Running head: AMBIVALENCE, DISORDERLY ENVIRONMENT
Ambivalence, disorderly environment and compensatory order
Konstantinos G. Keskinis
University of Amsterdam
Thesis Project
Supervisor:
Dr. Frenk van Harreveld
January - June 2012
1
AMBIVALENCE, DISORDERLY ENVIRONMENT
2
Abstract
Recent research has shown that ambivalence enhances compensatory order strategies. In this
study, we investigated if ambivalence fosters compensatory perceptions of order by testing
whether restoring order in our physical environment renders these strategies unnecessary.
Eighty Dutch students were assigned to an ambivalence or univalence condition. Next, as a
manipulation of compensatory order, they moved to an untidy cubicle where they either
created order or not. Finally, they completed a questionnaire about their support of the
established sociopolitical system, their beliefs in conspiracy theories, a task about visual
perceptions of order and an emotion scale. Participants in the ambivalent condition showed
more visual perceptions of order than those in the univalent one. When they restored order in
their workplace, they had less compensatory perceptions, but only within the univalence
condition. We did not find an effect of ambivalence or environmental order on support of
sociopolitical system and beliefs in conspiracy theories. Although the experience of
ambivalence did not influence negative emotions, those having worked in a disorderly
environment expressed more negative emotions. These findings show that ambivalent
attitude holders have a need for order rather than a need for meaning or control. Theoretical
and practical implications are discussed.
AMBIVALENCE, DISORDERLY ENVIRONMENT
3
Ambivalence was first defined by Eugen Bleuler in 1911 as a symptom of
schizophrenia: the same idea may cause pleasant and unpleasant feelings simultaneously and
the patient may have contrasting intentions (Stotz-Ingenlath, 2000). In social psychological
research, attitudinal ambivalence is defined in a similar way as by Bleuler: “the simultaneous
existence of positive and negative beliefs or emotions with regard to the same object in an
individual’s attitudinal basis” (Jonas, Broemer, & Diehl, 2000, p. 41).
The definition of ambivalence implies a disorderly state. In other words, when we
feel ambivalent about an attitude object, we experience a disorderly situation (i.e. positive
and negative thoughts and feelings at the same time) within the attitude. It is argued that
ambivalence violates fundamental consistency motives (Jonas, Diehl, & Bromer, 1997;
Newby-Clark, McGregor, & Zanna, 2002; Nordgren, van Harreveld, & van der Pligt, 2006)
and it is related to negative mood (Hass, Katz, Rizzo, Bailey, & Moore, 1992) and
physiological arousal (van Harreveld, Rutjens, Rotteveel, Nordgren, & van der Pligt, 2009).
To cope with discomfort when ambivalence is associated with a choice, people for example
try to change the situation by procrastination or denial of their responsibility (emotionfocused coping strategies) or they try to change the ambivalent attitude (problem-focused
coping strategies) by using high or low effort cognitive processes (van Harreveld, van der
Pligt, & de Liver, 2009). Consistently with the disorderly nature of ambivalence, an
alternative way to cope with ambivalence by changing the situation (emotion-focused coping)
can be through compensatory perceptions of order.
People are fundamentally motivated to perceive the world as predictable and orderly.
When these perceptions are threatened, they tend to search for compensatory perceptions of
order (Kay, Whitson, Gaucher & Galinsky 2009). For example, when perceptions of
personal control and order are threatened, participants believe more in conspiracy theories,
tend to see illusory patterns of stimuli as coherent and meaningful (visual perceptions of
AMBIVALENCE, DISORDERLY ENVIRONMENT
4
order) and support their sociopolitical systems (Kay, Gaucher, Napier, Callan, & Laurin,
2008; Kay et al., 2009; Whitson & Galinsky, 2008). These beliefs and visual perceptions
help people see the world as a non-random and orderly place. We aim to examine whether
ambivalence has similar effects as personal control threats. We believe this is likely the case,
as ambivalence can cause a disorderly state and enhance the need to see the world as an
orderly place. For example, when people think about issues such as abortion, they usually
have both positive and negative feelings and thoughts without having to choose different
options.
