To illustrate, a univalent topic with only negative or only positive evaluations associated with it, is expected to yield a relatively straight line from the start button to the response button. An ambivalent topic with both negative and positive evaluations is expected to show a line that is partially pulled to both response options, creating a more curved line.
This measure of pull is indicative for the degree of conflict and cognitive competition between evaluations e. We expected that pull of the opposing evaluation as measured by MD would be greater for ambivalent compared to univalent attitude objects. Such a finding would not only add to the literature on ambivalence, showing that ambivalent evaluation can be captured in an embodied way, but also add to the mouse tracking literature by extending the paradigm into the domain of attitudinal ambivalence.
It is worth noting that one earlier study has related mouse locations on a computer screen to assess mixed feelings toward a target person Vallacher et al. More specifically, participants were instructed to use the location of the mouse pointer relative to a target on screen to indicate changes in their explicit evaluation with regard to a target person.
Over a period of 2 minutes, participants were to move closer to the target when they felt more positive and move further away when they felt more negative.
This pioneering work showed that when people have mixed feelings toward target person, they more often change locations, and this does not diminish over time.
This indeed captures one aspect of the dynamic nature of ambivalence, namely, attitude inconsistency. Instead, in the present research, we looked at motor output that does not rely on introspection and assesses conflict as it dynamically unfolds during evaluation.
Aside from our primary measure of pull, we also assessed response times. As noted above, previous work found that people take longer to evaluate ambivalent attitude objects, compared to non-ambivalent attitude objects e. Measuring response times allowed us to explore possible correlations to online processes of ambivalence, self-report measures, and response times. For exploratory purposes we also looked at the moment in time in which pull was largest. In all studies, we report all manipulations, all participants and exclusions, and all dependent measures.
To reduce the influence of outlier responses, latencies under ms as well as above 3, ms were excluded from analyses in all studies, however, including these observations did not alter our results. For all experiments, the number of participants was determined by the amount of scheduled lab time that was available to the experimenter, but was always at least 30 participants.
This number gave us enough power to detect small to medium effects in complete within subjects design experiments. The experiment followed a one-factor valence: ambivalent vs. All participants signed an informed consent form.
In the same session, we also collected data involving evaluations of then current Dutch politicians and affectively laden pictures, which are not related to the current project and not reported further.
We used 12 attitude objects that have successfully been used in prior research to induce ambivalence de Liver et al. The ambivalent topics were: abortion, organ donation, euthanasia, and alcohol. The univalent topics were: happy, holiday, in love in Dutch this is one word , sunshine, abuse, depressed, disgust, and unhappy. Initially we also included four attitude objects with which we had no previous experience. These attitude objects were: me, future, sports, and blood donation.
However, after inspection of explicit ratings, we decided not to include these attitude objects in the current analyses, as they were not rated as ambivalent by our participants. Upon entering the lab, participants were seated in individual cubicles. All instructions were computer-administered. In the first part of the experiment, participants were asked to evaluate different words as positive or negative.
Participants were instructed to respond as quickly and accurately as possible. At the start of each trial, a start button appeared at the bottom center of the screen and the response options positive and negative appeared in the top left and top right corner of the screen.
When participants clicked the start button at the center bottom of the screen, the cursor was relocated to the center starting position to ensure all trajectories start from the same location and the attitude object appeared. Participants then moved the mouse to one of the two response buttons located in the top right and top left of the screen. After this, the attitude object disappeared and a new trial started. At the start of the experiment, participants completed two neutral practice trials to familiarize themselves with the task.
Each participant evaluated each attitude object twice in two separate blocks of trials, including 12 attitude objects each, resulting in 24 trials. In each block, all attitude objects were presented once, in a random order. The location of the positive and the negative response option was reversed between blocks. Unfortunately, due to a technical error, only one counterbalancing condition functioned, and block order was not counterbalanced. For all participants, in the first block, the positive response option appeared on the right and the negative on the left.
In the second block, this location was reversed and the negative response option appeared on the left and the positive response option on the right. During each trial, streaming x and y coordinates of the computer mouse were recorded at a sampling rate of approximately 70 Hz.
