When Objective Ambivalence Predicts Subjective Ambivalence: An Affect-Cognition Matching Perspective.

Understanding when people are likely to feel ambivalent is important, as ambivalence is associated with key attitude outcomes, such as attitude-behavior consistency. Interestingly, the presence of conflicting positive and negative reactions (objective ambivalence) is weakly related to feeling conflicted (subjective ambivalence). We tested a novel situation that can influence the correspondence between objective and subjective ambivalence: whether a message and a recipient's topic match in affective versus cognitive orientation.

Defensive Confidence and Certainty in Unchanged Attitudes: The Role of Affect-Cognition Matching.

Despite much prior research on matching appeals to the affective-cognitive orientation of attitudes, little attention has focused on the consequences of affect-cognition (mis)matching when individuals resist persuasion. We propose that unlike a matched attack, an attack that is mismatched to the affective-cognitive orientation of attitudes would result in low defensive confidence individuals holding onto their unchanged attitudes with less certainty than high defensive confidence individuals. As hypothesized, low defensive confidence participants were less certain after an affective than a cognitive attack for a cognitive issue (Study 1), and the opposite was true for an affective issue (Study 2).

Affective-cognitive meta-bases versus structural bases of attitudes predict processing interest versus efficiency.

We proposed that (a) processing interest for affective over cognitive information is captured by meta-bases (i.e., the extent to which people subjectively perceive themselves to rely on affect or cognition in their attitudes) and (b) processing efficiency for affective over cognitive information is captured by structural bases (i.

Affective and cognitive meta-bases of attitudes: Unique effects on information interest and persuasion.

The authors investigated the predictive utility of people's subjective assessments of whether their evaluations are affect- or cognition driven (i.e., meta-cognitive bases) as separate from whether people's attitudes are actually affect- or cognition based (i.

Effects of mortality salience on evaluation of ingroup and outgroup sources: the impact of pro- versus counterattitudinal positions.

Past Terror Management Theory (TMT) research has demonstrated that mortality salience leads to favoritism toward ingroup members and derogation of outgroup members and to polarized attitudes toward the source of pro and counterattitudinal statements. In such research, the individual's group membership and the individual's worldview position were examined separately. Thus, when the individual's group membership was manipulated, one could normally assume that an outgroup member is counterattitudinal and an ingroup member is proattitudinal.