Consistent with this assumption, Van Harreveld, Rutjens, Schneider and Nohlen
(2012) found that when ambivalence about social issues becomes salient, belief in God,
visual perceptions of order and belief in conspiracy theories are increased. We cannot
conclude, however, that the effects of ambivalence on compensatory perceptions of order are
driven by a need for order. It could be argued, for example, that they are driven by a need for
meaning, because similar perceptions, such as belief in God and perceiving illusionary
correlations, were found to be increased when mortality becomes salient (Burke, Martens, &
Faucher, 2000).
It is not yet firmly established, therefore, whether ambivalent attitude holders have a
need for order and strategies such as belief in conspiracy theories compensate this need. If it
is the case, a subsequent mechanism that affirms order should lead ambivalent attitude
holders to be less inclined to search for perceptions of order. In the present study, we used
creating order in a disorderly environment as a possible mechanism that affirms order.
In addition, previous studies have found that personal control threats enhance not only
belief in God, conspiracy theories, or visual perceptions of order, but also support of
sociopolitical systems, as they provide a sense of order and structure (Kay et al., 2008; Kay,
AMBIVALENCE, DISORDERLY ENVIRONMENT
5
et al., 2010). In the same way we assume that if ambivalence fosters a need for compensatory
order, it should enhance people’s support of their sociopolitical systems as well.
In this study, we first manipulated ambivalence vs. univalence. Then, we
experimentally induced a disorderly environment that participants put in order or not. In
doing so we investigated the assumption that ambivalence and restoring environmental order
interact to predict three different compensatory control strategies: support of the established
sociopolitical system, belief in conspiracy theories, and visual perceptions of order.
In addition, we explored negative emotions as a possible mechanism in this
relationship. Ambivalence can activate emotional responses that are not related to the
attitude objects, such as anxiety (van Harreveld, Rutjens, et al., 2009). Specific negative
emotions that are related to the unpleasant nature of ambivalence mediated the relationship
between ambivalence and compensatory strategies (van Harreveld et al., 2012). In addition,
we expect that a disorderly environment elicits negative emotions, such as uncertainty,
anxiety and irritation, whilst these emotions may be reduced when they have the chance to
restore their environmental order.
Therefore, we may summarize our hypotheses as follows:
1.
Ambivalence will enhance support of the established sociopolitical system,
belief in conspiracy theories, and visual perceptions of order.
2.
These effects will be reduced when order of the environment is restored.
3.
Negative emotions elicited by ambivalence will also be reduced when
environmental order is restored.
4.
Emotions will mediate these relationships: more negative emotions caused by
ambivalence and a disorderly environment will predict higher compensatory perceptions of
order.
AMBIVALENCE, DISORDERLY ENVIRONMENT
6
Method
Participants
Ninety Dutch students took part in the study in return for 0.5 course credit or a 3.5euro reward.
The data of 8 participants failing to complete the procedure and 2 that
suspected the goal of the study were excluded from the analysis. The remaining sample
consisted of 52 females and 28 males (Mage = 22.21, SDage = 5.48).
Design
Participants were randomly assigned to a 2 (ambivalence vs. univalence) x 2
(environmental disorder vs. order) between subjects design. There were 20 participants with
valid data in each condition.
Procedure
The whole procedure took place in two different cubicles in the University of
Amsterdam laboratories and lasted about 25 minutes.
In the first cubicle, we manipulated ambivalence. We applied an introspective
procedure (Schneider, Eerland, van Harreveld, Rotteveel, van der Pligt, & Zwaan, in press).
When engaging in introspection about a topic that causes mixed feelings and thoughts, one
can become aware of them simultaneously and feel ambivalence and discomfort (van
Harreveld, van der Pligt, et al., 2009). In the ambivalence condition, participants were asked
to think of an issue that they had both positive and negative thoughts and feelings about. In
the univalence condition, they thought of an issue that they had an evaluatively unequivocal
opinion about. In both conditions, they wrote down the topic and their (one-sided or twosided) thoughts and/or feelings. As a manipulation check, they completed the Subjective
Ambivalence Questionnaire (Priester & Petty, 1996). Afterwards, they were told that the
next questionnaire cannot be found in this computer, so the procedure should be continued in
another cubicle.