To record, process, and analyze mouse trajectories, we used the validated MouseTracker software package, which includes modules for recording and analyzing mouse trajectories reliably Freeman and Ambady, Because trials differed in their length, raw trajectories were normalized into time steps using linear interpolation so that all trials had the same amount of time steps and could be averaged. To obtain an index of the degree to which there was pull toward the eventually non-chosen evaluation, we calculated MD as follows.
First, an idealized response trajectory i. The MD was then calculated as the largest perpendicular deviation between the realized trajectory and its idealized trajectory. MDs were then averaged over stimuli, trials, and conditions. Higher MDs indicated more deviation from the idealized trajectory toward the unselected alternative and more pull.
Apart from MD, it is also possible to measure the area under the curve AUC , which refers to the geometric area between the actual trajectory and the ideal trajectory i. Ambivalence was measured with three established measures of ambivalence. We asked participants to ignore their negative vs. When you think about the positive negative aspects, while ignoring the negative positive aspects, how positive is your evaluation of this?
Priester and Petty, Due to a technical error, the data of one participant were lost. One participant did not provide any self-report ratings. To reduce the influence of outlier responses, latencies under ms as well as above 3, ms 1. Bargh et al. Mean mouse trajectories in the evaluation task, averaged over ambivalent and univalent stimuli. In this figure, all trajectories are mapped rightward to allow comparison. Responses were faster in the second than in the first block; however, the pattern of results was the same and we collapsed the data over blocks.
Replicating numerous previous findings e. The measure of pull did not correlate with self-report measures of ambivalence. Because we orthogonally manipulated ambivalence, perhaps reducing variance, we separately examined correlations between our measures for ambivalent and univalent stimuli. These analyses did not reveal significant relations between the response times and pull on the one side, and self-report measures of ambivalence on the other side.
This is surprising because earlier work e. Finally, exploratory analyses showed that for ambivalent stimuli, trajectories showed more directional reversals over both the horizontal axis i. As hypothesized, during evaluation of ambivalent attitude objects, pull toward the non-chosen evaluation was greater than during the evaluation of univalent attitude objects, indicating that ambivalence literally pulls people in two directions.
Shedding more light on the unfolding of ambivalence during evaluation, we also found that maximum conflict occurred later in time for ambivalent evaluations, compared to univalent evaluations. Additionally, we replicated the effect of ambivalence on response times Fazio et al. However, response time did not correlate with amount of pull nor with self-report measures of ambivalence.
Self-report also did not correlate with pull. This could mean that slower responses to ambivalent stimuli do not only reflect the conflict associated with ambivalence. Study 2 replicates and extends the first study by examining the process of evaluating health-related ambivalent attitude objects. Unhealthy eating and drinking behavior are known to be strong elicitors of ambivalence Sparks et al.
These ambivalent and univalent stimuli are highly and similarly familiar, which allowed us to rule out an alternative explanation of Study 1, namely, that the ambivalent topics used there e. Schwarz and Bohner, The experiment was run at the end of an experimental hour and was preceded by unrelated tasks. The experiment followed a one-factor valence; ambivalent vs. The ambivalent attitude objects depicted: beer, a hamburger, chocolate, and fries. The univalent attitude objects depicted vegetables, an apple, bread, and orange juice, resulting in a total of eight trials.
The attitude objects were presented in random order. The images were acquired from the Internet and, keeping original constraints, scaled to pixels wide and presented against a white background.
The experiment was administered in the same manner as Study 1, using the same measures, with the exception that the location of the response buttons on the screen was counterbalanced between participants.
All attitude objects were presented only once and no habituation could ensue. Finally, the neutral practice trials consisted of an image of baskets and an image of a gray desk cabinet. Responses under ms and above 3, ms were removed from the data 2. Normalization and calculation of MD was done in the same manner as in Study 1. These observations replicate Study 1. These observations further replicate Study 1. Thus, self-reported based ambivalence correlated positive with both pull and response time.
The results of Study 2 replicated the core findings of Study 1. Ambivalent objects were associated with stronger pull indicating more ambivalence. Additionally, ambivalent and univalent stimuli did not only differ in amount of pull and magnitude of curves, but also in the temporal unfolding. Finally, pull and response time were not correlated. However, the pattern of correlations between self-reported and pull and response times differed from Study 1, such that subjective and objective ambivalence did have a positive relationship with both the magnitude of pull as well as the time people took to respond.
