychological and Personality Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alternatively, it may mean that some 'A people' are likely to be 'B people' while others are not likely to be 'B people'. Only the latter type of inference can be called ambiguous, while Edwards and Ostrom (1971) have referred to the former type as neutral.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Three weighting criteria in impression formation

Warr

Jackson

1976

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When the same sensation ceases to be pleasant and becomes unpleasant, there is very likely a transitory episode during which it is indolent. One should, in any event, not conflate the idea that complexes of sensations might, on the whole, be neither pleasant nor unpleasant (in virtue of their component pleasures/unpleasures equilibrating each other), with the idea that simple mental episodes might be neither pleasant nor unpleasant (Stout 1902;11 Edwards and Ostrom 1971). It is this second idea that is at stake here: I have argued that simple mental episodes can be neither pleasant not unpleasant.…”

Section: Do Indolences Exist?mentioning

confidence: 93%

Pleasure and Its Contraries

Massin

2014

Rev.Phil.Psych.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is the contrary of pleasure? "Pain" is one common answer. This paper argues that pleasure instead has two natural contraries: unpleasure and hedonic indifference. This view is defended by drawing attention to two often-neglected concepts: the formal relation of polar opposition and the psychological state of hedonic indifference. The existence of mixed feelings, it is argued, does not threaten the contrariety of pleasure and unpleasure.What is the contrary of pleasure? "Pain" is one common answer. This paper argues that pleasure instead has two contraries: unpleasure and hedonic indifference. This view is defended by drawing attention to two often-neglected concepts: the formal relation of polar opposition and the psychological state of hedonic indifference, here called "indolence". Section 1 introduces the concepts of pleasure, pleasantness, contrariety, and contradiction, and argues that the contradictories of pleasures do not constitute a natural kind. Section 2 introduces the concept of polar opposition and argues that the real polar opposite of pleasure is unpleasure. Section 3 maintains that indolence is the neutral opposite of pleasure and argues (i) that indolences do exist, (ii) that they are sui generis episodes, and (iii) that they do not necessarily stand directly in the middle of the pleasure/unpleasure continuum. Section 4 addresses an objection to the project of identifying the contraries of pleasure, to the effect that mixed feelings entail that pleasure and unpleasure are independent orthogonal dimensions of experience.

show abstract

Cognitive structure of neutral attitudes

Cited by 24 publications

References 7 publications

Interpersonal Liking From Bivariate Attitude Similarity

Interpersonal Liking From Bivariate Attitude Similarity

Three weighting criteria in impression formation

Pleasure and Its Contraries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About