AMBIVALENCE, DISORDERLY ENVIRONMENT
7
In the second cubicle, we first manipulated the environmental order.
In both
conditions, the participant entered the cubicle which was prepared as very disorderly (Figure
1). A lot of different things, such as books, pens, creased pieces of paper, magazines, were
positioned on the table or the floor in a disorderly way, but without blocking participants’
movements (not being placed close to the keyboard or mouse). These things were positioned
in exactly the same way every time. In the order condition, participants were told that they
could not work properly in this messy room and they were asked politely to help the
experimenter order the messy room. In the disorder condition, they worked in this cubicle
without being told to order things. None of the participants created order without being
instructed. Before starting the second questionnaire, participants in the disorder condition
completed an irrelevant task for 1-2 minutes (to write down words about drinks they have
consumed during the last 48 hours), in order to balance between conditions the delay from the
first part to the second one. In both conditions, participants continued with measures of
sociopolitical system, conspiracy theories, emotions (for a second time), a visual task, and the
need for structure measure. Afterwards, they answered a question used as a manipulation
check of perceived environmental order, demographics questions and then they were thanked
and debriefed.
Materials
The materials are presented in the order of appearance.
Manipulation check of ambivalence/univalence.
We used the Subjective
Ambivalence Questionnaire (Priester & Petty, 1996). It includes three items (Cronbach alpha
= .85) and a scale from 1 (feel no conflict at all, no indecision at all, completely one-sided
reactions) to 9 (feel maximum conflict, maximum indecision, completely mixed reactions).
We computed the average score.
AMBIVALENCE, DISORDERLY ENVIRONMENT
8
Negative emotions. We used a scale (van Harreveld et al., 2012), which assessed
participants’ negative emotions, because of their experience of ambivalence and disorderly
environment. It includes five items (Cronbach alpha = .80), for example: “At the moment I
feel irritated” (uncertain, anxious, doubtful, nervous). There was a scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). We computed the average score.
Sociopolitical system support. We used three questions (Cronbach alpha = .72)
similar to Kay et al.’s (2008) study, for example: “Societal change is disruptive”. There was
a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). We computed the average score.
Beliefs in conspiracy theories. We presented two scenarios, the same that were used
in previous studies (van Harreveld et al., 2012; Whitson & Galinsky, 2008). Both of them
described a situation in an organization where the protagonist was faced with an outcome,
positive in the first scenario, negative in the second one. This outcome could be attributed to
conspiratorial activity of other people, but this activity was not clear. For each scenario,
participants answered a question (“to what extent do you think that other people’s actions in
the scenario were connected to the protagonists’ outcomes?”) with a scale from 1 (not at all)
to 9 (a great deal). We computed the average score of the two items (r = .43, p < .001).
Visual perceptions of order. The task was based on Ekstrom, French, Harman, and
Dermen’s work (1976) and it was recently used by Whitson and Galinsky (2008).
Participants saw 24 snowy pictures (12 real images and 12 non-images) presented on the
computer screen (Figure 2). The presentation of images or non-images was mixed. They
were asked if they saw an image or not and describe what it illustrated. We calculated a final
score by computing the number of non-images that were described as an image, in the same
way as previously (van Harreveld et al., 2012; Whitson & Galinsky, 2008).
Manipulation check of environmental order. Participants were asked in a single
question to evaluate how tidy the place is (in the order condition after ordering the
AMBIVALENCE, DISORDERLY ENVIRONMENT
9
environment): “The place I am working now is…”. There was a scale from 1 (disorderly) to 9
(orderly).
Results
Manipulation checks and correlations
To investigate if our manipulation of ambivalence was successful, we compared the
ambivalence and univalence condition in terms of their means on the Priester and Petty
(1996) measure. Participants in the ambivalent condition clearly had more conflicted
thoughts and feelings (M = 5.80, SD = 1.02), than those in the univalent one (M = 3.37, SD =
1.42), F(1,78) = 76.89, p < .001, ηp2= .50.
