INFORMATION TO USERS
This manusctipt has been repmduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the
text directly from the original or copy submitted.
Tfius, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typeMiter face, while others may be from any type of
cornputer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct pn'nt, wlored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment
can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that me author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and
there are missing pages, these will be noted. Alsa, if unauthorized copyright
indicate the deletion.
material had to be removed, a note
Oversize materials (e-g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning
the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to
nght in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have b e n reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" blaclc and white photographie
prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for
an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
Bell & Howell Information and Leaming
300 Nom Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 USA
AMBIVALENCE AND RESPONSE POLARIZATION TOWARD NATIVE PEOPLE:
A
MOTIVATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
by
David W. Bell
Graduate Program in Psychology
Submitted in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Faculty of Graduate Studies
The University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario
September 1999
@
David W. Bell 1999
m*I
National Library
of Canada
Bibliothèque nationale
du Canada
Acquisitions and
Bibliographie Services
Acquisitions et
services bibliographiques
395 Wellington Street
Ottawa ON K1A ON4
395.rue Wellington
Ottawa ON K1A O N 4
Canada
Canada
Yow fite Vorm relérence
Our fi&
Narre référence
The author has granted a nonexclusive licence allowing the
National Library of Canada to
reproduce, loan, distribute or sel1
copies of this thesis in microform,
paper or electronic formats.
L'auteur a accordé une licence non
exclusive permettant à la
Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de
reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou
vendre des copies de cette thèse sous
la forme de microfiche/^, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
électronique.
The author retains ownership of the
copyright in this thesis. Neither the
thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it
d otherwise
may be p ~ t e or
reproduced without the author's
permission.
L'auteur conserve la propriété du
droit d'auteur qui protege cette thèse.
Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels
de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés
ou autrement reproduits sans son
autorisation.
ABSTRACT
.The current research investigated a motivational
explanation for ambivalence-induced response polarization in
the intergroup context. Ambivalent attitudes toward a group
are based on conflicting evaluations of the group,
containing both positive and negative dimensions (Katz
&
Hass, 1988; Olson & Zanna, 1993). This ambivalence may lead
to response polarization, which occurs when the responses of
individuals toward a group Vary between positive and
negative situations (e.g., positive information about the
group leads to a more positive attitude toward the group,
whereas negative information about the group leads to a more
negative attitude toward the group). Individuals who hold
ambivalent attitudes may display response polarization
because they are motivated to attempt to avoid the negative
feelings arising from ambivalence (see Hass, Katz, Rizzo,
Bailey,
&
Moore, 1992; Monteith, 1996). The first study
provided a demonstration of response polarization in a new
context, whereas the second study provided support for the
motivational explanation of response polarization.
In Study One, 119 participants completed open-ended
measures of stereotypes, symbolic beliefs, and emotions
to determine their ambivalence toward Native people. They
then read a positive or negative essay on Native land
claims. It was expected that only participants who were
ambivalent toward Native people would display response
iii
polarization. Results supported predictions; ambivalent
participants displayed a significant difference between the
positive and negative message conditions in their attitudes
toward Native people, In contrast, nonambivalent
participants did not differ between message conditions in
their attitudes toward Native people.
In Study ?Iwo, 253 participants completed the same
measures as in Study One, and received a motive manipulation
as well, The negative motive manipulation consisted of an
essay which emphasized the disadvantages of seeing both the
good and the bad in another person or situation ( i . e . ,
ambivalence was negative), whereas the positive motive
manipulation consisted of an essay which emphasized the
advantages (Le., ambivalence was positive), It was expected
that ambivalent participants who received the negative
motive manipulation would display response polarization,
whereas ambivalent participants who received the positive
motive manipulation would not display response polarization.
Results supported the predictions, providing evidence for
the motivational explanation of response polarization.
Keywords: ambivalence, response polarization, Native people,
motivation, attitudes
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTÇ
1 would like to thank my advisor, Victoria Esses, for
her unwavering enthusiasm and support throughout the entire
dissertation process. Hex excellence as a researcher and as
a person has facilitated the completion of my dissertation,
and has made the graduate school experience more enjoyable
and educational. Thanks, ~ i c k i !
1 would a l s o like to thank the members of my examining
board, Ken Dion, Bill Fisher, Ed Grabb, and Jim Olson, for
the insightful questions and feedback they provided. In
addition, 1 thank Rod Martin for bis- feedback at my
departmental, and Bob Gardner for serving on my advisory
committee and providing valuable advice on statistical
issues.
Finally, 1 would like to thank Greg Maio, Lynne
Jackson, ~ a r i eWalker, Mike Ashton, Gordon Hodson, and
Leslie Janes. Their friendship during graduate school is
valued and much appreciated.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract
iii
Acknowledgements
v
Table of Contents
vi
List of T a b l e s
vii
List of ~ppendices
viii
CHAPTER 1
-
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1
2
Ambivalent Attitudes
5
Ambivalent Intergroup Attitudes
Ambivalence-Induced Responses to Group Members 8
8
Response Amplification
11
Response Polarization
16
Possible Mechanisms
16
P r i m i n g Explanation
19
Motivational Explanation
22
Overview of the Present Research
-
STUDY ONE
Method
Results
~iscussion
CHAPTER II
-
CHAPTER III
STUDY TWO
Method
Results
Discussion
CHAPTER IV
-
GENERIU; DISCUSSION
Recap of Major Results
~heoreticalImplications
Practical Implications
Limitations of the Research
Directions for Future Research
Conclusions
References
Appendices
Vita
78
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table
Table 1
Intercorrelations Between the Dependent Measures
(study One)
34
Table 2
Attitudes Toward Native People as a Function of
Ambivalence Toward Native People and Message
Valence (Study One)
Table 3
Attitudes Toward Native Land C l a i m s as a Function
of Ambivalence Toward Native People and Message
Valence (Study One)
38
Table 4
Intercorrelations Between the Dependent Measures
(Study Two)
53
Table 5
Attitudes Toward ~ a t i v ePeople as a Function of
Ambivalence Toward Native People, Motive Manipulation,
and Message Valence (Study Two)
55
Table 6
Attitudes Toward Native Land Claims as a Function
of Ambivalence Toward Native People, Motive
Manipulation, and Message Valence (Study Two)
58
vii
LIST OF APPENDICES
~ppendix
Page
~ppendixA: Study One Materials
85
Appendix B: Study Two Materials
111
viii
1
CHAPTER ONE
-
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Ambivalence and Response Polarization Toward Native People:
A Motivational Perspective
People who are ambivalent toward a group have attitudes
that are based on conflicting evaluations of the group. That
is, their attitudes contain bath positive and negative
dimensions (Katz
&
Hass, 1988; Olson
&
Zanna, 1993)
. For
example, an individual may be sympathetic toward a group
(positive) but dis like certain personality traits displayed
by group members (negative). Specifically, people in Canada
may have sympathy for Native people because of the poor
treatment they have received in the past, yet dislike Native
people because they perceive them to be lazy.
