Effect of ambivalent attitudes on post-decision self-evaluation: Two-stage moderation effect with a mediator

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.01348

Abstract

Abstract:

Ambivalent attitudes not only affect information search, attitude formation and decision-making behavior, but also affect self-evaluation after decision-making. The present research constructed a model of the relationship between ambivalent attitudes and post-decision self-evaluation based on the mediating effect of uncertainty and the moderating effect of decision-making difficulty level and outcome valence. Three experiments were designed to manipulate ambivalent attitudes through conflict situations including the choice of a university and employment enterprises. SPSS 20.0 software was used to analyze the data, and we found that ambivalent attitudes had a positive effect on self-evaluation after decision-making, and that decision-making difficulty level and outcome valence moderated the mediating effect of uncertainty on the relationship between ambivalent attitudes and self-evaluation after decision-making. Ambivalent attitudes and levels of decision-making difficulty had an effect on uncertainty, uncertainty and outcome valence had an effect on self-evaluation after decision-making, and ambivalent attitude and the difficult level of decision-making had conflicting dual effects on self-evaluation after the decision-making as a result of the separation effect of uncertainty. When negative results were obtained, compared to individuals with low decision-making difficulty level, ambivalent attitudes of those with high decision-making difficulty level had a positive effect on self-evaluation after decision-making through uncertainty; when positive results were obtained, compared to individuals with high decision-making difficulty level, ambivalent attitudes of individuals with low decision-making difficulty level had a positive effect on self-evaluation after decision-making through uncertainty.

Key words: ambivalent attitudes, outcome valence, decision difficulty, uncertainty, self-evaluation

LIN Rang, YANG Yimiao. (2021). Effect of ambivalent attitudes on post-decision self-evaluation: Two-stage moderation effect with a mediator. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(12), 1348-1360.