As a second manipulation check of ambivalence, we computed how many positive or
negative thoughts expressed about the ambivalent or univalent topic. Participants reported
ambivalent topics such as abortion, dieting, euthanasia, and univalent topics such as the
banking system, cuts in education, discrimination. They wrote down between 1 and 8
positive (P) or negative (N) thoughts and feelings about these topics. Using the formula of
Thompson, Zanna, and Griffin (1995): (P + N)/2 – [P – N], we computed a score from -4
(more one – sided or univalent thoughts) to +4 (more two-sided or ambivalent thoughts). As
in the previous measure, participants in the ambivalent condition reported more ambivalent
thoughts and feelings (M = 3.21, SD = .83), than the univalent one (M = -2.11, SD = 1.41),
F(1,78) = 424.57, p < .001, ηp2= .85.
Finally, we checked whether tidying up the room or working in an untidy room
influenced their evaluation of the workplace. In the order condition, they evaluated the
workplace as more tidy (M = 5.93, SD = 2.80) than in the disorder one (M = 2.50, SD = 2.20),
F(1,76) = 38.05, p < .001, ηp2= .33. The ambivalence manipulation did not significantly
influence their evaluations of the environment, F(1,76) = 3.75, p = .06, ηp2= .05, and did not
AMBIVALENCE, DISORDERLY ENVIRONMENT
10
interact with the environmental order manipulation (F<1). Therefore, our manipulations of
ambivalence and environmental order were both successful.
Table 1 shows the correlations between demographic variables and our dependent
measures (emotions, compensatory perceptions of order, need for structure).
Effects of ambivalence and tidiness on compensatory perceptions of order
We hypothesized that ambivalence enhances support of the established sociopolitical
system, belief in conspiracy theories, and visual perceptions of order and we predicted
reduced effects when environmental order is restored.
To test our hypothesis, we compared first the experimental conditions regarding the
sociopolitical system support. We performed a 2x2 analysis of variance (ANOVA) with our
experimental manipulations as independent variables and the sociopolitical system score as
dependent variable. There was neither an effect of ambivalence nor an effect of order
manipulation (F<1) on the sociopolitical system support.
To investigate the effects of our manipulations on conspiracy beliefs, we performed a
second 2x2 ANOVA, but we found no effects (F < 1).
Next, we explored the effects of ambivalence and order manipulations on illusionary
patterns visual perceptions. We distinguished between real pictures and non-pictures.
Participants recognized most of the real pictures (M = 11.21, SD = 1.01) and there was
neither a significant difference between ambivalent (M = 11.28, SD = .88) and univalent (M =
11.15, SD = 1.14) conditions nor between environmental order (M = 11.42, SD = .87) and
disorder (M = 11.00, SD = 1.11), F(1,78) = 3.644, p = .60, ηp2= .05, nor a interaction between
conditions, F(1,76) = 2.13, p = .15, ηp2= .03. In contrast, they described as a picture almost
half of the non-pictures (M = 6.29, SD = 4.01). Consistently with previous research (van
Harreveld et al., under review), participants that had thought of an ambivalent topic described
significantly more non-pictures as pictures (M = 7.30, SD = 4.09) than those thought of a
AMBIVALENCE, DISORDERLY ENVIRONMENT
11
univalent topic (M = 5.28, SD = 3.70), F(1,76) = 6.12, p < .05, ηp2= .07. In terms of the
second manipulation, although the order condition did not differ from the disorder one,
F(1,76) = , p = .24, ηp2= .02, there was a significant interaction between the two
manipulations, F(1,76) = , p< .01, ηp2= .13. To investigate if there was a significant effect of
order within the ambivalence and univalence conditions separately, we performed a simple
main effects analysis (Figure 3). Within the ambivalence condition, participants saw more
pictures when the room was untidy than when they tidied it up, F(1,78) = 16.83, p < .001.
Within the univalence condition, there was no significant difference between environmental
disorder and order (p = .55). LSD post-hoc tests showed that ambivalence/disorder condition
(M = 9.15, SD = 3.53) differed significantly than the ambivalence/order (M = 5.45, SD =
3.83), univalence/disorder (M = 4.40, SD = 2.80), and univalence/order (M = 6.15, SD = 4.32)
ones (p = .002, p < 0.001, and p = 0.01 respectively), while the other three did not differ with
each other (ps > .13).
