Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Armitage et al. 2000 (Study 1 Method (Measures (Ambivalence (Participants…
Armitage et al. 2000
Study 1 Method
-
-
Measures
-
Ambivalence
Participants were provided with two statements designed to tap the difference between positive and negative thoughts/feelings with regard to eating a low-fat diet. The
positive thoughts/feelings: “Considering only the positive things about eating a low-fat diet in the future, and ignoring the negative things, how positive are those things? (not at all positive to extremely positive).”
negative thoughts/feelings: “Considering only the negative things about eating a low-fat diet in the future, and ignoring the positive things, how negative are those things?
Ambivalence = (positive + negative)/2 – | positive – negative |
Ambivalence is equal to the average intensity and level of similarity between the two evaluations in computing a measure of attitudinal ambivalence
Thompsonet al. (1995)
-
-
-
Study 2 Results
Across both intervention conditions, attitudes generally became more positive
ambivalent attitude were not more pliable (no interaction) over time . No interaction between condition, time, and ambivalence.
For low ambivalence - not difference between control and experimental condition.
But, more ambivalent attitudes became more positive following the intervention
Thus the intervention affected those with more ambivalent attitudes
Attitudes are typically referred to as unidimensional - along a bipolar continuum. That is, people engage in behaviors that positively affect attitude and avoid those that do not. (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Kraus, 1995)
However, it is argued that individuals may hold both negative and positive attitudes that are not perfectly (negatively) correlated with one another (e.g., Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1997)
Attitudinal ambivalence is the state in which an individual “is inclined to give an attitude object (a particular topic/object) equivalently strong positive or negative evaluations” (Thompson et al., 1995, p. 367). However participants can hold both positive and negative evaluations at he same time. (more like a weight pulling their attitude in either direction.
Krosnick and Petty (1995) Four defining features of strong attitudes:
1)strong attitudes remain stable over time.
2)have an impact on behavior
3)influence information processing
4)resist persuasion
Pratto (1992) - ambivalent (or weaker) attitudes are less table than strong attitudes over time. However recent replications have not fully replicated thee results.
Jonas et al. (1997) - found stronger attitude-behavior intention relation for more ambivalent attitudes. This effect is enhanced when there is an incongruency between what one's belief and new information (Norman & Smith, 1995)
-
Previous studies have measured affective-cognitive consistency (Lavine et al, 1998) and global ambivalence. While the measures may be different, there is reason to believe affective-cognitive, evaluative-cognitive, and evaluative-affective inconsistency measures explain overlapping parts of the variance when measuring ambivalence (see Thompson et al., 1995).
Connection to Practice?
Should we keep students from forming too strong of attitudes to ward an object or for an idea? This would allow people (in our case, students) to remain flexible in lieu of new information.
This study investigated the efficacy of a predictive model, so direct inolication to practice are somewhat difficult
Limitations
-
outside of healthcare workers. Possibly develop a more authentic task on attitude toward different topics
Study 2
Study 2 Method
-
-
-
Material
Control intervention. The control group received basic information regarding consumption of a low-fat diet. This included information about government recommendations, epidemiological data associated with population-wide fat consumption, and sources of fat in the diet. The information was based on that provided by the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fish- eries, and Food.
Attitude change intervention. The attitude change inter-
vention contained the same amount of basic information as the control intervention.
it also had a particular section designed to change individuals’ attitudes.
"This section was based on Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) model of belief-attitude relations. Briefly, this holds that attitudes are based on beliefs about the likelihood of salient outcomes weighted by the evaluation of those outcomes. Data on outcome beliefs from a study that examined low-fat eating behavior and analyzed beliefs for future intervention provided the basis for the attitude change intervention (see Armitage& Conner, 1999, p. 78)."
The authors target beliefs that discriminated those who intended to eat a low-fat diet
Specifically, 5:taste of low-fat food, influence on level of fitness, weight control, health, and enjoyment of food
-
Less ambivalent attitudes might be more predictive of behavior. Kallgren and Wood (1986) augemented participants attitudes to be more extreme than a control group; They demonstrated that attitude behaviors from the experimental group demonstrated attitude-behavior correlations of .85 and .19 for the control condition.
Less ambivalent (stronger) attitudes should better predict behavioral intentions.
Study 1 Results
How does level of ambivalence affect the prediction of behavior from an attitude, and how does ambivalence level of ambivalence change the relationship between attitude and behavior through intention?
-
-
However, only the low ambivalence group significantly predicts behavior from attitudes.
stronger attitudes predicted behavior directly while weaker ones did not. This shows that Ambivalence moderated the relationships in this model
Additionally, the model can predict behavior from intention for both high and low ambivalence.. But, high ambivalence group better predicts behavior
Reasons Why: "First, given that Jonas et al. (1997) have shown that a state of ambivalence increases systematic information processing, it is possible that intention-formation was facilitated in ambivalent individuals, leading to stronger intention-behavior correspondence (cf. Bagozzi & Yi, 1989). Second, under conditions of attitudinal ambivalence, intention formation may be based on variables other than attitudes (e.g., norms or habits) (see Conner & Armitage, 1998; Fishbein&Ajzen, 1975), which resulted in the formation of stronger behavioral intentions."But this study doesn't take into account information processingFor example: persuasion #
-
-
What moderates this relationship? In this study, attitudinal ambivalence (High/Low).