“Every coin has two sides”: The effects of dialectical thinking and attitudinal ambivalence on psychological discomfort and consumer choice

Abstract

Prior research suggests that consumers experience psychological discomfort when they make a choice under attitudinal ambivalence. The research reported here examines systematic cross‐cultural variations in psychological discomfort as a function of dialectical thinking and attitudinal ambivalence in the context of choice. It shows that compared to nondialectical (Western) consumers, dialectical (Eastern) consumers experience less psychological discomfort when they hold bivalent evaluations of the focal object, but more psychological discomfort when they hold univalent evaluations (Study 1). It also identifies “uncertainty about making the correct choice” as the underlying process that accounts for these findings (Study 2). In addition, this research explores the downstream effects of psychological discomfort on choice deferral in the context of free choice (Study 3) and preference reversal in the context of forced choice (Study 4). Contributions to and implications for research on attitudinal ambivalence, choice behavior, and dialectical thinking are discussed.

Dialectical thinking as a driver of charitable giving

“…A large body of research has examined how dialectical thinking impacts individuals' interpretations of a phenomenon and their affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses in a variety of contexts both within and across cultures, including conflict resolution (Peng & Nisbett, 1999), emotional experience (Choi & Nisbett, 2000; Hui et al, 2009; Spencer‐Rogers et al, 2010; Williams & Aaker, 2002), self‐concept (Choi & Choi, 2002; Spencer‐Rodgers et al, 2010), shopping experience (Shavitt & Barnes, 2020), and response to product information (DeMotta et al, 2016; Pang et al, 2017; Wang et al, 2016). Of particular relevance to the current research, prior studies have shown that dialectical thinking predicts greater acceptance of people being ever‐changing as well as possessing both favorable and unfavorable aspects.…”

Toward a Universal Account of Country-Induced Predispositions: Integrative Framework and Measurement of Country-of-Origin Images and Country Emotions

“…Second, research on ambivalent attitudes (Wang, Batra, and Chen 2016) reveals that when both positive and negative information about a product is accessible, attitudinal ambivalence toward that product can result. This attitudinal ambivalence in turn creates discomfort and affects consumers’ predispositions toward the ambivalent product (Pang et al 2017). Including both performance-related and emotional COO cues, our CIP model accounts for felt ambivalence and tests its potential role empirically.…”

Beyond good and bad: Challenging the suggested role of emotions in customer experience (CX) research

“…Positive and negative emotions have been viewed as two ends of a continuum, and are considered mutually exclusive (e.g., Russell, 1989 ). Researchers have recently suggested that people can experience different emotions simultaneously, but of opposite valence (e.g., Cacioppo et al, 1999 ; Penz and Hogg, 2011 ; Pang et al, 2017 ). Ramanatham and Williams (2007) demonstrate that customers experience a mixture of emotions, both positive and negative, in response to indulgent consumption.…”

“… How can ambivalence or mixed consumption emotions be resolved? Olsen et al, 2005 ; Penz, and Hogg (2011) ; Otnes et al (1997) ; Pang et al (2017) ; Ruth et al (2002) What is the relationship between time and blended emotions? How can the association between these two perspectives be quantified?…”

“… Proposition 1 : Positive and negative emotions can coexist during a CX. Namkung and Jang (2010) ; Olsen et al (2005) ; Penz, and Hogg (2011) ; Otnes et al (1997) ; Pang et al (2017) ; Ruth et al (2002) ; Maguire and Geiger (2015) ; Schmalz and Orth (2012) ; Roster, and Richens (2009) ; Ramanathan and Williams (2007) Positive emotions lead to positive consumption outcomes and negative emotions to negative outcomes. Proposition 2 : Under specific consumption situations, positive emotions do not automatically lead to positive consumption outcomes, and negative emotions may not necessarily generate negative consumption outcomes.…”