Effects of ambivalence and order on negative emotions
To investigate the hypothesis if our manipulations have an effect on negative emotions,
we measured first emotions right after the ambivalence manipulation and second after the
order manipulation.
Before performing the main analyses, we explored if the valence (positive or negative)
of the topic in the univalence condition has an effect on negative emotions. Although
thinking of an ambivalent topic causes more negative emotions than a univalent one (van
Harreveld et al., 2012), we cannot rule out the possibility that thinking of a negative topic and
reporting all the relevant thoughts and feelings could not cause more discomfort than thinking
of a positive one. Based on the number of their positive and negative thoughts (usually they
were all positive or negative) we found that 14 participants reported positive topics and 26
AMBIVALENCE, DISORDERLY ENVIRONMENT
12
negative. There was no effect of the topic valence on the first or the second emotion measure
(ps > .81).
Next, we found that there was neither effect of the ambivalence manipulation on the
first emotion measure (F<1) nor on the second one (F<1), while there was only an effect of
the order manipulation on emotions measured in the second cubicle, F(1,76) = 8.44, p < .01,
ηp2= .10. There was no interaction between our manipulations on the second measure of
emotions, F(1,76) = 1.78, p = .19, ηp2= .02. Therefore, participants having worked in an
untidy cubicle reported more negative emotions than those having tidied it up.
Discussion
In this study, we found that when participants thought of an ambivalent topic, they had
higher visual perceptions of order than when they thought of a univalent topic. Moreover,
when they restored order in the environment, they had lower perceptions of order than when
they continued the experiment in a messy workplace. Therefore, we replicated previous
results (van Harreveld et al., 2012) that ambivalence fosters compensatory perceptions of
order and showed that when a following mechanism affirms order, there is less need for
compensatory order perceptions.
These results indicate that the ambivalence experience creates a desire for order rather
than a need for meaning or control. First, in this study as in the previous ones (van Harreveld
et al., 2012), participants thought of a variety of topics that for the most part were not related
to life meaning threats (dieting, immigration, smoking, etc.). Second, we argue that thinking
about ambivalent topics do not pose a threat against personal control, even for health-related
issues, when there is no personal involvement or necessity for a choice in the near future.
More important, tidying up a messy environment clearly reflects more an order affirmation
than a procedure fostering personal control or meaning of life.
AMBIVALENCE, DISORDERLY ENVIRONMENT
13
The physical activity of cleaning up the working environment seems to have a
metaphorical effect. Previous studies have shown the effects of different physical
experiences on social cognition (see Williams, Huang, & Bargh, 2009, for a review). For
example, hand-washing after the experience of physical disgust can lead to less severe moral
judgments and therefore to a “pure mind” (Schnall, Benton, & Harvey, 2008). In contrast,
working in a dirty room leaded to more severe moral judgments (Schnall, Haidt, Clore, &
Jordan, 2008). In a similar way, putting our environment in order may lead to an “orderly
mind” and decrease compensatory perceptions, while keeping our environment chaotic may
cause more need for psychological order and increase compensatory perceptions. Therefore,
we can see a metaphorical relationship between cleaning up the workplace and psychological
order.
Moreover, the relationship between the physical activity of cleaning up the
environment and the reduced compensatory perceptions of order partially supports the
embodied nature of ambivalence. Taking into account that side-to-side movements increase
ambivalence (Schneider et al., in press), while tidying up a messy environment reduces the
effects of ambivalence by reducing the “disorderly state” in our mind, we can predict that this
activity could have an effect on ambivalence itself. Therefore, future research can investigate
the impact of environmental order on experienced ambivalence.
In contrast with our predictions, we did not find an effect of ambivalence or
environmental order on the first two compensatory perceptions of order (support of
sociopolitical systems and belief in conspiracy theories). Our results are also different than
previous findings (van Harreveld et al., 2012) that ambivalence enhances beliefs in
conspiracy theories. This difference may be explained by the time delay and the different
activities took part in the present study (explaining participants that the questionnaire was not
installed, moving to the second cubicle, which participants cleaned up or completed an
AMBIVALENCE, DISORDERLY ENVIRONMENT
14
irrelevant task). Time seems to play an important role on ambivalence effects.