This ambivalence may lead ta response polarization
toward the group. Response polarization occurs when the
responses of individuals toward a group Vary between
positive and negative situations. For example, an ambivalent
individual who learns positive information about Native
people may polarize in a positive direction resulting in a
more positive attitude toward the group, whereas the same
individual who learns negative information about Native
people may polarize in a negative direction resulting in a
more negative attitude toward the group. In contrast,
individuals who are not ambivalent toward Native people
would not be expected to display this response polarization,
but instead will maintain more consistent attitudes across
situations. The current research examines response
polarization in a new context in which individuals are
presented with positive or negative messages relevant to the
target of their ambivalence.
Ambivalent individuals may engage in response
polarization because of cognitive and/or motivational
factors. The current research examines the motivational
explanation for response polarization. It has been suggested
that response polarization might occur because ambivalent
individuals are motivated to a t t e m p t t o reduce the aversive
feelings that ambivalence toward a group elicits (see Hass
et al., 1992; Monteith, 1996). The aversive feelings
associated with ambivalence have been shown ta include
discornfort and guilt (see Monteith, 1996). Ambivalent
individuals may attempt to decrease this emotional tension
by responding in either a positive direction or a negative
direction. The decrease in emotional tension may occur
because the ambivalent attitude may no longer be salient.
Thus, the current research has multiple goals. The
first goal is to demonstrate response polarization in a new
context. The second goal is to test the motivational
explanation for response polarization.
Ambivalent Attitudes
Ambivalent attitudes have been defined as %onflicted
evaluations
-
attitudes that contain both positive and
negative elementsuv (Olson & Zama, 1993, p. 123; see also
3
Eagly
6
Chaiken, 1993; Kaplan, 1972; Katz
Thompson, Zanna,
&
&
Hass, 1988;
Griffin, 1995). Kaplan (1972) brought the
issue of ambivalence to the attention of psychologists when
he suggested that the neutral midpoint of semantic
differential s c a l e s could represent either indifferent
attitudes or ambivalent attitudes. Indifference is
characterized by having neither a positive nor a negative
attitude, whereas ambivalence is a conflicted attitude
(having both positive and negative attitude elements at the
same time). Kaplan's position that attitudes consisted of
separable positive and negative dimensions differed from
that of the majority of attitude researchers at the time,
who conceived of attitudes as unidimensional (see Thompson
et a l .
,
1995 for a discussion of this issue)
. Xt
generally assumed that one had either a positive
was
or
a
negative attitude toward an attitude object and that
attitudes lay along a continuum from negative to positive.
However, the suggestion that attitudes can be ambivalent
implied that one can evaluate an attitude object both
positively and negatively at the same time.
Since that time, it has become widely accepted that
ambivalence is an important property of attitudes. In terms
of conceptual research, Cacioppo and his colleagues have
examined evaluative space and concluded that the positive
and negative dimensions of attitudes are distinct (see
Cacioppo
&
Berntson, 1994; Cacioppo, Gardner,
&
Berntson,
1997). In addition, ambivalence has been discussed as a
major dimension of attitude structure (Eagly
&
Chaiken,
1993; Eagïy & Chaiken, 1998). In terms of the measurement 06
ambivalence, a number of researchers have proposed different
formulae to calculate the degree of ambivalence based on
separate assessments of the positive and negative dimensions
of attitudes (e.g.,
Bell, Esses,
Petty, 1996; Thompson et
&
Maio, 1996; Priester
&
al., 1995). In addition, Glick and
his colleagues have developed a questionnaire measure of
ambivalence toward women (Glick, Diebold, Bailey-Werner,
Zhu, 1997, Glick & Fiske, 1996)
. In terms
&
of empirical
research, the antecedents of ambivalent attitudes (Thompson
&
Zanna, 1995), and the consequences of ambivalent attitudes
for the processing of information (Jonas, Diehl,
&
Bromer,
1997; Maio, Bell, br Esses, 1996; Petty, Fleming, & White,
1999) have been examined.
Ambivalent attitudes may occur for a number of reasons.
Thompson and Zanna (1995) found that ambivalence toward a
number of social issues was related to the personality
variables of Need for Cognition, and Persona1 Fear of
Invalidity. Need for Cognition was negatively related to
ambivalence, whereas P e r s o n a l Fear of Invalidity was
positively related to ambivalence. It is interesting to note
that these associations between ambivalence and the
personality variables were moderated by involvement (i.-e-,
they did not hold when participants demonstrated low
involvement in the issues).
Ambivalence may also occur because people hold
potentially conflicting values. For example, many Americans
may believe in the Protestant work e t h i c and
humanitarianism. Katz and Bass (1988) found that Anti-~lack
attitudes and the Protestant work ethic were r e l a t e d ,
whereas Pro-Black attitudes and humanitarianism were
related. Thus, believing in both the Protestant work ethic
and humanitarianism would lead to holding both positive and
negative attitudes toward Blacks (i.e., ambivalence). In a
similar way, valuing both freedom and the sanctity of life
may lead to ambivalence toward a social policy such as
legalized abortion.
Ambivalent Intercrrouu Attitudes
Ambivalence is important in the intergroup context.
~ t t i t u d e sof the majority group toward minority groups are
often described as ambivalent, or conflicted. For example,
attitudes toward the disabled have often been characterized
as ambivalent, containing both positive and negative
dimensions (see Heinemann, 1990; Katz, 1981; Katz, Hass,
&
Bailey, 1988). The positive dimension of this ambivalence
includes perceptions that the disabled are victims and
feelings of sympathy, whereas the negative dimension
includes perceptions that the disabled are deviant and
feelings of aversion. The disabled are perceived as deviant
because they are I1different" from normal people due to their
6
physical or mental handicap (for a further discussion of
this issue see Heinemann, 1990; Katz et al,, 1988).
In addition, current attitudes toward Blacks in the
United States are described as ambivalent, containing both
positive and negative dimensions (Gaertner
&
Dovidio, 1986;
Katz, Wackenhut, & Hass, 1986; McConahay, 1986).
McConahay
(1986) has suggested that m i t e s g ambivalence toward Blacks
results from the conflict between anti-Black affect and
egalitarian values within the person. The anti-Black affect
is thought to originate from early s~cialization
experiences, and the egalitarian values include equality and
fairness, Thus, the ambivalent individual's desire to be
fair to Blacks is in conflict with his/her negative emotions
toward Blacks. Similarly, Gaertner and Dovidio (1986)
consider aversive racism to reflect a type of ambivalence.
Positive feelings and beliefs about Blacks are in conflict
with negative feelings and beliefs. The positive affect and
cognition are the result of egalitarian values, whereas the
negative affect and cognition toward Blacks are supposedly
derived from infomation-processing biases ( e . g . ,
consequences of perceiving Blacks as an outgroup) and
cultural forces (e.g., cultural stereotypes about Blacks).
The negative affect and cognition are thought to be
operating at an unconscious level because aversive racists
wish to believe that they are unprejudiced.
Katz, Wackenhut,
&
Hass (1986) suggest that the
7
positive dimension of ambivalence toward Blacks includes
perceptions that Blacks are disadvantaged and feelings of
sympathy, whereas the negative dimension includes
perceptions that Blacks are deviant and feelings of
aversion. The roots of this conflict are thought to
originate in the American endorsement of egalitarian values
and the Protestant work ethic. Because of their agreement
with egalitarian values, Whites believe that Blacks have
been disadvantaged by society and need to be given a fair
chance. However, because of their agreement with the
Protestant work ethic, Whites believe that Blacks contribute
to their condition through their laziness and criminal
activity
.