Figures/Tables 11

References 50

[1]	Alicke, M. D., & Sedikides, C. (2009). Self-enhancement and self-protection: What they are and what they do. European Review of Social Psychology, 20(1), 1-48. doi: 10.1080/10463280802613866 URL
[2]	Anderson, C. J. (2003). The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 139-167. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.139 URL
[3]	Armitage, C. J., & Arden, M. A. (2007). Felt and potential ambivalence across the stages of change. Journal of Health Psychology, 12(1), 149-158. doi: 10.1177/1359105307071749 URL
[4]	Bee, C. C., & Madrigal, R. (2013). Consumer uncertainty: The influence of anticipatory emotions on ambivalence, attitudes, and intentions. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12(5), 370-381. doi: 10.1002/cb.v12.5 URL
[5]	Brown, J. D., Dutton, K. A., & Cook, K. E. (2001). From the top down: Self-esteem and self-evaluation. Cognition & Emotion, 15(5), 615-631.
[6]	Chernev, A. (2006). Decision focus and consumer choice among assortments. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 50-59. doi: 10.1086/jcr.2006.33.issue-1 URL
[7]	Clark, J. K., Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2008). Attitudinal ambivalence and message-based persuasion: Motivated processing of proattitudinal information and avoidance of counterattitudinal information. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(4), 565-577.
[8]	de Liver, Y., van der Pligt, J., & Wigboldus, D. H. J. (2007). Positive and negative associations underlying ambivalent attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(2), 319-326. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.02.012 URL
[9]	Engel, J. F., Kollat, D. T., & Blackwell, R. D. (1978). Consumer behavior. 3rd ed. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.
[10]	Förster, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science, 16(8), 631-636. pmid: 16102066
[11]	Grant, S. J., & Tybout, A. M. (2008). The effect of temporal frame on information considered in new product evaluation: The role of uncertainty. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 897-913. doi: 10.1086/527342 URL
[12]	Hanselmann, M., & Tanner, C. (2008). Taboos and conflicts in decision making: Sacred values, decision difficulty, and emotions. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(1), 51-63.
[13]	Howe, L. C., & Krosnick, J. A. (2017). Attitude strength. Annual review of psychology, 68(1), 327-352. doi: 10.1146/psych.2017.68.issue-1 URL
[14]	Huang, M. X., Xie, T. T., & Feng, X. L. (2010). How do ambivalent consumers interpret diversified word-of-mouth information? Acta Psychologica Sinica, 42(10), 998-1010. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2010.00998 URL
[15]	Jiang, H., Liang, J., Wang, H., & Sun, P. (2016). The interplay of emotions, elaboration, and ambivalence on attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 15(2), 126-135. doi: 10.1002/cb.v15.2 URL
[16]	Jonas, K., Broemer, P., & Diehl, M. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence. European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), 35-74. doi: 10.1080/14792779943000125 URL
[17]	Kahn, B. E., & Meyer, R. J. (1991). Consumer multi-attribute judgments under attribute-weight uncertainty. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 508-522. doi: 10.1086/jcr.1991.17.issue-4 URL
[18]	Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2000). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341-350. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341 URL
[19]	Kaplan, K. J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin, 77(5), 361-372. doi: 10.1037/h0032590 URL
[20]	Koller, M., & Salzberger, T. (2007). Cognitive dissonance as a relevant construct throughout the decision-making and consumption process: An empirical investigation related to a package tour. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 6(3), 217-227. doi: 10.1362/147539207X251022 URL
[21]	Krosnick, J. A., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In R.E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1-24.
[22]	Lin, R., Yang, Y. M., & Xia, C. Y. (2020). The effect of ambivalent attitude on selective exposure—The moderated role of elaboration. China Business and Market, 34(6), 51-62.
[23]	Lipshitz, R., & Strauss, O. (1997). Coping with uncertainty: A naturalistic decision making analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 149-163. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1997.2679 URL
[24]	Mcgraw, K. M., Hasecke, E., & Conger, K. (2003). Ambivalence, uncertainty, and processes of candidate evaluation. Political Psychology, 24(3), 421-448. doi: 10.1111/pops.2003.24.issue-3 URL
[25]	Moody, G. D., Galletta, D. F., & Lowry, P. B. (2014). When trust and distrust collide online: The engenderment and role of consumer ambivalence in online consumer behavior. Electronic Commerce Research & Applications, 13(4), 266-282.
[26]	Newby-Clark, I. R., Mcgregor, I., & Zanna, M. P. (2002). Thinking and caring about cognitive inconsistency: When and for whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel uncomfortable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(2), 157-166. pmid: 11831406
[27]	Nohlen, H. U., van Harreveld, F., Rotteveel, M., Barends, A. J., & Larsen, J. T. (2016). Affective responses to ambivalence are context-dependent: A facial EMG study on the role of inconsistency and evaluative context in shaping affective responses to ambivalence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 42-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.001 URL
[28]	Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: Relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 431-449. pmid: 8831157
