Literature DB >> 8831157

The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence.

J R Priester1, R E Petty.   

Abstract

This research examined the relationship between the measured (Study 1) and manipulated (Studies 2 and 3) positive and negative bases of attitudes and the psychological experience of attitudinal ambivalence. On the basis of these studies, the gradual threshold model of ambivalence (GTM) was advanced. The GTM holds that: (a) ambivalence increases in a negatively accelerating manner as the number of conflicting reactions (whichever of the positive or negative reactions are fewer in number) increases, (b) ambivalence is a negative function of the extent of dominant reactions, and (c) as the number of conflicting reactions increases, the impact of dominant reactions on ambivalence gradually decreases such that at some level of conflicting reactions (i.e, the threshold), the number of dominant reactions no longer has an impact on subjective ambivalence.

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8831157     DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.71.3.431

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol        ISSN: 0022-3514


  47 in total

Review 1.  The current status of research on the structure of evaluative space.

Authors:  Catherine J Norris; Jackie Gollan; Gary G Berntson; John T Cacioppo
Journal:  Biol Psychol       Date:  2010-03-24       Impact factor: 3.251

2.  Partner Type, Sexual Double Standard Endorsement, and Ambivalence Predict Abdication and Unprotected Sex Intentions in a Community Sample of Young Women.

Authors:  Cinnamon L Danube; Jeanette Norris; Cynthia A Stappenbeck; Kelly Cue Davis; William H George; Tina Zawacki; Diane M Morrison; Devon Alisa Abdallah
Journal:  J Sex Res       Date:  2015-09-30

3.  The Bipolarity of Attitudes: Unfolding the Implications of Ambivalence.

Authors:  Joshua A McGrane
Journal:  Appl Psychol Meas       Date:  2018-03-26

4.  Trust is heritable, whereas distrust is not.

Authors:  Martin Reimann; Oliver Schilke; Karen S Cook
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Why values elicitation techniques enable people to make informed decisions about cancer trial participation.

Authors:  Purva Abhyankar; Hilary L Bekker; Barbara A Summers; Galina Velikova
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Evaluating ambivalence: social-cognitive and affective brain regions associated with ambivalent decision-making.

Authors:  Hannah U Nohlen; Frenk van Harreveld; Mark Rotteveel; Gert-Jan Lelieveld; Eveline A Crone
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2013-05-17       Impact factor: 3.436

7.  Understanding Mixed Emotions: Paradigms and Measures.

Authors:  Sylvia D Kreibig; James J Gross
Journal:  Curr Opin Behav Sci       Date:  2017-06-04

Review 8.  Social Ambivalence and Disease (SAD): A Theoretical Model Aimed at Understanding the Health Implications of Ambivalent Relationships.

Authors:  Julianne Holt-Lunstad; Bert N Uchino
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2019-09-18

9.  Attitude ambivalence, social norms, and behavioral intentions: Developing effective antitobacco persuasive communications.

Authors:  Zachary P Hohman; William D Crano; Elizabeth M Niedbala
Journal:  Psychol Addict Behav       Date:  2015-10-12

10.  Ambivalent relationship qualities between adults and their parents: implications for the well-being of both parties.

Authors:  Karen L Fingerman; Lindsay Pitzer; Eva S Lefkowitz; Kira S Birditt; Daniel Mroczek
Journal:  J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.077

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.