In a similar way, current attitudes toward Native
people in Canada may be described as ambivalent, containing
negative feelings of dislike and positive feelings of
sympathy (Bell et al. , 1996)
. For
example, participants in
previous studies have indicated negative emotions toward
Native people (e.g., anger) and negative stereotypes about
Native people ( e . g . , alcoholic)
. However, they have
also
indicated positive emotions about Native people (e.g.,
pride) and positive stereotypes about Native people ( e . g . ,
friendly) (Bell et al., 1996). Thus, it seems that negative
attitudes held toward minorities in the past have not been
replaced by positive attitudes, but instead have had a
positive dimension added to them, leading to intergroup
ambivalence,
Ambivalence-Induced Res~onsest o
gr ou^
Members
Ambivalence may lead to response amplification or
response polarization. Although conceptually related,
response amplification and response polarization are not the
same. Consequently, these two types of ambivalence-induced
responses will be discussed in separate sections.
R e s ~ o n s eAmplification
The prevalence of ambivalent attitudes toward minority
groups has important consequences for the treatment of group
members. For example, it has been suggested that ambivalence
toward stigmatized groups in society can lead to amplified
responses to group members (Katz, 1981)
. That
is, it has
been suggested that when people hold ambivalent attitudes
toward stigmatized groups, their responses to group members
will be amplified in a positive or a negative direction as
compared to their responses to members of nonstigmatized
groups (Katz, 1981). The direction of the amplification has
been-proposed to depend on situational factors. For example,
if a target person behaves negatively, then negative
response amplification should occur, leading to more
negative responses to the target group member than to the
majority group member, whereas if a target person behaves
positively, positive response amplification should occur,
leading to more positive responses to the target group
rnember than to the majority group member (Katz, Wackenhut, &
Glass, 1986)
.
Katz (1981) has suggested that most Whites in the
United States are currently ambivalent toward B l a c k s . He and
his colleagues have proposed that, as a result, Whites will
evaluate a Black person who displays socially desirable
characteristics more favourably than a White person with the
same characteristics. By the same token, Whites will
evaluate a Black person who displays socially undesirable
characteristics less favourâbly than a comparable White
person (Katz, Wackenhut, t Glass, 1986; Katz, Wackenhut,
Hass, 1986)
. This
&
response amplification effect would not be
expected to occur for individuals who are not ambivalent
toward Blacks,
In the context of research examining responses to
positive or negative input from a target person ( i . e . ,
characteristics or behaviour of a person), response
amplification in both a positive and negative direction has
seldom been demonstrated within a single study. Perhaps the
clearest evidence of response amplification in both a
positive and negative direction was obtained by Gibbons,
Stephan, Stephenson, and Petty (1980, Expt. 3).
In this
study, participants solved anagrams and had their scores
combined with the scores of a handicapped or nonhandicapped
confederate.
In the failure condition, subjects were
informed that their @Weam" had attained a percentile ra-nk of
11, whereas in the success condition, subjects were told
10
that their 'Tearnw had attained a percentile rank of 89.
Results indicated that the handicapped confederate was
evaluated significantly more favourably than the
nonhandicapped confederate in the success condition, and the
handicapped confederate was evaluated significantly less
favourably than the nonhandicapped confederate in the
failure condition.
Another study provided some evidence of response
amplification, though response amplification in the positive
direction was not statistically sign-ificant (Hass, Katz,
Rizzo, Bailey,
&
Eisenstadt, 1991). In this study,
participants w e r e required to answer trivia questions
selected by a Black or a White team captain. In the success
condition, the captain asked simple questions and the
required score was easily attained, whereas in the failure
condition, the captain asked difficult questions and wasted
time so that the required score was not attained. Results
indicated that the Black captain was evaluated less
favourably than the White captain in the failure condition.
Although the Black captain received somewhat higher ratings
than the White captain in the success condition, the
difference was not statistically significant.
Indeed, a recent meta-analysis of this literature
indicates that there is not general support for response
amplification in both directions (Dovidio
&
Mullen, 1999).
Dovidio and Mullen (1999) discovered that, across studies,
11
Blacks were generally evaluated significantly more
favourably than Whites in both favourable and unfavourable
conditions. However, some evidence of response amplification
emerged when the variable of personal relevance was
considered. If the behaviour of the target person had
persona1 relevance for the participant, then Blacks were
evaluated significantly less favourably than Whites in the
unfavourable condition, and slightly more favourably
(although nonsignificantly) than Whites in the favourable
condition (as in the Hass et al., 1991 study). In contrast,
if the behaviour of the target person was not personally
relevant for the participant, then Blacks were evaluated
significantly more favourably than Whites in both favourable
and unfavourable conditions.
Response Polarization
In addition ta response amplification, ambivalence may
lead to response polarization. It should be noted that
response amplification requires evaluations of one's own
group, whereas response polarization does not involve
evaluations of one's own group. The current context examines
response polarization as moderated by ambivalence ( i - e . ,
ambivalence leads to greater response polarization).
Response polarization can be defined as a significant
difference between positive and negative conditions in
response to the group ( e t response in positive condition
> response in negative condition). The positive and negative
conditions may involve learning positive or negative
information about the group, or interacting with group
members who behave in a positive or a negative manner. For
example, an ambivalent person who learns positive
information about Native people will polarize in a positive
direction, whereas an ambivalent person who learns negative
information about Native people will polarize in a negative
direction resulting in a significant difference between the
two conditions.
The degree of response polarization may be determined
by comparing the positive and negative conditions for
ambivalent individuals as described above. In addition, the
degree of response polarization may be determined by
comparing ambivalent individuals to some sort of control
condition ( e . g . , nonambivalent individuals or a condition
under which ambivalent individuals are not expected to show
response polarization). For example, in comparing ambivalent
individuals to nonambivalent individuals, it would be
expected that the ambivalent individuals would display a
greater degree of response polarization. Specifically, it
would be expected that ambivalent participants would display
a greater difference between the positive and negative
conditions in their responses to the target than would
nonambivalent participants.
Response polarization differs from response
amplification in several ways. To determine response
13
amplification, one compares responses to a target group and
responses t o one's owmgroup. To determine r e s p o n s e
polarization, responses to one's o w n group are not required.
Instead, one compares responses in the positive condition to
responses in the negative condition. In addition, one may
compare the differential response between positive and
negative conditions to the responses of a suitable control
grou@
.
Several studies have provided support for ambivalence-
induced response polarization ( e . g .
MacDonald
&
,-
Bell & Esses, 1997 ;
Zanna, 1998; Maio et al., 1996)
. In
the Bell and
Esses (1997) study, participants completed open-ended
measures of attitude components to assess their ambivalence
toward Native people. One week later, participants underwent
a mood induction procedure in which they listened to
passages of music designed to p u t t h e m in a positive,
neutral, or negative mood. They then indicated their
attitudes toward Native people and responded to a number of
social policy questions relevant to Native p e o p l e (e.g., tax
breaks, gun control). Evidence of response poiarization was
not obtained using manipulated mood, but was obtained a f t e r
participants had been reclassified according to self-report
of mood. In particular , results demonstrated that
participants who were ambivalent toward Native people
displayed response polarization. Ambivalent participants
indicated more favourable attitudes toward Native people
14
when in a positive mood state than when in a negative mood
state. In contrast, nonambivalent participants did not
differ between positive and negative mood states in their
attitudes toward Native people. In addition, ambivalent
participants endorsed special privileges for Native people
to a greater degree when i n a positive mood state t h a n when
in a negative mood state. In contrast, nonambivalent
participants did n o t differ between positive and negative
mood states in their endorsement of special privileges f o r
Native people.
