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

The Devil Is in the Deliberation: Thinking Too Much Reduces Preference Consistency

In five experiments we found that deliberation reduces preference consistency. In experiments 1 and 2, participants who deliberated on their preferences were less consistent in their evaluations compared to those who did not deliberate. Experiment 3 demonstrated that this effect is due to the impediment of deliberation and not to the benefit of nondeliberation. We hypothesized that deliberation leads to the inconsistent weighting of information, especially when the information is complex. As such, we predicted and found in experiments 4 and 5 that the extent to which deliberation decreases preference consistency depends upon the complexity of the information. (c) 2008 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..

Torture in the Eyes of the Beholder

This Article draws upon recent social psychological research to demonstrate the psychological difficulty of distinguishing between torture and enhanced interrogation. We critique the accuracy of evaluations made under the current torture standard using two constructs--reliability and validity--that are employed in the social sciences to assess the quality of a construct or metric. We argue that evaluations of interrogation tactics using the current standard are both unreliable and invalid. We first argue that the torture standard is unreliable because of the marked variation in the manner in which different jurisdictions interpret and employ it. Next, we draw on recent social psychological research to demonstrate the standard\u27s invalidity. We identify the existence of two separate systematic psychological biases that impede objective application of the torture standard. First, the self-serving bias--a bias that motivates evaluators to interpret facts or rules in a way that suits their interests--leads administrators to promote narrower interpretations of torture when faced with a perceived threat to their own, as compared with other nations, security. Thus, the threshold for torture is tendentiously raised during exactly the periods of time when torture is most likely to be used. Second, our own research on the hot-cold empathy gap suggests that an assessment of an interrogation tactic\u27s severity is influenced by the momentary visceral state of the evaluator. People who are not currently experiencing a visceral state--such as pain, hunger, or fear--tend to systematically underestimate the severity of the visceral state. We argue that, because the people who evaluate interrogation tactics are unlikely to be in the visceral state induced by the tactic when making their evaluations, the hot-cold empathy gap results in systematic underestimation of the severity of tactics. Therefore, the hot-cold empathy gap leads to the application of an under inclusive conception of torture in domestic interrogation policy and international torture law

Ambivalence, discomfort, and motivated information processing

Abstract In two studies we examined the nature and consequence of ambivalent attitudes. In the Wrst study, we assessed whether holding ambivalent attitudes was aversive, and tested whether this aversion was resolved through biased information processing. To do this we manipulated participants' attributions of the discomfort associated with an ambivalent message through a pill manipulation (tense vs. relaxed). Participants who attributed their discomfort to their ambivalence reported more negative emotions and generated more one-sided thoughts than participants who attributed their discomfort to the pill. In the second study, we examined the conditions necessary for ambivalence reduction. Results suggest that people spontaneously engage in biased information processing in order to resolve their ambivalence

RocklageOpenPracticesDisclosure – Supplemental material for Persuasion, Emotion, and Language: The Intent to Persuade Transforms Language via Emotionality

<p>Supplemental material, RocklageOpenPracticesDisclosure for Persuasion, Emotion, and Language: The Intent to Persuade Transforms Language via Emotionality by Matthew D. Rocklage, Derek D. Rucker, and Loran F. Nordgren in Psychological Science</p

RocklageSupplementalMaterial – Supplemental material for Persuasion, Emotion, and Language: The Intent to Persuade Transforms Language via Emotionality

<p>Supplemental material, RocklageSupplementalMaterial for Persuasion, Emotion, and Language: The Intent to Persuade Transforms Language via Emotionality by Matthew D. Rocklage, Derek D. Rucker, and Loran F. Nordgren in Psychological Science</p