Self-Ambivalence and Resistance to Subtle Self-Change Attempts

Abstract

Recent research has demonstrated the malleability of self-views to subtle situational influence but has not uncovered features of the self-concept representation that make it susceptible to such change. Using research on attitude ambivalence as a foundation, the current article predicted that the self would be most likely to respond to a subtle change induction when the targeted self-beliefs were objectively ambivalent (e.g., possessed both positive and negative features). Using self-esteem conditioning (Experiment 1) and outgroup stereotype priming (Experiment 2), it was found that people were more susceptible to subtle change inductions as objective self-ambivalence increased. Notably, the consistency between dominant self-views (positive or negative) and the change induction did not influence these results. These effects held for objective ambivalence, but not subjective ambivalence, and only when the objective ambivalence measure was relevant to the change induction. Mechanisms of the observed moderation and the implications of self-ambivalence for understanding self-change are discussed.

Rising above It: Status Ambivalence in Older Adults

“…This is consistent with our status ambivalence hypothesis. It is also in line with previous work on age-related stereotypes which has shown that age-related stereotypes can be domain-specific, for example people may perceive negative age-related stereotypes in relation to health but positive stereotypes in relation to family [38] and with previous work on ambivalence in which individuals can hold simultaneously positive and negative beliefs about themselves or others [37]. Thus, social status is a multifaceted construct and it seems important to consider alternative social status dimensions.…”

“…For example, someone may believe that their friend is a good friend but a bad romantic partner. The concept of ambivalence has also been applied to self-perception such that individuals can simultaneously hold positive and negative representations of themselves [37]. As far as we are aware this has not been examined previously in relation to self-perceptions about social status.…”

Wanting other attitudes: Actual–desired attitude discrepancies predict feelings of ambivalence and ambivalence consequences

“…Attitudes that are low in ambivalence tend to exhibit strength consequences more than attitudes that are high in ambivalence (Conner & Armitage, 2008). For example, as already noted, ambivalent attitudes are less predictive of behavior (e.g., Conner et al, 2002;Lavine, 2001) and more susceptible to change (e.g., Armitage & Conner, 2000;Bell & Esses, 2002;DeMarree et al, 2011). A new question raised by the current research concerns the extent to which actual-desired attitude discrepancies are associated with strength consequences.…”

“…Ambivalence is a central construct in the literature on attitudes, and it has been the focus of a recent resurgence in research interest (e.g., Cavazza & Butera, 2008;Clark et al, 2008;Clarkson, Tormala, & Rucker, 2008;Cowley & Czellar, 2012;DeMarree, Morrison, Wheeler, & Petty, 2011;Hormes & Rozin, 2011;Petty, Tormala, Briñol, & Jarvis, 2006;Priester et al, 2007;Sawicki et al, 2013;Schneider et al, 2013;van Harreveld, Rutjens, et al, 2009;Ziegler, Schlett, Casel, & Diehl, 2012). Although the subjective experience of conflict is important because it often drives ambivalence outcomes (e.g., attitudebehavior correspondence, information seeking), there is a current gap in our understanding of the factors that contribute to this sense of conflict.…”

“…However, in Studies 5 and 6, we found significant indirect effects of objective ambivalence through subjective ambivalence on ambivalence-related outcomes. We should note that not all effects of ambivalence are likely to be driven by the subjective experience of ambivalence, such as when a subtle situational induction might capitalize on a structural inconsistency (e.g., DeMarree et al, 2011). But, for many effects of ambivalence, and in particular those that involve more thoughtful processes, subjective ambivalence is likely to be a proximal causal variable.…”