Evidence of response polarization was also found in a
study investigating ambivalence and persuasion. Maio et al.
(1996) examined whether participants who were ambivalent
toward Oriental people would systematically process strong
and weak messages that recommended allowing residents of
Hong Kong to come to Canada. In the c o n t e x t of the impending
takeover of Hong Kong by China, participants read an
e d i t o r i a l espousing the positive qualities of residents of
Hong Kong and recommending that Canada accept them as
immigrants. In the strong message, the positive qualities
were strongly associated with residents of Hong Kong,
whereas in the weak message, the positive qualities were
weakly associated with residents of Hong Kong. Results
indicated that ambivalent participants who received the
strong message were more favourable toward the
recommendation to allow residents of Hong Kong to come to
15
Canada than ambivalent participants who received the weak
message. In contrast, nonambivalent participants did not
differ between strong and weak messages in terms of their
agreement with the recommendation.
Although this study was
not designed to examine response polarization per se, it
provides findings that are supportive of response
polarization if strong and weak messages are considered
analogous to positive and negative conditions.
Further evidence of response polarization was
discovered in a recent study in which the target of
ambivalence was not an ethnic group. MacDonald and Zanna
(1998) examined the consequences of ambivalence toward
feminists in the context of hiring a job applicant. In the
first part of the study, participants heard a fictitious j o b
interview that had been tape-recorded. In the positive
condition, participants were told that the job applicant (a
male named Pete) had been hired.
After listening to the
tape, these participants were informed that numerous people
thought Pete was hired because of certain positive qualities
he displayed. In t h e negative condition, participants were
told that the j o b applicant had not been hired. A f t e r
listening to the tape, these participants were informed that
numerous people thought Pete was n o t hired because of
certain negative qualities he displayed. In the second part
of the study, participants were required to evaluate the job
resume of a feminist applicant (along with two filler
16
resumes). Results indicated that participants who were
ambivalent toward feminists displayed response polarization
on the hiring decision- Specifically, ambivalent
participants in the positive condition, who had heard the
tape describing positive qualities of another job applicant,
were significantly more favourable about hiring the feminist
applicant than ambivalent participants in the negative
condition, who had heard the tape describing negative
qualities of another job applicant. In contrast,
nonambivalent participants did not dzffer between positive
and negative conditions in terms of their intention to hire
the feminist applicant.
P o s s i b l e Mechanisms
Primincr Emlanation
Priming occurs when information in memory is made more
accessible and influences subsequent judgments (Fiske
Taylor, 1991)
.
&
are what is used to make information
in memory more accessible. For example, consider the
scenario in which individuals presented with the word
lhostile' subsequently judge a target person as more hostile
than individuals who are not presented with the word
'hostilev- In this case, the prime is the word 'hostilef
and the priming effect is the more hostile evaluation of the
target persan.
Priming effects may be used to explain ambivalenceinduced response polarization. Ambivalence involves a
combination of both positive and negative attitude
dimensions. Therefore, based on a mode1 of priming, one
would expect individuals who hold ambivalent attitudes to
display response polarization effects because both positive
and negative attitude dimensions are available to be
accessed, depending on the context. If the positive attitude
dimension is accessed, this would result in a positive
response, whereas if the negative attitude dimension is
accessed, this would result in a negative response (see also
Linville, Salovey,
&
Fischer, 1986).'Ambivalent attitudes
may thus lead to more or less favourable responses,
depending on whether the positive or negative dimension has
been made salient. For example, in some of the studies
described previously, the positive or negative information
may have primed the positive or negative dimension of
ambivalent individualsl attitudes toward the group. A s a
result, response polarization based on shifts in the
positive or negative direction may have resulted. In
contrast, individuals who do not hold ambivalent attitudes
should not show effects in both directions, if at all,
because their attitudes contain predominantly a positive or
negative dimension that should more consistently determine
their responses. For example, an individual with a negative
attitude toward a group is likely to respond negatively to a
group member who displays either positive or negative
characteristics
.
18
The Bell and Esses (1997) study on ambivalence toward
Native people was designed to test a priming explanation for
ambivalence-induced response polarization. In that study,
mood was selected as a prime because of earlier research
demonstrating that individuals who are in a positive mood
are especially likely to access positive information from
memory, whereas individuals who are in a negative mood are
especially likely to access negative information from memory
(for reviews see Blaney, 1986; Singer & Salovey, 1988).
Thus, it was expected that when ambivalent participants were
in a positive mood, the positive dimension of their
attitudes toward Native people would be most likely to come
to mind, whereas when they were in a negative mood, the
negative dimension of their attitudes toward Native people
would be most likely to come to mind. The finding that
ambivalent participants indicated more favourable attitudes
toward ~ a t i v epeople when in a positive mood state than when
in a negative mood state provides some support for the
priming explanation of response polarization ( i - e . , positive
attitude dimension more accessible when in a positive mood
and negative attitude dimension more accessible when in a
negative mood)
.
MacDonald and Zanna (1998) a l s o provide evidence for
priming as an explanation for ambivalence-induced response
polarization. In their study, participants were primed with
either positive or negative information about a male job
19
applicant. For ambivalent participants, it was thought that
the positive information would prime the positive dimension
of their attitude toward feminists, whereas the negative
information would prime the negative dimension of their
attitude toward feminists. The finding that ambivalent
participants in the positive prime condition were
significantly more favourable about hiring the feminist
applicant than ambivalent participants in the negative prime
condition is further support for the priming explanation of
response polarization.
Motivational Explanation
It has been suggested that motivational factors may
also lead t o response polarization. In the earlier work on
ambivalence-induced response amplification, Katz (1981)
provided a motivational explanation for the effects
obtained.
Katz ( 1 9 8 1 ) suggested that ambivalence-induced response
amplification is mediated by a threat to self-regard. A s
described earlier, he suggested that stigmatized groups,
such as Blacks, are seen as both deviant and disadvantaged.
The perception of deviancy may evoke feelings of aversion
(negative), whereas the perception of disadvantage may evoke
feelings of sympathy (positive), thus forming the basis of
the ambivalent, or conflicted attitudes. Katz (1981) further
suggested t h a t the conflict may be made salient by contact
with a member of the stigmatized group, especially if
20
information is encountered that seems to contradict one of
the dimensions and support the other dimension. He proposed
that emotional tension and a threat to self-esteem result.
This threat to self-esteem was saià to occur because White
people see themselves as tldiscerninglt
yet Ithumanew in their
treatment of others.
