Attitudes

People regularly have to navigate decisions about which they feel ambivalent, for instance, regarding unhealthy food, recycling, or financial investments. It is assumed that people cope with such felt ambivalence by seeking information that sways their ambivalent attitudes (potential ambivalence) about these topics. However, empirical evidence for this proposition is scarce because most studies measure information seeking intentions instead of behavior. As such, it remains doubtful whether information seeking indeed helps people to reduce felt ambivalence while making decisions. To test this proposition, we adapted a sample-based information seeking paradigm that enabled us to measure actual information seeking behavior in financial decisions. In four preregistered studies (total N = 542 participants; k = 16.538 decisions), we demonstrated that when people feel ambivalent about an initial set of information about a stock, they seek more information about its development to decide whether it develops positively or negatively; this information seeking, in turn, helps them to reduce felt ambivalence when making the decision. However, this is only the case when the initial information is ambivalent and the sought information is univalent; otherwise, information seeking increases felt ambivalence. This supports a central proposition in ambivalence research, indicating that people can indeed solve their felt ambivalence through information seeking. However, our data also showed that the effect of information seeking on felt ambivalence cannot be fully explained by changes in potential ambivalence and a resolution of the attitudinal basis of the conflict. Future research should, therefore, examine whether and how information seeking can also serve as an emotion-focused coping strategy that helps people reduce felt ambivalence by coping with conflict-induced discomfort.

The regulation of self-control conflicts is integral to exerting self-control and pursuing (long-term) goals. Nonetheless, prevailing conceptualizations of self-control conflict remain vague, and the mechanisms and boundary conditions through which self-control conflict emerges are rarely empirically tested. In the present research, we thus propose that self-control conflicts originate in accessible ambivalent attitudes. To examine our attitudinal perspective on self-control and self-regulation, we investigated how (ambivalent) attitudes influence self-control conflicts and how resolving these attitudinal origins may enhance self-control and avert future conflicts. We ran a 21-day diary study assessing daily inhibition conflicts about eating meat among conflicted vegetarians (N = 156, k = 2,346). Our findings suggest that holding (positive) attitudes that conflict with predominant (negative) attitudes predicted heightened conflict frequency in people’s daily lives, and the situational accessibility of both positive and negative attitudes is associated with conflict magnitude. Moreover, to cope with these conflicts, people often engaged in attitude-based self-regulation involving the affirmation of negative and the disaffirmation of positive attitudes toward eating meat, thereby successfully exerting self-control. Contrary to our prediction, however, we did not find evidence for the effectiveness of attitude-based self-regulatory strategies for mitigating subsequent conflict. In fact, various self-regulatory strategies, including the disaffirmation of positive attitudes, self-distraction, and thought suppression, even escalated subsequent conflict. These findings suggest that our attitudinal perspective on self-control and self-regulation provides a parsimonious and testable conceptualization of self-control conflicts.

Ambivalence and dissonance research provides insights into the experiences and consequences of cognitive conflict. Despite the conceptual overlap between both conflicts, they are typically discussed and applied separately. Based on the notion that ambivalence reflects pre-decisional and dissonance reflects post-decisional conflict, we propose the Model of Ambivalent Choice and Dissonant Commitment (AC/DC model). The AC/DC model outlines that both conflicts are rooted in attitudes; however, as they succeed each other in decision-making, they entail distinct cognitive and emotional underpinnings, leading to different motivational consequences. Their sequence in decision-making entails far-reaching interrelations, depending on whether people cope with the conflict-induced discomfort or the conflict origins. Thereby, the AC/DC model elucidates how conflicts are navigated within decision-making and how they either resolve or manifest over time. This offers various novel implications, for instance, about conflicts regarding time-sensitive decisions, conflicts between alternatives, conflicts outside of decision situations, and conflict resolution and behaviour change.

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 multitude of filter options.

Eating meat is a prime example of cognitive conflict. Research on meat-related conflict has focused on people who eat meat (omnivores), and mostly neglected that people who avoid eating meat (vegetarians and vegans; veg*ans) can also experience conflict in the form of ambivalence. Here, we provide a conceptual model explaining how ambivalence comes to exist in omnivores and veg*ans, and how it is associated with dietary behavior. We hypothesize that ambivalence in omnivores arises when they become aware of the negative aspects of meat. Yet, even veg*ans, who predominantly hold negative attitudes towards meat, may experience ambivalence if past positive attitudes resurface. We investigated this model in a cross-sectional study (N = 1028) via the stages of change, which explain qualitative steps in people's adoption and maintenance of new behaviors such as a veg*an diet. Our data show that meat consumption decreases linearly across the five stages of change. In line with our model, ambivalence increases from the pre-contemplation via the contemplation to the preparation stage among omnivores and decreases right after people become veg*ans (action stage) until they reach the maintenance stage. This inverted u-shaped trajectory was accompanied by a) an increase in negative evaluations of meat and b) a decrease in positive evaluations of meat from the pre-contemplation to the preparation stage. However, especially positive hedonic evaluations that render meat pleasurable partly persisted in the action stage and only dissolved in the maintenance stage. We thus argue that the observed pattern of felt ambivalence might explain why a growing number of people become open to eschewing meat and why veg*ans often eat meat and/or return to their omnivorous diets shortly after becoming veg*an.

The neuro-physiological response to stress has far-reaching implications for learning and memory processes. Here, we examined whether and how the stress-induced release of cortisol, following the socially-evaluated cold pressor test, influenced the acquisition of preferences in an evaluative conditioning (EC) procedure. We found that when the stressor preceded the evaluation phase, cortisol responders showed decreased evaluative conditioning effects. By contrast, impairing effects of a stressor-induced cortisol release before encoding were not found. Moreover, explicit memory was not found to be affected by the stressor or its timing. Implications of the timing-dependent effects of stress-induced cortisol release on EC and the relation between stress and associative memory are discussed.