These differences across studies may be due to differences between the stimuli used abortion and euthanasia in Study 1; foods in Study 2. To test this possibility we directly compared the two types of stimuli in one design in Study 3. In Study 3, we used the attitude objects from Study 2 foods and Study 1 abstract topics in a single design.
To make sure that possible differences were not due to mode of presentation i. Study 2 stimuli presented as images we now presented the attitude objects from Study 2 also as words. The experiment followed a two-factor valence; ambivalent vs. In this experiment, we used attitude objects from both previous studies, resulting in 17 trials 7 ambivalent, 10 univalent, see below. The univalent abstract topics were: depressed, abuse, unhappy, happy, sun, and holiday.
We used the same food stimuli as in Study 2. The ambivalent food stimuli were: beer, hamburger, chocolate, and fries with sauce 1. The univalent food stimuli were: vegetables, apple, bread, and orange juice as in Study 2. The experiment was run in the same manner as Studies 1 and 2, using the same measurements.
One participant did not provide data on the self-report measures. Responses given under ms as well as above 3, ms were removed from the data 3. Normalization and calculation of MD was done in the same manner as in Studies 1 and 2. There was no main effect of topic. TABLE 1. Study 3 mean ambivalent ratings for objective, subjective and affective ambivalence for ambivalent vs.
Repeated measures analyses with valence ambivalent vs. Results also showed an interaction between topic and valence. But emerging research suggests that being a relentlessly positive leader may not be the best approach. For example, sharing emotional ambivalence in cooperative relationships can unlock the type of problem solving that makes everyone better off. We spoke with a manager of a Fortune company who described how comforting it was to have their managing director openly share their own ambivalent feelings about returning to the office.
This transparency around mixed emotions inspired them to get creative and develop flexible plans that could work for themselves, their team, and the company. On the other hand, promoting cultures of happiness through social pressure not to experience negative emotions can actually promote rumination and loneliness and reduce well-being in people experiencing negative emotional states. In the face of uncertainty about the future, many employees may have already cultivated emotional ambivalence as an emotional hedge to protect their feelings in the face of setbacks and obstacles.
Our research suggests that emotional ambivalence can also make people more adaptable because it helps them think about things in a more flexible way , which allows them to come up with alternative ways of approaching problems.
Leaders can use an approach inspired by motivational interviewing to help employees explore both positive and negative sides of an issue. Although leaders may be inclined to help employees resolve their ambivalence and become more positive, a more effective practice is to help them label their emotional ambivalence in order to reap its benefits. Listen in an empathetic, non-judgmental, and respectful manner — this not only makes employees more aware of their ambivalence but also more tolerant of it.
You can also do this simply through responsive facial expressions, body language, and vocal tone , which can reinforce the value of ambivalent reactions and help avoid toxic positivity. Sorenson , former President and CEO of Marriott, demonstrated the effectiveness of modeling emotional ambivalence when he delivered a message of simultaneous sadness and hope to Marriott associates in the midst of the pandemic.
In addition to speeches, leaders can also normalize emotional ambivalence by modeling it in routine meetings. This can help employees feel seen, affirmed, connected, and less alone.
Cultural symbolism about emotional ambivalence can be transmitted through both organizational stories and physical space. For example, the Fortune manager we spoke with described the flexible solution his group came up with regarding their return to the office that had resulted from him and his managing director both feeling torn.
Capturing and retelling a story like this as a turning point in the organizational narrative can help preserve ambivalence as a cultural value. Leaders can promote ambivalence in physical spaces by using artwork and music that prompt mixed emotional responses. For instance, they can use conflicting picture pairs that show a positive picture next to a negative picture and play music with mixed cues for happiness fast-minor and sadness slow-major.
Sometimes we cultivate ambivalence as a form of self-protection. Ambivalence is a little like an insurance policy.
Share this. For media inquiries, visit the Newsroom. Explore More. November 01, Five lessons in five minutes — learn how to make a sense of humor your superpower. October 28, September 09, Members of the Stanford GSB faculty recommend some of their favorite programs. Feel Old for Your Age? Related Related. Christian Wheeler Professor, Marketing. Journal Article. Taly Reich S.
0コメント