Katz, Wackenhut, and Glass (1986)
suggested that sympathetic feelings toward discredited
. ., Blacks)
others (e g
threaten the tgdiscerningft
part of
white peoplest self-image, which mandates feelings of
sympathy only toward those who meritbit. In contrast,
aversive feelings toward people less fortunate than
part of
themselves (e.g. , Blacks) threaten the lthumanett
white peoplest self-image in which they view themselves as
unprejudiced. Katz and his colleagues (Katz, 1981; Katz,
Wackenhut, & Glass, 1986; Katz, Wackenhut, & Hass, 1986)
thus suggested that in order to reduce emotional tension and
threat to self-esteem, ambivalent individuals deny (or
defend) the dimension that has been discredited by the
behaviour of the stigmatized person. This is evident in
extreme behaviour, called response amplification. To date,
there is no direct evidence for the motivational explanation
that threat to self-regard is a mediator of ambivalenceinduced response amplification.
A motivational explanation can also be provided for
ambivalence-induced response polarization effects. It has
been suggested that ambivalence is experienced as aversive
21
(e.g., Katz, 1981), and indeed recent research has provided
some support for the association between the salience of
ambivalent attitudes and emotional tension, Hass et al.
(1992) manipulated the salience of participants' racial
attitudes. In the high salience condition, participants
listened to excerpts of interviews about an incident of
racial violence in which both favourable and unfavourable
comments about Blacks were presented. In the low salience
condition, participants completed a filler task. The results
indicated that participants who were'high in ambivalence and
who had experienced the high salience manipulation expressed
the most negative emotions. ~ o n t e i t h (1996) examined the
affective consequences of various types of conflict ( e - g . ,
ambivalence, modern racisrn). Participants completed a
variety of measures, including an affect checklist. Results
indicated that ambivalence was related to an index of
discornfort ( e . g . , uneasy, tense) and an index of negative
emotions directed toward the self, such as guilt.
Response polarization may be an attempt to try to
eliminate these aversive feelings caused by ambivalence.
That individuals are motivated to reduce aversive feelings
has been demonstrated in the literature on cognitive
dissonance (see Cooper
&
Fazio, 1984; Eagly
&
chaiken, 1993;
Festinger, 1957; McGregor, Newby-Clark, & Zanna, 1999). In
the typical dissonance experiment, dissonance was aroused by
having the participant engage in counter-attitudinal
22
behaviour. The reduction of dissonance usually occurred by
the participant changing his/her attitude in the direction
of the behaviour (see Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, McGregor et
al., 1999). In the present context, by polarizing in a
positive or negative direction, the ambivalent individual
may be attempting to reduce the emotional tension he/she is
experiencing. The ambivalent individual may be assuming that
by focussing on either the positive dimension or the
negative dimension of his/her attitude toward the target,
emotional tension will be decreased.'This may occur because
the individual is no longer Eocussed on his/her ambivalence.
Thus, polarizing in the direction of new information may
allow the ambivalent individual to attempt to reduce
ambivalence and the associated aversive feelings.
An important issue to raise is that support for the
motivational explanation of response polarization would not
preclude cognitive factors from playing a r d e . For example,
it is possible that a two-stage process could be operating.
In the first stage, the positive or negative attitude
dimension may be primed by positive or negative information
about the group. In the second stage, response polarization
may then occur if the ambivalent individual is motivated to
reduce ambivalence.
Overview of the Present Research
A review of the relevant literature indicates that
there is some evidence of ambivalence-induced response
polarization. In addition, there is some support for a
priming explanation of ambivalence-induced response
polarization, but no direct evidence for the motivational
explanation of ambivalence-induced response polarization.
There is evidence that ambivalence can cause negative
feelings, but there is no direct evidence that the
motivation ta reduce the aversive feelings associated with
ambivalence is driving response polarization. Thus, it
seemed useful to test the motivational explanation that
people polarize in an attempt to avoid the negative emotions
associated with ambivalence. In addition, another goal of
the present research was to determine whether response
polarization would occur in a different context than that
used in previous research. Past research used the context of
strong and weak messages (Maio et al., 1996), positive and
negative mood (Bell
&
Esses, 1997), positive and negative
primes (MacDonald & Zanna, 1998) or a positive and negative
representative of the group (Hass et al., 1991; Katz, 1981).
In the current context, participants were provided with
positive or negative messages that were relevant to the
target of their ambivalence.
The purpose of the present research was thus twofold.
First, it determined whether response polarization would
occur in a new context, when individuals were presented with
positive or negative messages about a group. It should be
noted that the new context is the presentation of positive
24
versus negative messages about a group. The positive message
presented positive information about an issue relevant to
the group, whereas the negative message presented negative
information about the same issue. Second, the present
research provided a test of the motivational explanation for
ambivalence-induced response polarization. Individuals were
presented with either a negative motive manipulation
implying that ambivalence was negative or a positive motive
manipulation implying that ambivalence was positive. Study
One was designed to address the first purpose ( L e . ,
response polarization in a new context) and Study Two was
designed to address t h e second purpose (i.e., test of the
motivational explanation).
25
CHAPTER TWO
-
STUDY ONE
In the first study, participants completed open-ended
measures of stereotypes, symbolic beliefs (beliefs that
group members threaten or promote cherished values, customs,
and traditions), and emotions to detennine their ambivalence
toward Native people. Participants then read a message that
was either positive or negative toward Native land claims.
Participantst attitudes toward Native people and toward
Native land claims were then assessed.
It was expected that the results would provide evidence
of response polarization. In particular, it was predicted
that participants who were ambivalent toward Native people
would show a significant difference between the positive and
negative message conditions in their attitudes toward Native
people (in the direction of the messages). In addition, it
was expected that the difference for ambivalent participants
would be greater than the difference for nonambivalent
participants. We expected weaker effects to occur on the
measure of attitudes toward Native land claims, because we
could not be sure that participants who were initially
ambivalent toward Native people were similarly ambivalent
toward the specific issue of Native land claims.
'Why did we expect messages about ~ a t i v eland claims to
affect attitudes toward Native people? The rationale is that
messages about Native land claims should prime the positive
and negative dimensions of ambivalent participants'
attitudes toward Native people. That is, it seems likely
that information about Native land claims is associateà in
memory with information'about Native people.
Method
Partici~antsand Desian
Participants were 119 undergraduates at the University
of Western Ontario (73 women and 46 men) who participated
for course credit, The data from an additional thirteen
individuals were excluded from analysis due to suspicion
expressed during debriefing, describing oneself as Native,
or failure to complete the ambivalence measure properly.
The design was a 2 x 2 factorial, with two betweensubjects factors
. The
f irst between-sub jects factor was
ambivalence toward Native people, with twa levels:
ambivalent and not ambivalent. The second between-subjects
factor was message valence, with two levels to which
participants were randomly assigned: positive or negative. 1
Procedure
Participants were run in groups of I to 4. They were
recruited for a study of social attitudes in which they
would indicate their perceptions of a number of groups and
'Participant sex was also initially included as a factor in
the analyses of the dependent measures. Because participant
sex did not interact with any of the other factors, it is
not included in the analyses described here. However, main
effects of sex were obtained on the dependent measures of
Attitudes toward Native people and Attitudes toward Native
land claims. In both cases, women indicated more favourable
attitudes than men (M = 1.30 vs. M = 0 . 5 4 , and
= 1.05 vs.
= 0.35, respectively).
