Refine
Year of publication
- 2024 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (1)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Keywords
- Ambivalence (1)
- Ambivalenz (1)
- Attitude Formation (1)
- Eindruck (1)
- Einstellung (1)
- Inkongruenz (1)
- Verhalten (1)
Institute
- 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.
Using validated stimulus material is crucial for ensuring research comparability and replicability. However, many databases rely solely on bidimensional valence ratings, ranging from negative to positive. While this material might be appropriate for certain studies, it does not reflect the complexity of attitudes and therefore might hamper the unambiguous interpretation of some study results. In fact, most databases cannot differentiate between neutral (i.e., neither positive nor negative) and ambivalent (i.e., simultaneously positive and negative) attitudes. Consequently, even presumably univalent (only positive or negative) stimuli cannot be clearly distinguished from ambivalent ones when selected via bipolar rating scales. In the present research, we introduce the Trier Univalence Neutrality Ambivalence (TUNA) database, a database containing 304,262 validation ratings from heterogeneous samples of 3,232 participants and at least 20 (M = 27.3, SD = 4.84) ratings per self-report scale per picture for a variety of attitude objects on split semantic differential scales. As these scales measure positive and negative evaluations independently, the TUNA database allows to distinguish univalence, neutrality, and ambivalence (i.e., potential ambivalence). TUNA also goes beyond previous databases by validating the stimulus materials on affective outcomes such as experiences of conflict (i.e., felt ambivalence), arousal, anger, disgust, and empathy. The TUNA database consists of 796 pictures and is compatible with other popular databases. It sets a focus on food pictures in various forms (e.g., raw vs. cooked, non-processed vs. highly processed), but includes pictures of other objects that are typically used in research to study univalent (e.g., flowers) and ambivalent (e.g., money, cars) attitudes for comparison. Furthermore, to facilitate the stimulus selection the TUNA database has an accompanying desktop app that allows easy stimulus selection via a ultitude of filter options.