Procrastination can be a strategy to cope with ambivalence, when ambivalence is associated
with a choice (van Harreveld et al., 2009). When it is not connected with a choice, positive
and negative thoughts about the topic may become less accessible and therefore the effects of
ambivalence less strong. More research is necessary to explore this relationship. Although
this delay and additional activities seem to have been reduced the effect on conspiracy
theories and sociopolitical system support, they did not influence the visual perceptions task.
Taking into account that this task measures visual order (Ekstrom et al., 1976; Whitson &
Galinsky, 2008), we can conclude that it is more sensitive to our ambivalence and order
manipulations than the political system and conspiracies explicit questions. This finding
enhances our claim that there is more a need for order than a need for control or meaning.
Another finding inconsistent with our expectations is that our ambivalence
manipulation did not influence negative emotions and emotions did not mediate the
relationship between our manipulations and visual perceptions of order. This effect cannot be
explained by the dominance of negative univalent topics, as there was no difference on
negative emotions between participants thinking of a positive or negative topic. It may be
attributed, however, to the self-report measure we used. Measures of physiological arousal,
as used previously (Hass et al., 1992), could better show the role of discomfort in these
relationships. Therefore, more research is necessary to investigate this role. We found only
an effect of the tidiness manipulation on negative emotions, which shows that a disorderly
environment influences discomfort.
Future studies could find other alternative ways of affirmation of order, for example
different order manipulations that are not self-affirmative in nature, to further validate these
results. It is also useful to rule out the possibility that other mechanisms, such as a self-
AMBIVALENCE, DISORDERLY ENVIRONMENT
15
affirmation mechanism (Whitson & Gallinsky, 2008) do have a similar effect as the
affirmation of order after the experience of ambivalence.
Our findings could also have practical implications in experimental psychology and
clinical assessment, as they showed how a disorderly workplace can influence participants’
answers, especially in tasks measuring illusionary perceptions.
To summarize, the present study suggests that people tend to create psychological order
and view the world as a more orderly place when they feel ambivalent. Ambivalence is
probably becoming more and more prevalent in a society of mass media and advanced
information technology, where we have to cope very often with incongruent information
about various topics. Therefore, ambivalence is part of our everyday lives instead of being
just a clinical symptom, as it was previously defined. In addition, given that changing an
ambivalent attitude to a univalent one is not always possible and it usually requires cognitive
resources (van Harreveld, van der Pligt et al., 2009), compensatory strategies of order may
also be becoming a part of our life along with ambivalence.
AMBIVALENCE, DISORDERLY ENVIRONMENT
16
References
Burke, B. L., Martens, A., and Faucher E. H. (2010). Two decades of Terror Management
Theory: A meta-analysis of mortality salience research. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 14, 155- 195. doi: 10.1177/1088868309352321
Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H. H., & Dermen, D. (1976). Manual for kit of
factorreferenced cognitive tests. Educational Testing Service, Princeton.
Hass, R. G., Katz, I., Rizzo, N., Bailey, J., & Moore, L. (1992). When racial ambivalence
evokes negative affect, using a disguised measure of mood. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 18, 786-797. doi: 10.1177/0146167292186015
Jonas, K., Brömer, P., & Diehl, M. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence. In W. Stroebe & M.
Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 35-74).
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Jonas, K., Diehl, M., & Brömer, P. (1997). Effects of attitudinal ambivalence on information
processing and attitude-intention consistency. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 33, 190-210. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1996.1317
Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Napier, J. L., Callan, M. J., & Laurin, K. (2008). God and the
government: Testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external
systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 18-35. doi: 10.1037/00223514.95.1.18
Kay, A. C., Whitson, J. A., Gaucher, D., and Galinsky, A. D. (2010). Compensatory control :
Achieving order through the mind, our institutions, and the heavens. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 264-268. doi: 10.1111/j.14678721.2009.01649.x
AMBIVALENCE, DISORDERLY ENVIRONMENT
17
Laurin, K., Kay, A. C., & Moscovitch, D. A. (2008). On the belief in God: Towards an
understanding of the emotional substrates of compensatory control. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1559–1562. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.007
Neuberg, S., & Newsom, J. (1993). Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the
desire for simple structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 113131. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.113
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, 157-166. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.82.2.157
Nordgren, L. F., van Harreveld, F., & van der Pligt, J. (2006). Ambivalence, discomfort, and
motivated information processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42,
252-258. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.004
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, 431-449. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.431
Schnall, S., Benton, J., & Harvey, S. (2008). With a clean conscience: Cleanliness reduces
the severity of moral judgments. Psychological Science, 19, 1219–1222.