[29]	Reich, T., & Wheeler, S. C. (2016). The good and bad of ambivalence: Desiring ambivalence under outcome uncertainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(4), 493-508. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000047 pmid: 27078506
[30]	Rothman, N. B., Pratt, M. G., Rees, L., & Vogus, T. J. (2017). Understanding the dual nature of ambivalence: Why and when ambivalence leads to good and bad outcomes. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 33-72. doi: 10.5465/annals.2014.0066 URL
[31]	Sawicki, V., Wegener, D. T., Clark, J. K., Fabrigar, L. R., Smith, S. M., & Durso, G. R. O. (2013). Feeling conflicted and seeking information: When ambivalence enhances and diminishes selective exposure to attitude-consistent information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(6), 735-747. doi: 10.1177/0146167213481388 URL
[32]	Sengupta, J., & Johar, G. V. (2002). Effects of inconsistent attribute information on the predictive value of product attitudes: Toward a resolution of opposing perspectives. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 39-56. doi: 10.1086/339920 URL
[33]	Shan, C. L., & Zhao, H. Y. (2017). Study on the impact paths of electronic word of mouth on consumer attitudes—From the perspective of ambivalence attitude. Soft Science, 31(4), 108-111.
[34]	Sincoff, J. B. (1990). The psychological characteristics of ambivalent people. Clinical Psychology Review, 10(1), 43-68. doi: 10.1016/0272-7358(90)90106-K URL
[35]	Soutar, G. N., & Sweeney, J. C. (2016). Are there cognitive dissonance segments? Australian Journal of Management, 28(3), 227-249. doi: 10.1177/031289620302800301 URL
[36]	Tudoran, A. A., Olsen, S. O., & Dopico, D. C. (2012). Satisfaction strength and intention to purchase a new product. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(5), 391-405. doi: 10.1002/cb.v11.5 URL
[37]	van Dijk, E., & Zeelenberg, M. (2003). The discounting of ambiguous information in economic decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(5), 341-352. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0771 URL
[38]	van Dijk, E., & Zeelenberg, M. (2006). The dampening effect of uncertainty on positive and negative emotions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19(2), 171-176. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0771 URL
[39]	van Harreveld, F., van der Pligt, J., & de Liver, Y. N. (2009). The agony of ambivalence and ways to resolve it: Introducing the MAID model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(1), 45-61. doi: 10.1177/1088868308324518 pmid: 19144904
[40]	Visser, P. S., Bizer, G. Y., & Krosnick, J. A. (2004). Exploring the latent structure of strength–related attitude attributes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 1-67.
[41]	Wei, J., & Zuo, B. (2013). Attitude certainty: The strength index of the knowing and doing Consistency. Psychological Research, 6(5), 51-56.
[42]	Wu, R. J., & Li, D. J. (2014). The outcome valence, mental simulation and regret. Journal of Making Science, 10(3), 51-61.
[43]	Xia, C. Y., Lin, R., & Yang, Y. M. (2020). Effect of option number on satisfaction: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Business Economics, 40(1), 5-14.
[44]	Xu, Z. F., & Xi, J. Z. (2018). Attitudinal ambivalence: Origins and coping strategies. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(2), 331-343. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.00331 URL
[45]	Yang, L. F., & Unnava, H. R. (2016). Ambivalence, selective exposure, and negativity effect. Psychology & marketing, 33(5), 331-343. doi: 10.1002/mar.20878 URL
[46]	Yeung, N., & Summerfield, C. (2012). Metacognition in human decision-making: Confidence and error monitoring. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1594), 1310-1321. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0416 URL
[47]	Zemborain, M. R., & Johar, G. V. (2007). Attitudinal ambivalence and openness to persuasion: A framework for interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 506-514. doi: 10.1086/502810 URL
[48]	Zhang, Y., & Mittal, V. (2005). Decision difficulty: Effects of procedural and outcome accountability. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 465-472. doi: 10.1086/jcr.2005.32.issue-3 URL
[49]	Zhang, Q. Y., & Sun, X. X. (2018). The research on effect of consumer confusion on green brand purchase intention—The mediating role of ambivalent attitude. Consumer Economics, 34(3), 82-89.
[50]	Zhu, D. Q., & Xie, X. F. (2013). Which one is better, maximizing or satisficing? Advances in Psychological Science, 21(2), 309-316. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00309 URL

Dimensions	University A	University B
Monthly salary after graduation	5000~9000	4000~6000
Employment rate	87%	93%
The city where the school is	First line	Second line
Average teacher level (maximum 5 points)	4.4	4.8

Dimensions	University A	University B
Monthly salary after graduation	5000~9000	4000~6000
Employment rate	87%	93%
The city where the school is	First line	Second line
Average teacher level (maximum 5 points)	4.4	4.8

Dimensions	Enterprise A	Enterprise B
Monthly salary after graduation	6000~10000	4000~6000
Number of employees	5387	30592
City	First line	Second line
Brand Value Ranking	55	9

Dimensions	Enterprise A	Enterprise B
Monthly salary after graduation	6000~10000	4000~6000
Number of employees	5387	30592
City	First line	Second line
Brand Value Ranking	55	9

Variable: Post-decision self-evaluation	Coeff.	SE	t	LLCI	ULCI
Constant	15.63	0.57	27.37	14.51	16.76
Outcome Valence	-7.09	0.35	-20.1	-7.78	-6.40
Uncertainty	-1.44	0.11	-12.9	-1.66	-1.22
Outcome valence × uncertainty	1.06	0.07	15.2	0.92	1.20