Loading...
EMBRACING THE DICHOTOMY: AMBIVALENCE, ATTITUDINAL STRENGTH, AND THEIR ROLE IN COGNITIVE PROCESSING AND PERSUASION AMID CONFLICTING INFORMATION
Citations
Altmetric:
Genre
Thesis/Dissertation
Date
2025-08
Committee member
Group
Department
Media & Communication
Permanent link to this record
Collections
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
DOI
https://doi.org/10.34944/jyqc-fs68
Abstract
In the age of infodemic, we are surrounded by contradictory data, news, and opinions, leading to widespread misinformation and public uncertainty. While extensive research addresses misinformation, it falls short of comprehensively understanding how people form judgments amidst conflicting information. Previous research on processing conflicting information has mainly focused on the influence of pre-existing attitudes, whether positive, negative, or ambivalent. While the effects of univalent prior attitudes on information judgment are established, the role of ambivalent attitudes is less understood. Importantly, ambivalence is complex, and current research lacks a substantial understanding of its nature. This research, instead, extends its current typology by identifying two distinct forms of ambivalence: skewed ambivalence and balanced.
Understanding the nature of ambivalence offers significant insights since it has the potential to affect information processing. Ambivalence is commonly thought to be a potential catalyst for biased information processing, and research has indicated a tendency for systematic examination of the information to resolve ambivalence. This perspective tends to assume that one side of the evaluation is dominant, resulting in skewness in ambivalence. However, it should be noted that ambivalence can take different types, such as balanced forms, containing two equally weighted evaluations. These unique types of ambivalence may impact information processing differently. This aligns with the idea behind the Heuristic and Systematic Model (HSM), in which different motivations are associated with the extent and nature of (objective versus biased) information processing. For instance, balanced ambivalence can trigger accuracy motivation, while skewed ambivalence may lead to defensive motivation. The gap in understanding the complex role of different types of ambivalence in motivational information processing sets the stage for this research. Motivations are crucial in information processing and decision-making, particularly when facing conflicting messages. Defensive or accuracy motivations significantly influence how individuals respond to divergent perspectives in conflicting messages. The type of motivation determines both the cognitive effort one is willing to invest and one's tendency to either amplify or moderate one attitude when encountering contradictory information. From a decision-making perspective, this is pivotal.
The results of the current study support two distinct types of ambivalence - skewed and balanced, and their distinct relationship with motivations behind information processing. Skewed ambivalence, with one side of evaluation dominating, fosters defensive motivation. This is perhaps because of the preference for consistency in evaluation, but with the existing minority view, one may feel uncomfortable holding conflicting thoughts. Balanced ambivalence, on the other hand, fosters accuracy motivation due to the equally weighted two sides of evaluation. It was also found that individuals with balanced ambivalence are more certain and confident in their attitudes while individuals with skewed ambivalence showed less certainty and confidence in their judgment. This discrepancy offers further support for the uniqueness of two types of ambivalence. Despite these differences, both types of ambivalence lead to a heightened intention to put extra effort into understanding and processing conflicting information. Overall, the findings not only offer a theoretical understanding of ambivalence and its function in information processing but also provide practical insight into combating conflicting information and misinformation.
Description
Citation
Citation to related work
Has part
ADA compliance
For Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation, including help with reading this content, please contact scholarshare@temple.edu