This site needs JavaScript to work properly. Please enable it to take advantage of the complete set of features!
Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation

Save citation to file

Add to Collections

Name must be less than 100 characters
Unable to load your collection due to an error
Please try again

Add to My Bibliography

Unable to load your delegates due to an error
Please try again

Your saved search

Would you like email updates of new search results?
Saved Search Alert Radio Buttons
()

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

. 2002 Feb;82(2):157-66.

Thinking and caring about cognitive inconsistency: when and for whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel uncomfortable?

Affiliations

Affiliation

  • 1 Department of Psychology, University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada. newby@uwindsor.ca
  • PMID: 11831406

Thinking and caring about cognitive inconsistency: when and for whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel uncomfortable?

Ian R Newby-Clark et al. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002 Feb.
. 2002 Feb;82(2):157-66.

Affiliation

  • 1 Department of Psychology, University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada. newby@uwindsor.ca
  • PMID: 11831406

Abstract

The relation between conflicting evaluations of attitude objects (potential ambivalence) and associated unpleasant feelings (felt ambivalence) was investigated. Participants indicated their potential and felt ambivalence about capital punishment (Studies 1 and 2) and abortion (Studies 1-3). The simultaneous accessibility (J. N. Bassili, 1996) of participants' potential ambivalence (i.e., how quickly and equally quickly conflicting evaluations came to mind) was measured using response latency (Studies 1-3) and manipulated by repeated expression (Study 3). The relation between potential ambivalence and felt ambivalence was strongest when potential ambivalence was high in simultaneous accessibility (Studies 1-3). This pattern was most pronounced for participants who were high in preference for consistency (Study 3; R. B. Cialdini, M. R. Trost, & T. J. Newsom, 1995). Similarities of ambivalence and cognitive dissonance constructs are discussed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources

Cite
Morty Proxy This is a proxified and sanitized view of the page, visit original site.