Schnall, S., Haidt, J., Clore, G. L., & Jordan, A. H. (2008). Disgust as embodied moral
judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1096-1109. doi:
10.1177/0146167208317771
Schneider, I.K., Eerland, A., van Harreveld, F., Rotteveel, M., van der Pligt, J., & Zwaan, R.
(in press). One way and the other: The bi-directional relationship between
ambivalence and body movement. Psychological Science.
AMBIVALENCE, DISORDERLY ENVIRONMENT
18
Stotz-Ingenlath, G. (2000). Epistemological aspects of Eugen Bleuler’s conception of
schizophrenia in 1911. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 3,153–159. doi:
10.1023/A:1009919309015
Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent about
(attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. E. Petty and J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude Strength:
Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361-386). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
van Harreveld, F., Rutjens, B. T., Rotteveel, M., Nordgren, L. F., & van der Pligt, J. (2009).
Ambivalence and decisional conflict as a cause of psychological discomfort: Feeling
tense when jumping off the fence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45,
167-173. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.015
van Harreveld, F., Rutjens, B. T., Schneider, I. K., & Nohlen, H. (under revision). In doubt
and disorderly: Ambivalence promotes compensatory perceptions of order.
van Harreveld, F., van der Pligt, J., & De Liver, Y. (2009). The agony of ambivalence and
ways to resolve it: Introducing the MAID model. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 13, 45-61. doi: 10.1177/1088868308324518
Whitson, J. A., & Galinksy, A. D. (2008). Lacking control increases illusory pattern
perception. Science, 322, 115-117. doi: 10.1126/science.1159845
Williams, L.E., Huang, J.Y., & Bargh, J.A. (2009). The scaffolded mind: Higher mental
processes are grounded in early experience of the physical world. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 39, 1257–1267.
AMBIVALENCE, DISORDERLY ENVIRONMENT
19
Table 1
Correlations between demographics and dependent measures. Significant correlations are
Gender (1 =
male, 2 =
female)
Age
Political
orientation
Religious
beliefs
Need for
structure
Negative
emotion after
ambivalence
manipulation
Negative
emotion after tidiness
manipulation
Sociopolitical
system
support
Belief in
conspiracy
theories
Visual
perceptions
of order
Visual perceptions of
order
Belief in conspiracy
theories
Sociopolitical system
support
Emotion -after
tidiness
manipulationn
Emotion -after
ambivalence
manipulationn
Need for structure
Religious beliefs
Political orientation
Age
Gender (1 = male, 2
= female)
presented in bold
1
-.02
1
-.05
-.09
1
.13
.08
-.05
1
.24*
-.10
.27*
-.17
1
.13
-.03
.00
-.07
.34**
1
.17
.01
.09
-.14
.36**
.71**
1
.03
.00
.11
-.10
.41**
-.01
.04
1
.03
.11
-.01
.18
-.07
.07
.05
.24*
1
-.14
.02
.06
-.16
-.09
.18
-.03
-.08
-.16
Note *p < .05. ** p<.01.
1
AMBIVALENCE, DISORDERLY ENVIRONMENT
Figure 1. The messy cubicle, where the tidiness manipulation took place.
20
AMBIVALENCE, DISORDERLY ENVIRONMENT
a.
b.
Figure 2. Examples of snowy pictures: an image (a) and a non-image (b).
21
AMBIVALENCE, DISORDERLY ENVIRONMENT
Figure 3. Illusionary perceptions mean scores within the ambivalence and univalence
conditions.
22