Feeling Torn When Everything Seems Right

Gebauer, Jochen E.; Maio, Gregory R.; Pakizeh, Ali

doi:10.1177/0146167213481679

Cited by 16 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 64 publications

(136 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First of all, the original grouping of the categories of cognitions belonging to the frame-of-reference in our view is limited, because it seems to reduce cognitions to thoughts only. Though often omitted from cognitive models, feelings are known to play a determining role in framing [60,61,62,63,64,65]. Because feelings are intertwined with linguistic thought (feelings can emerge after entertaining a particular thought, and similarly, we sometimes conceptualise or rationalise earlier felt emotions, states, or physical sensations), they could be argued to already be in the model, being two sides of the same coin.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Framing of Animal Farming and Meat Consumption: On the Diversity of Topics Used and Qualitative Patterns in Selected Demographic Contexts

Nijland

Aarts

Woerkum

2018

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simple SummaryIn various contexts, people talk about the farming and consumption of animals using different arguments to construct and justify their (non-)acceptability. This paper reports on a qualitative research among consumers with different backgrounds in urban and rural areas in The Netherlands and Turkey. We present an elaborate methodology for qualitatively researching everyday-life talk about animal farming and meat consumption. We explain how we collected and organised topics people refer to, and looked at the possible relation of complete argumentations with the researched contexts. The resulting long list of topics includes animal welfare arguments, but shows that in everyday-life many others are used, such as health, taste, money, religion, and environmental impact. Our research indicates several ties between mentioned topics and the researched contexts—the most noticeable pattern being the difference between respondents in cities and rural areas. However, in contrast to what literature suggests, single contextual features, like country or gender, offered relatively little insight into the differences that showed up in the complete argumentations. This, we argue, does not imply that context does not matter, but rather that so many cultural and personal contextual aspects play a role that singular contextual features cannot sufficiently explain framing.AbstractIn various contexts, people talk about animal farming and meat consumption using different arguments to construct and justify their (non-)acceptability. This article presents the results of an in-depth qualitative inquiry into the content of and contextual patterns in the everyday-life framing regarding this issue, performed among consumers in various settings in two extremes in the European sphere: the Netherlands and Turkey. We describe the methodological steps of collecting, coding, and organizing the variety of encountered framing topics, as well as our search for symbolic convergence in groups of consumers from different selected demographic contexts (country, urban-rural areas, gender, age, and education level). The framing of animal farming and meat consumption in everyday-life is not a simple one-issue rational display of facts; people referred to a vast range of topics in the categories knowledge, convictions, pronounced behaviour, values, norms, interests, and feelings. Looking at framing in relation to the researched demographic contexts, most patterns were found on the level of topics; symbolic convergence in lines of reasoning and composite framing was less prominent in groups based on single demographic contexts than anticipated. An explanation for this lies in the complexity of frame construction, happening in relation with multiple interdependent contextual features.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Framing of Animal Farming and Meat Consumption: On the Diversity of Topics Used and Qualitative Patterns in Selected Demographic Contexts

Nijland

Aarts

Woerkum

2018

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Objective ambivalence is a prerequisite for subjective ambivalence (for exceptions, see Gebauer et al, 2013). In order to experience ambivalence, people need to hold both positive and negative evaluations about the same object of thought.…”

Section: Ambivalencementioning

confidence: 99%

Ambivalence and Self-Reported Adherence to Recommendations to Reduce the Spread of COVID-19

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Governments worldwide still, to some extent, rely on behavioral recommendations to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We examine the role of ambivalence toward both the specific recommendations (micro-ambivalence) and the pandemic as a whole (macro-ambivalence) about compliance. We predict that micro ambivalence relates negatively, whereas macro ambivalence relates positively to self-reported adherence to recommendations. We present two studies ( N = 691) supporting our hypotheses: the more ambivalent people are toward the behavioral recommendations (micro-level), the less they report following them. Conversely, the more ambivalent people are about the pandemic as a whole (macro-level), the more they report following recommendations. Our findings were replicated in a US sample and a representative German sample.

show abstract

“…1. Other research has examined additional antecedents of SA beyond OA, including perceived disagreement with close others (Priester & Petty, 2001), anticipated conflicting reactions (Priester, Petty, & Park, 2007), semantically incongruent (even if evaluatively congruent) responses (Gebauer, Maio, & Pakizeh, 2013), and desiring different evaluations (DeMarree et al, 2014). 2.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing Subjective Ambivalence by Creating Doubt

DeMarree

Briñol

Petty

2015

Social Psychological and Personality Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ambivalence, the presence of positive and negative reactions toward an object, typically involves the subjective experience of conflict. We investigate the role that the perceived validity of each side of an ambivalent attitude plays in producing subjective ambivalence (SA). Consistent with the metacognitive model of attitudes, we demonstrated that SA is reduced when people doubt either the positive or the negative reactions. Thus, inducing doubt (in one side) can reduce SA. We further explored whether viewing both sides as invalid would lead to relatively low or to relatively high levels of SA. Consistent with the idea that equivalent perceived validity increases the difficulty of ambivalence reduction, when both sides were doubted, conflict was as high as when both sides were validated.

show abstract

Feeling Torn When Everything Seems Right

Cited by 16 publications

References 64 publications

Exploring the Framing of Animal Farming and Meat Consumption: On the Diversity of Topics Used and Qualitative Patterns in Selected Demographic Contexts

Exploring the Framing of Animal Farming and Meat Consumption: On the Diversity of Topics Used and Qualitative Patterns in Selected Demographic Contexts

Ambivalence and Self-Reported Adherence to Recommendations to Reduce the Spread of COVID-19

Reducing Subjective Ambivalence by Creating Doubt

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About