Solving ambivalence in context: The experience and resolution of attitudinal ambivalence

The present dissertation seeks to further understanding of how individuals are affected by and subsequently deal with attitudinal ambivalence. By combining physiological (fMRI, facial EMG), self-report, and behavioral methods in as well as outside of the lab, further light was shed on (1) the circumstances under which ambivalence elicits negative affect, (2) (neural) processes underlying the resolution of ambivalence in choice situations, and (3) delaying a choice as a way of coping with having to make a choice about an ambivalent topic. Taken together, results of this dissertation suggests that how individuals are affected by and deal with ambivalence is context-dependent. By allowing individuals to weigh some evaluative aspect over others, contextual information determines which neural networks are engaged during the processing of ambivalent information and it shapes affective responses to ambivalence. Additionally, results suggest that delaying a choice is commonly used in order to deal with an ambivalent choice, however, it may not necessarily be beneficial for ambivalent decision-makers

Chapter Five – The ABC of Ambivalence: Affective, Behavioral, and Cognitive Consequences of Attitudinal Conflict

In a world where individuals are continuously exposed to information, the experience of ambivalence has become an intricate part of human existence. Recently, the consequences of ambivalence have been the subject of considerable research attention. In this chapter, we provide an overview of this research and present the ABC (Affect, Behavior, Cognition) model of ambivalence that integrates recent insights into the affective, behavioral, and cognitive consequences of ambivalence. This research shows when and why ambivalence leads to negative affect and that this affective response is the fuel that drives subsequent effects of ambivalence on cognition and behavior. Moreover, the reviewed findings reveal that the effects on cognition and behavior serve the purpose of either resolving ambivalence or mitigating the negative affective response. With the ABC model of ambivalence, we aim to identify the distinctive features of ambivalence in terms of what we feel, think, and do

Social evaluations under conflict: negative judgments of conflicting information are easier than positive judgments

In the current study, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging to investigate how the brain facilitates social judgments despite evaluatively conflicting information. Participants learned consistent (positive or negative) and ambivalent (positive and negative) person information and were then asked to provide binary judgments of these targets in situations that either resolved conflict by prioritizing a subset of information or not. Self-report, decision time and brain data confirm that integrating contextual information into our evaluations of objects or people allows for nuanced (social) evaluations. The same mixed trait information elicited or failed to elicit evaluative conflict dependent on the situation. Crucially, we provide data suggesting that negative judgments are easier and may be considered the ‘default’ action when experiencing evaluative conflict: weaker activation in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex during trials of evaluative conflict was related to a greater likelihood of unfavorable judgments, and greater activation was related to more favorable judgments. Since negative outcome consequences are arguably more detrimental and salient, this finding supports the idea that additional regulation and a more active selection process are necessary to override an initial negative response to evaluatively conflicting information

For scent-imental reasons: Het koppelen van geuren aan specifiek gedrag

Item does not contain fulltex

Affective responses to ambivalence are context-dependent: A facial EMG study on the role of inconsistency and evaluative context in shaping affective responses to ambivalence

It has long been debated whether attitudinal ambivalence elicits negative affect and evidence for such a link is inconclusive. Using facial EMG, we tested the idea that affective responses to ambivalence are dependent on the inconsistency of evaluations in the current situation. In a person perception task, participants were presented with positive (e.g., friendly, intelligent), negative (e.g., jealous, dominant), or positive and negative information (e.g., intelligent, dominant) about different target persons. When participants were only exposed to the information without having to respond, ambivalent information elicited the same affective response as positive stimuli, participants showed more zygomaticus (positive affect) and less corrugator activation (negative affect) than to negative stimuli (task 1). When participants had to make a choice, ambivalent information elicited the same affective response as negative information (task 2). This was qualified by the possibility to resolve the inconsistency between evaluations. Specifically, ambivalence only led to a relative decrease in positive affect when evaluative context did not help resolve the inconsistency between ambivalent evaluations and created a choice conflict (e.g., “Bob is intelligent and dominant. Do you think Bob is a good collaborator?”). When the same ambivalent information (e.g. “Bob is intelligent and dominant”) was presented in a context in which the opposing evaluations were not inconsistent (e.g., “Do you think Bob can write a good research paper?”), participants reported to experience lower levels of conflict and displayed more positive affect (i.e., more zygomaticus activation). The current data contribute to the reconciliation of previously inconclusive results on affective responses to attitudinal ambivalence. The results suggest that ambivalence only leads to relatively more negative affect (i.e., a decrease in positive affect) when ambivalent information is inconsistent in a current situation and thus creates conflict. Implications of these findings are discussed

In doubt and disorderly: Ambivalence promotes compensatory perceptions of order

Ambivalence is a presumably unpleasant experience, and coming to terms with it is an intricate part of human existence. It is argued that ambivalent attitude holders cope with their ambivalence through compensatory perceptions of order. We first show that ambivalence leads to an increase in (visual) perceptions of order (Study 1). In Study 2 we conceptually replicate this finding by showing that ambivalence also increases belief in conspiracy theories, a cognitive form of order perception. Furthermore, this effect is mediated by the negative emotions that are elicited by ambivalence. In Study 3 we show that increased need for order is driving these effects: Affirmations of order cancel out the effect of ambivalence on perceptions of order. Theoretical as well as societal implications are discussed