Coping

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.

While felt ambivalence is thought to drive behavior change, the dynamics and boundary conditions of this effect have been underspecified. We conducted a panel study (N = 808 German and Dutch students) in the context of meat consumption and investigated the dynamics of meat-related ambivalence, meat consumption, and moralization over 7 months using Cross-Lagged Panel Models. We expected that omnivores eat less meat when ambivalence pushes them toward moralization, whereas veg*ans (vegetarians and vegans) show more dietary lapses when ambivalence pulls them away from moralization. Congruently, results indicate that ambivalence motivated omnivores to eat less meat over time, primarily when their conflicts involved moral dimensions about farm animals, sustainability, or social context; and veg*ans were likelier to violate their diets when ambivalence centered on positive sensory associations with meat. We conclude that ambivalence motivates behavior change, especially if people are pushed toward or pulled away from moralization.

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.

The domain of meat consumption has become a blossoming area for advancing our knowledge of how people experience and resolve cognitive conflicts. Within the field, however, the conceptual similarities and differences between ambivalence and dissonance have been underspecified. This has led to seemingly inconsistent conclusions about the experiences and downstream consequences of cognitive conflict. We therefore examine the tacit assumptions in the field and integrate the two kinds of literature on meat-related cognitive conflicts. In a comparative review, we specifically delineate (a) which groups of people are affected by which of the two meat-related conflicts, (b) what constitutes these conflicts, (c) when these conflicts are experienced, and (d) what downstream consequences result from these conflicts. We conclude that meat-related ambivalence is experienced when inconsistent attitudes become accessible and that meat-related dissonance is experienced when inconsistencies between attitudes and commitments become accessible. Our integrative perspective challenges established assertions regarding meat-related conflict and offers various theoretical and practical implications. One such implication concerns, for example, how cognitive conflict is associated with behavior change and maintenance depending on people’s commitment to eating meat. We hope that this will help researchers and practitioners to apply the insights from this flourishing field of research.

Meat consumption is conflicted, because meat provides pleasure to many people, but it also causes animals to suffer. This so-called meat paradox elicits discomfort in meat-eaters and they try to reduce their discomfort, for example, by means of moral disengagement. In the present investigation, we tried to scrutinize this process and examine the boundary conditions that increase moral disengagement. We assumed that, due to a domain general action-oriented state, people tend to resolve the meat paradox via moral disengagement, even if inconsistency is elicited in a different, not food-related domain. Two experiments were conducted, in which we assessed people's moral disengagement efforts via ambivalence measures after we induced inconsistency using different threats in meat-unrelated domains. Supporting our assumptions, people showed reduced ambivalence towards food in affective priming (Experiment 1) and Mouse-Tracker tasks (Experiment 2) after experiencing inconsistency. In fact, plant-based dishes became more positive and meat dishes more negative after inconsistency was induced, indicating that people disguise their endorsement of meat. This provides first convergent evidence that an inconsistency induced action-oriented state may influence cognitions regarding the meat paradox.

Meat consumption elicits highly ambivalent feelings. On the one hand, it is associated with sensory pleasure and tradition; on the other hand, it is linked to moral, ecological, and health-related issues. This conflict is referred to as the meat paradox and it is hypothesized that people who experience the meat paradox resolve resulting discomfort by moral disengagement. However, ambivalence—a central process variable underlying the meat paradox—has never been measured directly, and theorizing on the meat paradox, so far, remains rather elusive. In the present investigation, we assessed meat-related ambivalence by tracking mouse trajectories of people who evaluated meat and plant-based dishes. By using this behavioral measure, our findings support the assumption that omnivores experience greater meat-related ambivalence and use moral disengagement strategies more frequently than non-omnivores. Importantly, our findings also show that experiencing meat-related ambivalence has far-reaching consequences: the larger behavioral ambivalence in omnivores, the higher the use of moral disengagement strategies. Thereby, our findings indicate the importance of ambivalence as a central process variable underlying the meat paradox and highlight how process-orientated research may contribute to our understanding of dietary practices and other potentially harmful behaviors.

In diesem Kapitel werden die (häufig unzulänglichen) Alltagsvorstellungen von Glück und Lebenszufriedenheit im Hinblick auf die potentiellen Glücksquellen Liebe und Geld auf- gegriffen und mit wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen kontrastiert. Über ein existenzsicherndes Maß hinaus scheint dabei Geld zunächst keinen Beitrag zur Lebenszufriedenheit zu leisten, zumindest dann nicht, wenn materieller Wohlstand nur für den eigenen Konsum verwendet wird. Geld kann aber durchaus zum individuellen Glück beitragen, wenn es prosozialen Zwecken dient. Nicht zuletzt verweisen diese Ergebnisse auf die große Bedeutung zwischenmenschlicher Beziehungen für das individuelle Glück. Neu este Ergebnisse zeigen zudem, dass materialistische Bestrebungen besonders dort gedeihen, wo soziale Bindungen weniger stark ausgeprägt sind.