Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (2) (entfernen)
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (2) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Ambivalence (2) (entfernen)
Institut
- Fachbereich 1 (1)
- Psychologie (1)
When humans encounter attitude objects (e.g., other people, objects, or constructs), they evaluate them. Often, these evaluations are based on attitudes. Whereas most research focuses on univalent (i.e., only positive or only negative) attitude formation, little research exists on ambivalent (i.e., simultaneously positive and negative) attitude formation. Following a general introduction into ambivalence, I present three original manuscripts investigating ambivalent attitude formation. The first manuscript addresses ambivalent attitude formation from previously univalent attitudes. The results indicate that responding to a univalent attitude object incongruently leads to ambivalence measured via mouse tracking but not ambivalence measured via self-report. The second manuscript addresses whether the same number of positive and negative statements presented block-wise in an impression formation task leads to ambivalence. The third manuscript also used an impression formation task and addresses the question of whether randomly presenting the same number of positive and negative statements leads to ambivalence. Additionally, the effect of block size of the same valent statements is investigated. The results of the last two manuscripts indicate that presenting all statements of one valence and then all statements of the opposite valence leads to ambivalence measured via self-report and mouse tracking. Finally, I discuss implications for attitude theory and research as well as future research directions.
People are increasingly concerned about how meat affects the environment, human health, and animal welfare, yet eating and enjoying meat remains a norm. Unsurprisingly, many people are ambivalent about meat—evaluating it as both positive and negative. Here, we propose that meat-related conflict is multidimensional and depends on people’s dietary group: Omnivores’ felt ambivalence relates to multiple negative associations that oppose a predominantly positive attitude towards meat, and veg*ans’ ambivalence relates to various positive associations that oppose a predominantly negative attitude. A qualitative study (N = 235; German) revealed that omnivores and veg*ans experience meat-related ambivalence due to associations with animals, sociability, sustainability, health, and sensory experiences. To quantify felt ambivalence in these domains, we developed the Meat Ambivalence Questionnaire (MAQ). We validated the MAQ in four pre-registered studies using self-report and behavioral data (N = 3,485; German, UK, representative US). Both omnivores and veg*ans reported meat-related ambivalence, but with differences across domains and their consequences for meat consumption. Specifically, ambivalence was associated with less meat consumption in omnivores (especially sensory-/animal-based ambivalence) and more meat consumption in veg*ans (especially sensory-/socially-based ambivalence). Network analyses shed further light on the nomological net of the MAQ while controlling for a comprehensive set of determinants of meat consumption. By introducing the MAQ, we hope to provide researchers with a tool to better understand how ambivalence accompanies behavior change and maintenance.