The impact of attitudinal ambivalence on weight loss decisions: Consequences and mitigating factors

Abstract

This research takes a new look at individuals' attitudes and intentions towards losing weight. Study 1 examines the relationship among those interested in losing weight and individual self‐evaluative ambivalence on attitude towards trying to achieve a weight loss goal and the intentions to achieve the weight loss goal. For Study 2, a between‐subjects experimental design, where attitudinal ambivalence and prior outcome feedback were manipulated and self‐efficacy was measured, is conducted to examine attitude towards eating healthier and intention to change eating behaviours. Findings across the two studies show that attitudinal ambivalence about the self and the individual's abilities and motivation to change the health behaviour produces a negative relationship between health‐related attitudes and intentions. We provide implications of how self‐efficacy and the provision of outcome feedback can alleviate the negative effect and improve the individuals' intentions to try to achieve a weight loss goal. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Effects of a weight management program delivered by social media on weight and metabolic syndrome risk factors in overweight and obese adults: A randomised controlled trial

“…Other factors may have influenced the outcomes of this intervention. Ambivalence towards health food choices and/or weight loss has been shown to result in poorer weight loss outcomes, such that an individual with a negative attitude towards the task or their ability to undertake it can undermine the execution of positive intentions [ 59 – 61 ]. Anecdotally provided information in this study indicated that several FG participants accessed a hard copy of the Total Wellbeing Diet , which may have meant that they had a reduced need to access the Facebook group page.…”

Portraying Humans as Machines to Promote Health: Unintended Risks, Mechanisms, and Solutions

“…Further spotlight analyses on eating self-efficacy (M ¼ 5.62, SD ¼ 1.27) illustrated that among those with high eating selfefficacy (1 SD above the mean [þ1 SD] ¼ 6.89), the effect of the human-as-machine stimulus was facilitative such that participants chose lower-calorie snacks in the human-as-machine con- We further replicated these results in two follow-up studies with a different eating self-efficacy scale to increase generalizability. Self-efficacy and behavioral control are conceptually similar and often used interchangeably (Bui, Droms, and Craciun 2014). Accordingly, we adopted a measure from the behavioral control literature and used five items of Moorman and Matulich's (1993) scale that directly assessed eating selfefficacy; sample items included "It's easy for me to reduce my sodium intake" and "It's easy to eat fresh fruits and vegetables regularly" (1 ¼ "strongly disagree," and 7 ¼ "strongly agree"; Cronbach's alpha ¼ .74).…”

“…We chose to focus on eating self-efficacy because it is one of the most frequently used constructs in health behavior theories (Glanz and Bishop 2010). Still, future research should explore the robustness of these effects using other related constructs, such as health behavioral control (Bui, Droms, and Craciun 2014), eating self-control (Dzhogleva and Lamberton 2014;Haws, Davis, and Dholakia 2016), emotional eating (Van Strien et al 1986), and overall self-regulation (Vohs and Heatherton 2000). Finally, we note that consumers' past and current fitness levels, health conditions, and whether they are on a diet affect how they perceive their eating self-efficacy.…”

The impact of attitudinal ambivalence on information processing and resistance to anti-smoking persuasion

“…It is presumably undesirable because it is viewed as a violation of fundamental consistency motives (Van Harreveld et al, 2014). Ambivalence is also characterized by the co-existence of both positive and negative evaluations of an attitude object that may trigger an uncomfortable emotional state in a decision-making situation (Ran and Yamamoto, 2015;Bui et al, 2014;Huang et al, 2012;Conner et al, 2002). In the anti-smoking persuasion context, attitudes become ambivalent when individuals simultaneously evaluate the anti-smoking message positively and negatively (Clarkson et al, 2009;Zemborain and Johar, 2007).…”