27
social issues. Upon arriva1 at the laboratory, they were
informed that there were several parts to the study. The
first part o f the study involved a questionnaire containing
an attitude measure and open-ended measures designed to
assess ambivalence in stereotypes, symbolic beliefs (beliefs
that group members threaten or promote cherished values,
customs, and traditions), and emotions. The target groups to
whom participants were asked to respond were Native, English
Canadian and French Canadian people. The last two target
groups were included as filler to mask the primary group of
interest, which was Native people. The attitude measure was
included to ensure that ambivalent and nonambivalent
participants did not differ in their initial overall
attitudes toward Native people. The order of the
stereotypes, symbolic beliefs, and emotions measures, and of
the three target groups were counterbalanced across
participants.
The second part of the study was a filler task
concerning English Canadian and French Canadian people.
Participants read an essay that described the contributions
of English Canadian and French Canadian p e o p l e to canadian
demographics, the sport of hockey, and canadian cuisine.
Participants then answered a series of factual questions on
the essay.
The third part of the study dealt with Native land
d a i m s and included the manipulation of message valence and
28
the dependent measures regarding attitudes toward Native
land claims and toward Native people. participants read an
essay that was either positive or negative toward Native
land claims. Then, they responded to a number of questions
regarding their attitudes toward Native land claims and
toward Native people, as well as indicating their
perceptions of the strength of the essay.
Finally, participants were asked to indicate their sex,
age, and the ethnic group(s) to which they belonged. They
were then probed for suspicion, debriefed, and thanked for
their participation. The consent form, feedback letter, and
al1 of the measures used in Study One can be found in
Appendix A.
Initial attitudes toward Native ~ e o ~ l eOverall
.
evaluations of Native people (and of English Canadian and
French Canadian people) were assessed using a thermometer-
like scale with the lower point (O") being extremely
unfavourable and the upper point (100") being extremely
favourable (Esses, Haddock,
&
Zanna, 1993)
. Labels were
provided every 10" to indicate different levels of
favourable or unfavourable attitudes, with the midpoint
(50')
labelled "neither favourable nor unfavourable. "
Participants were required to indicate a number on the scale
representing how favourably or unfavourably they evaluated
each group.
The attitude thermometer is solely evaluative in
29
nature, which differs from the "feeling themorneter" used
previousïy to assess primarily affect (Campbell, 1971).
Participants are asked to use the attitude thermometer to
indicate their overall evaluation of a group, whether it is
based on affect, cognition, or a combination of bath. Recent
use of the attitude thermometer in the assessment of
intergroup attitudes has demonstrated that it is reliable
and valid ( e . g . , Haddock, Zanna,
& Esses,
1993; Stangor,
Sullivan, & Ford, 1991).
Ambivalence toward Native people. Ambivalence was
computed using the valence of the stereotypes, symbolic
beliefs, and emotions toward Native people provided by
participants. Stereotypes, symbolic beliefs, and emotions
were assessed using an open-ended procedure (Esses et al.,
1993). To assess stereotypes, participants were asked to
describe the characteristics of typical rnembers of the
target group by providing a list of adjectives or short
descriptive phrases. They were instructed to provide as many
adjectives or short phrases as were necessary to convey
their impression of the group and to describe t h e group
adequately (to a maximum of 12). Participants were then
asked to go back and assign a valence (favourability rating)
to each of the characteristics they had used to describe
rnembers of the group using a 7-point scale ranging from
(extremely negative) to
+++
---
(extremely positive).
The assessment of symbolic beliefs and of emotions was
30
done in a similar fashion. For symbolic beliefs,
participants were asked ta list the values, customs, and
traditions that they believed were held or practised by
typical members of the group, and to assign a valence
(favourability rating) to each value, custom, and tradition
they had listed. For emotions, participants were asked to
list emotions and feelings that they experienced when they
saw, met, or thought about members of the group, and to
assign a valence to each feeling and emotion that they had
listed,
For each component of attitudes toward Native people
(Le., stereotypes, symbolic beliefs, emotions), positive
dimension scores were obtained by summing the positive
valences across the items listed. Similarly, negative
dimension scores were obtained by summing the negative
valences across the i t e m listed. Participantst ambivalence
scores for each of stereotypes, symbolic beliefs, and
emotions were then calculated using a formula developed for
open-ended measures which takes into account both the extent
ta which the positive and negative dimensions are opposed
(i.e. , conf lict) and the e x t e n t to which they are not
opposed (i.e., nonopposed polarity; Bell
et al.,
1996; Maio, et al., 1996)
&
Esses, 1997; Bell
. ~ p e c i ically,
f
ambivalence
scores were calculated by subtracting the amount of
nonopposed polarity,
(P
+
N)
- IP - NI,
IP - NI,
from the amount of conflict,
using the derived formula (P + N)
-
2 1 ~
-
31
NI
+ 36, where P = positive dimension score, N
=
the
absolute value of the negative dimension score, and 36 is a
constant added to the formula to preclude negative numbers.
The component ambivalence scores were then averaged to form
overall ambivalence scores for each participant.
It should be noted that ambivalence scores calculated
using t h i s formula have the desirable properties of an
ambivalence index, which are a) ambivalence scores decrease
when you hold the smaller dimension constant and become
increasingly polarized on the larger*dimension, b)
ambivalence scores increase when you hold the larger
dimension constant and increase the value of the smaller
dimension, and c) when dimension scores are equivalent,
ambivalence increases as the dimension scores increase
(Breckler, 1994; Thompson et al. 1995).
Manipulation of messase valence. Participants read
either a positive or a negative essay on Native land claims.
The positive essay was strongly in favour of Native land
claims and offered reasons to support these claims, such a s
the land originally belonged to Natives, it would provide
Natives with economic benefits, and it would redress the
wrongs perpetrated on Natives in the past. The negative
essay was strongly against Native land claims and offered
reasons to oppose these claims, such as that claims for land
in British Columbia are equal to the total land mass of
British Columbia, the claims are holding up economic
32
development in areas that could use the economic boost, and
the use of blockades to force people to take alternative
longer routes has inconvenienced people across the nation.
Dependent measures. Participants responded to eight
questions about their reactions to the essay on Native land
claims using 9-point scales running £ r o m -4 to
+4.
The
first four questions elicited participantst attitudes toward
Native land claims. Specifically, participants were asked to
indicate a) their overall attitude toward Native land
claims, b) whether they agreed or disagreed that Canada
should settle land claims in favour of Native people, c)
whether Canada should refuse any further land claims
(reverse scored), and d) whether Native land claims were
justified or unjustified. The next two questions inquired
about participantsf attitudes toward Native people.
Participants were asked to indicate their overall attitude
toward Native people and how positive or negative they were
toward Native people. The last two questions examined
participants1 perception of the essay. Participants were
asked to indicate how weak or strong they found the
arguments in the essay to be and how well the essay was
written
.
Results
Ambivalence
A median split of participants' overall ambivalence
scores was conducted such that the top half was classified
as ambivalent
(M
.
= 36 90,
SD = 2.32) and the bottom half was
c l a s s i f ied as not ambivalent
(M
= 30.78,
2 (Ambivalence toward Native people)
= 2.72)
.2
A
x 2 (Message valence)
ANOVA on participantsf ambivalence scores revealed only a
significant main effect of Ambivalence toward Native people,
F
(1, 115) = 172.31, E c .001, demonstrating that
individuals assigned to the two message conditions did not
differ in initial ambivalence.
