Brandner, C.

Butera, F.

Cavazza, N.

Pillaud, V.

Serveur académique lausannois

Vincent Pillaud1, Nicoletta Cavazza2, !Catherine Brandner1 & Fabrizio Butera1!1 University of Lausanne, Switzerland!2 University of Modena-Reggio Emilia, Italy !           Contact: vincent.pillaud@unil.ch!The strategic use of attitudinal ambivalence !in self-presentation!The strategic use of attitudinal ambivalence!Attitudinal ambivalence occurs when people hold both positive and negative evaluations simultaneously on the same topic. Although a great deal of research has described it as a weakness (e.g. Petty & Krosnick, 1995), recent research by Cavazza & Butera (2008) has shown that attitudinal ambivalence may be used to adapt in social influence situations. Indeed, these authors showed that attitudinal ambivalence allows to show agreement with a relevant source of influence at a manifest level, without truly changing one's opinions. Such results led us to the hypothesis that (a) individuals can exert some control over the expression of attitudinal ambivalence and that (b) this control is exerted in order to achieve social desirability."Felt Ambivalence, (Priester & Petty, 1996): !With regard to genetically modified food (GMF): "- I feel conflicted "- I feel undecided "-  I have no hesitation (reversed)  ! 3!2!1!Study 1"Participants!523 participants (343 females and 180 males) with a mean age of 23.76 years (SD = 4.85) from the University of Lausanne. We have used Limesurvey v1.72 to collect the data. The self-presentation conditions were set as a within-participants variable. We collected both adjectives and emotions for the measure of potential ambivalence. "Results!For Felt ambivalence : F (1, 371) = 9.84, p = .002"For Potential ambivalence (adjectives) : F (1, 150) = 18.28, p < .001"For Potential ambivalence (emotions) : F (1, 150) = 15.62, p < .001"Self-presentation Paradigm (Jellison & Green, 1981):!   	       Standard measure"         Self-enhancement : answer in order to be positively evaluated "         Self-depreciation : answer in order to be negatively evaluated!Potential Ambivalence (Bell, Esses & Maio, 1996): "-  First, list the adjectives / emotions (out of 10) that come to your mind when you think of GMF."-   Then, assign a valence from -3 (extremely negative) to +3 (extremely positive) to each listed adjective / emotion."Score of attitudinal ambivalence = P + N – 2 | P – N | + 30"(P = the absolute value of the positive dimension score, N = the absolute value of the negative dimension score; see Bell et al., 1996)."Both scores of ambivalence have been normalized for the two studies.  "Measures, paradigm and hypotheses!Operational hypotheses!The hypotheses were tested through the following planned contrast: "1 (Standard) 1(Self-enhancement) -2 (Self-depreciation)."(a) If participants display different ambivalence scores under Self-enhancement and Self-depreciation, then they  can exert some control over the expression of attitudinal ambivalence. "(b)  If participants display  under Self-enhancement and Standard equally higher scores than under Self-depreciation, then it may be inferred that control is exerted in order to achieve social desirability."Study 2 "Participants!106 participants (79 females and 22 males, 5 did not report it) with a mean age of  21.77 years (SD = 5.60) from the University of Lausanne. The self-presentation conditions were set as a between-participants variable. We collected both adjectives and emotions for the measure of potential ambivalence. "Results!For Felt ambivalence : F (1, 44) = 4.89, p = .032"For Potential ambivalence (adjectives) : F (1, 27) = 17.69, p = .001"For Potential ambivalence (emotions) : F (1, 32) = 7.47, p = .01"Discussion!Both studies showed that answers in the self-enhancement condition significantly differed from those provided in the self-depreciation condition, suggesting that indeed participants were able to strategically control the expression of attitudinal ambivalence, but did not differ from those provided in the standard condition. The latter suggests that indeed ambivalence is expressed by default with a self-enhancement purpose (social desirability). "These results contribute to the contention that attitudinal ambivalence may serve an adaptive function, as individuals appear to be able to strategically control the expression of ambivalence with a view to achieving social desirability.!References!Bell, D. W., Esses, V. M., & Maio, G. R. (1996). The utility of open-ended measures to assess intergroup ambivalence. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 28, 12–18."Cavazza, N., & Butera, F. (2008). Bending without breaking: Examining the role of attitudinal ambivalence in resisting persuasive communication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 1-15.  "Jellison, J. M., & Green, J. (1981). A self-presentation approach to the fundamental attribution error: The norm of internality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 643 - 649. !Petty, R. E., & Krosnick, J. A.  (Eds.).  (1995).  Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences.  Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum."Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: Relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 431–449."0.4"0.42"0.44"0.46"0.48"0.5"Standard condition" Self-enhancement condition"Self-depreciation condition"Self-presentation conditions"!      Figure 1. Ambivalence score as a function of self-presentation conditions. !The depicted example refers to the felt ambivalence score, but the three scores follow the same pattern.!!      Figure 2. Ambivalence score as a function of self-presentation conditions. ! The depicted example refers to the potential ambivalence score  (adjectives), but the three scores follow the same pattern.!0.22"0.24"0.26"0.28"0.3"0.32"0.34"Standard condition" Self-enhancement condition"Self-depreciation condition"Self-presentation conditions"Ambivalence score"Ambivalence score"Discussion!Both studies showed that answers in the self-enhancement condition significantly differed from those provided in the self-depreciation condition, suggesting that indeed participants were able to strategically control the expression of attitudinal ambivalence, but did not differ from those provided in the standard condition. The latter suggests that indeed ambivalence is expressed by default with a self-enhancement purpose (social desirability). "These results contribute to the contention that attitudinal ambivalence may serve an adaptive function, as individuals appear to be able to strategically control the expression of ambivalence with a view to achieving social desirability.!References!Bell, D. W., Esses, V. M., & Maio, G. R. (1996). The utility of open-ended measures to assess intergroup ambivalence. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 28, 12-18."Cavazza, N., & Butera, F. (2008). Bending without breaking: Examining the role of attitudinal ambivalence in resisting persuasive communication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 1-15.  "Jellison, J. M., & Green, J. (1981). A self-presentation approach to the fundamental attribution error: The norm of internality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 643-649. !Petty, . E., & Krosnick, J. A.  (Eds.).  (1995).  Attitude strength: Ant cedents and consequences.  Hill dale, NJ: Erlbaum."Priest , J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambival nce: Relating the positiv  nd negative bases of attitud s to subjective ambivalenc . Journal of Person lity and Social Psychology, 71, 431-449."

The strategic use of attitudinal ambivalence in self-presentation.

https://serval.unil.ch/resource/serval:BIB_60328B09F662.P001/REF.pdf

The strategic use of attitudinal ambivalence in self-presentation.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Serveur académique lausannois