Network Structure Explains the Impact of Attitudes on Voting Decisions

Attitudes can have a profound impact on socially relevant behaviours, such as voting. However, this effect is not uniform across situations or individuals, and it is at present difficult to predict whether attitudes will predict behaviour in any given circumstance. Using a network model, we demonstrate that (a) more strongly connected attitude networks have a stronger impact on behaviour, and (b) within any given attitude network, the most central attitude elements have the strongest impact. We test these hypotheses using data on voting and attitudes toward presidential candidates in the US presidential elections from 1980 to 2012. These analyses confirm that the predictive value of attitude networks depends almost entirely on their level of connectivity, with more central attitude elements having stronger impact. The impact of attitudes on voting behaviour can thus be reliably determined before elections take place by using network analyses.Comment: Final version published in Scientific Report

Ambivalence and decisional conflict as a cause of psychological discomfort: feeling tense before jumping off the fence

"It has long been assumed that people experience evaluative conflict or ambivalence as unpleasant. In three studies we provide direct evidence for the assumption that ambivalence is unpleasant, but only when one has to commit to one side of the issue. In those situations ambivalence will be related to outcome uncertainty and feelings of discomfort. We examined this prediction using both self-reports and physiological measures. In a first study we manipulated ambivalence and whether or not participants had to take a clear stand vis-a vis the attitudinal issue and choose a position for or against it. Results indicate ambivalence was only related to physiological arousal when a choice had to be made. Feeling ambivalent about an issue without the necessity to choose did not result in higher levels of arousal. A second study replicated and extended these findings by including a measure of subjective uncertainty about the decision. Results showed the same pattern as in Study 1, and indicate that the relation between ambivalence and arousal is mediated by uncertainty about decisional outcomes. In the third and final study these findings are corroborated using self-report measures; these indicated that ambivalence-induced discomfort is related to specific (negative) emotions." [author's abstract

Ambivalence and interpersonal liking: The expression of ambivalence as social validation of attitudinal conflict

Literature on attitude similarity suggests that sharing similar attitudes enhances interpersonal liking, but it remains unanswered whether this effect also holds for ambivalent attitudes. In the present research, we shed light on the role attitudinal ambivalence plays in interpersonal liking. Specifically, we examine whether people express ambivalence strategically to generate a positive or negative social image, and whether this is dependent on the attitudinal ambivalence of their perceiver. We test two alternative hypotheses. In line with the attitude-similarity effect, people should express ambivalence toward ambivalent others to enhance interpersonal liking, as sharing ambivalence might socially validate the latter’s experience of attitudinal conflict. On the other hand, people might express more univalence, as ambivalence may drive ambivalent others toward the resolution of their attitudinal conflict, and univalent stances could help to achieve that goal. In two studies (N = 449, 149), people expressed similar attitudes to those of their perceivers, even when the latter experienced attitudinal conflict (Studies 1 and 2). Moreover, they composed an essay, the message of which validated their perceiver’s attitudinal conflict (Study 2). In line with these results, we further observe that the more people experienced their ambivalence as conflicting, the more they liked others who similarly experienced attitudinal conflict (Study 1). These findings suggest that the expression of ambivalence can have important interpersonal functions, as it might lead to an enhanced social image when interacting with those coping with attitudinal conflict

Deus or Darwin: Randomness and belief in theories about the origin of life

International audienceA simple reminder of the fact that we do not always control life's outcomes reduced people's belief in Darwin's Theory of Evolution. This control-threat resulted in a relative preference for theories of life that thwart randomness, either by stressing the role of a controlling God (Intelligent Design) or by presenting the Theory of Evolution in terms of predictable and orderly processes. Moreover, increased preference for Intelligent Design over evolutionary theory disappeared when the latter was framed in terms of an orderly process with inevitable outcomes. Thus, psychological threat enhances belief in God, but only in the absence of other options that help to create order in the world

Attitudes Towards Science

As science continues to progress, attitudes towards science seem to become ever more polarized. Whereas some put their faith in science, others routinely reject and dismiss scientific evidence. The current chapter provides an integration of recent research on how people evaluate science. We organize our chapter along three research topics that are most relevant to this goal: ideology, motivation, and morality. We review the relations of political and religious ideologies to science attitudes, discuss the psychological functions and motivational underpinnings of belief in science, and describe work looking at the role of morality when evaluating science and scientists. In the final part of the chapter, we apply what we know about science evaluations to the current crisis of faith in science and the open science movement. Here, we also take into account the increased accessibility and popularization of science and the (perceived) relations between science and industry

Cognitive-Affective Inconsistency and Ambivalence: Impact on the Overall Attitude–Behavior Relationship

This research explored whether overall attitude is a stronger predictor of behavior when underlying cognitive-affective inconsistency or ambivalence is low versus high. Across three prospective studies in different behaviors and populations (Study 1: eating a low-fat diet, N = 136 adults, eating five fruit and vegetables per day, N = 135 adults; Study 2: smoking initiation, N = 4,933 adolescents; and Study 3: physical activity, N = 909 adults) we tested cognitive-affective inconsistency and ambivalence individually and simultaneously as moderators of the overall attitude–behavior relationship. Across studies, more similar effects were observed for inconsistency compared with ambivalence (in both individual and simultaneous analyses). Meta-analysis across studies supported this conclusion with both cognitive-affective inconsistency and ambivalence being significant moderators when considered on their own, but only inconsistency being significant when tested simultaneously. The reported studies highlight the importance of cognitive-affective inconsistency as a determinant of the strength of overall attitude

A multidisciplinary perspective on COVID-19 exit strategies

Lockdowns and associated measures imposed in response to the COVID-19 crisis inflict severe damage to society. Across the globe, scientists and policymakers study ways to lift measures while maintaining control of virus spread in circumstances that continuously change due to the evolution of new variants and increasing vaccination coverage. In this process, it has become clear that finding and analysing exit strategies, which are a key aspect of pandemic mitigation in all consecutive waves of infection, is not solely a matter of epidemiological modeling but has many different dimensions that need to be balanced and therefore requires input from many different disciplines. Here, we document an attempt to investigate exit strategies from a multidisciplinary perspective through the Science versus Corona project in the Netherlands. In this project, scientists and laypeople were challenged to submit (components of) exit strategies. A selection of these were implemented in a formal model, and we have evaluated the scenarios from a multidisciplinary perspective, utilizing expertise in epidemiology, economics, psychology, law, mathematics, and history. We argue for the integration of multidisciplinary perspectives on COVID-19 and more generally in pandemic mitigation, highlight open challenges, and present an agenda for further research into exit strategies and their assessmen

A 27-country test of communicating the scientific consensus on climate change.

peer reviewedCommunicating the scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is real increases climate change beliefs, worry and support for public action in the United States. In this preregistered experiment, we tested two scientific consensus messages, a classic message on the reality of human-caused climate change and an updated message additionally emphasizing scientific agreement that climate change is a crisis. Across online convenience samples from 27 countries (n = 10,527), the classic message substantially reduces misperceptions (d = 0.47, 95% CI (0.41, 0.52)) and slightly increases climate change beliefs (from d = 0.06, 95% CI (0.01, 0.11) to d = 0.10, 95% CI (0.04, 0.15)) and worry (d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.01, 0.10)) but not support for public action directly. The updated message is equally effective but provides no added value. Both messages are more effective for audiences with lower message familiarity and higher misperceptions, including those with lower trust in climate scientists and right-leaning ideologies. Overall, scientific consensus messaging is an effective, non-polarizing tool for changing misperceptions, beliefs and worry across different audiences