Initial Attitudes
A 2
x 2 ANOVA was conducted on participants' initial
attitudes toward Native people as determined by the attitude
themorneter. No significant effects were revealed,
indicating that ambivalent participants and nonambivalent
participants did not differ significantly in their initial
overall attitudes toward Native people (& = 65.67, SD =
De~endentMeasures
Intercorrelations between the dependent measures are
presented in Table 1.
Attitudes toward Native people. Responses ta the two
questions regarding Native people were highly correlated,
'Ambivalence toward Native people was correlated with
Ambivalence toward French Canadian people, ~ ( 1 1 7 )= - 4 0 , Q <
.01. However, no evidence of response polarization was
obtained on the dependent measures when a median split of
participantsf ambivalence toward French canadian people was
used in the analyses.
In addition, a t-test revealed that ambivalent
participants and nonambivalent participants did not differ
in the total number of words generated, z(117) = -07, S .
Table 1
Intercorrelations Between the D e ~ e n d e n tMeasmes - [Study One)
Dependent Measure
1
Attitudes toward
N a t i v e people
A t t i t u d e s toward
Native land d a i m s
Perceived essay
strength
Note: *E < .O01 (two-tailed)
2
3
35
r(117) = -83,
d
< .OOl, and were averaged to form an index
of Attitudes toward Native people. An ANOVA conducted on
participants' scores on the index of Attitudes toward Native
people revealed several significant effects. A significant
main effect of message valence was obtained, F (1, 115) =
4.93,
E < .05. Participants who received the positive
message
(M
= 1.39,
= 1.96)
were more favourable toward
Native people than were participants who received the
negative message
(M
= 0.60,
SD = 1.94) . Of more importance,
the main effect of message valence was qualified by an
ambivalence toward Native people x message valence
interaction, F (1, 115) = 3.56, E = - 0 6 . This interaction is
in line with the a priori hypothesis that the difference in
responses to the positive and negative messages for
ambivalent participants was much greater than the difference
in responses to the positive and negative messages for
nonambivalent participants. As shown in Table 2, pairwise
contrasts revealed that ambivalent participants were
significantly more favourable toward ~ a t i v epeople when they
received the positive message than when they received the
negative message, g(l15) = 2.88, E
C
-05.
In contrast,
nonambivalent participants did not differ significantly
between the positive and negative message conditions in
their a t t i t u d e s toward Native people, t(115) = 0.24, nç.
Attitudes toward Native land claims. Responses to the
four questions regarding ~ a t i v eland claims were highly
Table 2
Attitudes Toward Native People as a Function of Ambivalence
Toward Native P e o ~ l eand Messaae Valence (Studv One)
Negative Message
Positive Message
Ambivalent
Nonambivalent
Note: Possible range = - 4 to +4.
32
Cell sizes range from 2 8 to
W i t h i n rows, means that do n o t share a common subscript
differ a t E < - 0 5 .
correlated, gs ranging from
-59
to -85, a l 1 ES < .001, and
were averaged to form an index of Attitudes toward Native
land claims. An ANOVA conducted on participantsi scores on
the index of Attitudes toward Native land claims revealed a
main effect of message valence,
(1, 115) = 20.39,
E <
.001. Participants who received the positive message
(M
=
1.54, SD = 1.92) were more favourable toward Native land
claims than were participants who received the negative
message
(M
= 0.00,
= 1.80). Although the interaction
between ambivalence toward Native people and message valence
did n o t reach conventional levels of significance ( L e . , g <
.14), it followed the a priori expected pattern of means and
thus can be interpreted using E < .O7 (one-tailed), The
expected pattern of means was that the d i f f e r e n c e in
responses to the positive and negative messages for
ambivalent participants was somewhat greater than t h e
difference in responses to the positive and n e g a t i v e
messages for nonambivalent participants (see means in Table
3)
Perceived essav strenath. Responses to the two
questions regarding perceptions of the essay were highly
correlated, ~ ( 1 1 7 )= -57, E < .001, and were averaged to
f o m an index of perceived essay strength. An ANOVA
conducted on participantsf s c o r e s on the index of perceived
essay strength revealed a significant main effect of message
valence,
(1, 115) = 10.53, E < .01. Participants who
Table 3
Attitudes T o ~ a r dNative Land ~lairnsas a F u n c t i o n of
Ambivalence Toward Native P e o ~ l eand Messacre Valence (Studv
O n e1
-
--
Negative Message
Ambivalent
-0.38
(a=
Nonambivalent
1.62)
0.39
(SJ
= 1.91)
Note: P o s s i b l e range = -4 to + 4 .
32.
p o s i t i v e Message
1.66
(m=
1.83)
1.41
(m =
2.01)
Ce11 sizes range from 28 to
39
received the positive message
(a =
1.50,
SD = 1.28)
perceived the essay ta be stronqer than did participants who
received the negative message
(M
= O. 58,
.
SD = 1 88)
.A
significant main effect of ambivalence toward Native people
was also evident,
participants
(M
F
(1, 1 1 5 ) = 10.01, E < .OI.
= 1.49,
Ambivalent
= 1.44) perceived the essays to
b e stronger than did nonambivalent participants
SI3 =
-
1.75)
(M
= 0.59,
.
Discussion
The first study provided evidence of response
polarization. Specifically, participants who were ambivalent
toward Native people displayed a significant difference
between the positive and negative message conditions in
their attitudes toward Native people. In addition, these
ambivalent participants displayed a greater difference
between the positive and negative message conditions in
their attitudes toward Native people than did nonambivalent
participants. As expected, evidence of response polarization
was weaker on the measure of attitudes toward Native land
claims because participants who were ambivalent toward
~ a t i v epeople were presumably not similarly ambivalent
toward the specific issue of Native land claims.
These findings add to previous research which has found
that ambivalent attitudes can lead to polarized responses
( e . g . , Bell & Esses, 1997; MacDonald & Zanna, 1998; ~ a i oet
al., '1996). In addition, evidence of response polarization
40
was found in a different context than that used in previous
research. Specifically, the current context used positive
and negative messages about Native land claims, whereas
earlier research used strong and weak messages (see Maio et
al., 1996), positive and negative mood (see Bell & Esses,
1997), positive and negative primes (see MacDonald & Zama,
1998) , or a positive and negative representative of the
group (see Hass et al., 1991; Katz, 1981)
.
Although this study provided evidence of response
polarization, it is unclear why ambivalent participants were
displaying polarized responses. From a cognitive
perspective, it is possible that the positive and negative
messages were acting as primes. Thus, for ambivalent
participants, the positive message may have primed the
positive dimension of their attitude toward Native people,
resulting in positive responses, whereas the negative
message may have primed the negative dimension of their
attitude toward Native people, resulting in negative
responses. From a motivational perspective, it is possible
that ambivalent participants displayed polarized responses
because they were attempting to alleviate the negative
feelings they were experiencing due to holding conflicting
attitude elements (see Hass et al., 1992; Monteith, 1996 for
a discussion of the emotional consequenceî of holding
ambivalent attitudes).
There is some evidence for the priming explanation of
45
response polarization ( e . g . , B e l l
&
Esses, 1997; MacDonald
&
Zama, 1998) but no direct evidence for the motivational
explanation of response polarization. A motivational
explanation for ambivalence-induced responses to group
rnembers was proposed over 15 years ago but has not yet
received direct support (see Katz, 1981). Researchers have
shown that ambivalence leads to negative feelings (see Hass
et al.,
1992; ~onteith,1996) but have not shown that
polarized responses occur because of this aversive nature of
ambivalence. In considering the two different explanations
of response polarization, a logical next step in extending
previous research was to test the motivational explanation.
Thus, the purpose of the second study was to test the
motivational explanation of response polarization.
CHAPTEX THREE
-
STUDY TWO
As discussed earlier, recent research has provided
support for the association between the salience of
ambivalent attitudes and emotional tension (Hass et al.,
1992; Monteith, 1996). Hass et al. (1992) found that
participants who were high in ambivalence and who had
experienced a high salience manipulation expressed the most
negative emotions. Monteith (1996) found that ambivalence
was related to an index of discornfort and an index of
negative emotions directed toward the self, such as guilt.
Response polarization may occur in an attempt to
eliminate these aversive feelings caused by ambivalence. The
literature on cognitive dissonance (see Cooper & Fazio,
1984; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Festinger, 1957; McGregor et
ai.,
1999) has demonstrated that individuals are motivated
to reduce aversive feelings. In a typical cognitive
dissonance experiment, the participant would engage in
behaviour that was contrary to his/her attitude. The
reduction of dissonance (a negative state of arousal)
usually occurred by the participant changing his/her
attitude in the direction of the behaviour. In a similar
vein, the ambivalent individual may attempt to reduce the
emotional tension he/she is experiencing in response to the
ambivalence by polarizing in a positive or negative
direction
.
The ambivalent individual may assume that by focussing
43
on either the positive
or: the
negative dimension of his/her
attitude toward the tarqet, emotional tension will be
decreased because the ambivalence is no longer salient. For
example, an ambivalent individual presented with positive
information about the target may attempt ta resolve his/her
emotional tension by polarizing in a positive direction,
whereas an ambivalent individual presented with negative
information about the target may attempt to resolve his/her
emotional tension by polarizing in a negative direction.
Thus, polarizing in the direction of. new information may
allow the ambivalent individual to attempt to reduce
ambivalence and the associated aversive feelings.
To test this motivational explanation of response
polarization, it was decided to manipulate the motivation to
reduce ambivalence. Participants received either a message
implying that ambivalence was negative (i.e., there are
disadvantages to seeing both the good and the bad in another
person or situation) or a message implying that ambivalence
was positive (Le., there are advantages to seeing both the
good and the bad in another person or situation). It was
expected that ambivalent participants who received the
negative message would display response polarization.
However, it was expected that ambivalent participants who
received the positive message would no longer feel the need
to reduce their ambivalence and thus would not d i s p l a y
polarized responses.
44
This approach to testing the motivational e x p l a n a t i o n
of response polarization shares similarities with Steele and
Liu's
(1983) approach to testing a self-affirmation
explanation of cognitive dissonance. In both approaches
there is an intervention designed to alleviate negative
feelings. Steele and Liu ( 1 9 8 3 ) contended that attitude
change occurred in typical dissonance experiments because it
was the only avenue provided to participants to affirm their
self. I n their dissonance experiment, one of the
experimental conditions allowed participants to affirm a
value important to the self. Of interest, participants in
this condition did not display the dissonance effect (e.g.,
changing their attitude in the direction of their
behaviour). Likewise, it is expected that ambivalent
participants who receive t h e message implying that
ambivalence is positive will not display the response
polarization effect.
Thus, in the second study, participants completed openended measures of stereotypes, symbolic beliefs, and
emotions to determine their ambivalence toward Native
people. Participants then read a message that either a)
emphasized the advantages of seeing both the good and' bad in
people and situations (Le., ambivalence is positive) or b)
emphasized the disadvantages of seeing both the good and bad
.
in people and situations (i e. , ambivalence is negative)
.
participants then read a message that was either positive or
45
negative toward Native land claims. Participants' subsequent
attitudes toward Native people and toward Native land claims
were assessed,
It was expected that the results would provide support
for the motivational explanation of response polarization.
In particular, it was expected that in the negative motive
condition, ambivalent participants who received the positive
Native land claim message would indicate more favourable
attitudes toward Native people than would ambivalent
participants who received the negatitre Native land d a i m
message. In contrast, it was expected that in the positive
motive condition, ambivalent participants would not differ
between positive and negative Native land d a i m messages in
their attitudes toward Native people- In addition, it was
expected that nonambivalent participants in either motive
condition would not differ between positive and negative
Native land d a i m messages in their attitudes toward Native
people.
A s noted earlier, the degree of
response polarization
can be determined by comparing ambivalent participants who
are expected to polarize ( e . , those who are in the
negative motive condition) to a suitable control group (in
this case, ambivalent participants in the positive motive
condition who are not expected to polarize). Thus,
additional support for the motivational explanation of
responçe polarization would be obtained if this difference
46
was significant. That is, it was expected that ambivalent
particioants in t h e neqative motive condition would show a
greater difference between the positive and negative Native
land claim message conditions in their attitudes toward
Native people than would ambivalent participants in the
positive motive condition. Finally, as in Study One, we
expected weaker effects to occur on the measure of attitudes
toward Native land claims, because we could not be sure that
participants who were initially ambivalent toward Native
people were similarly ambivalent toward the specific issue
of Native land claims.
Method
Partici~antsand Desian
Participants were 253 undergraduates at the University
of Western Ontario (196 women and 57 men) who participated
for course credit. The data from an additional 34
individuals were excluded from analysis due to describing
oneself as Native or Eailure to complete the ambivalence
measure properly.
The design was a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial, with three
between-subjects factors. The first between-subjects factor
was ambivalence toward Native people, with two levels:
ambivalent and not ambivalent. The second between-subjects
factor was the motive manipulation, with two levels to which
participants were randomly assigned: positive or negative.
The third between-subjects factor was Native land d a i m
message valence, with two levels to which participants were
randornly assisned: positive or neqative. 3
Procedure
Participants were run in groups of 1 to 4. They were
recruited for a study of social attitudes in which they
would indicate their perceptions of a number of groups and
social issues. Upon arriva1 at the laboratory, they were
informed t h a t there were several parts to the study. The
first part of the study involved a questionnaire similar to
that used in Study One, containing an attitude measure and
open-ended measures designed to assess ambivalence in
stereotypes, symbolic beliefs (beliefs that group members
threaten or promote cherished values, customs, and
traditions), and emotions. The target groups to whom
participants were asked to respond were Native, French
Canadian, and American people. The last two target groups
were included as filler to mask the primary group of
interest, which was Native people. The attitude measure was
again included to ensure that ambivalent and nonambivalent
participants did not differ in their initial attitudes
toward Native people. The order of the stereotypes, symbolis
beliefs, and emotions measures, and of the three target
'When participant sex was included as a factor in the
analyses of the dependent measures, only one significant
interaction with this factor was evident. Therefore,
participant sex is not included in the analyses to follow,
though the one significant interaction is footnoted where
appropriate.
groups were counterbalanced across participants.
The second part of the study comgrised the motive
manipulation. Participants read an essay that either a)
emphasized the advantages of seeing both the good and the
bad in people and situations ( L e . , ambivalence is positive)
or b) emphasized the disadvantages of seeing both the good
and the bad in people and situations (Le., ambivalence is
negative). Participants then responded to several questions
regarding this essay, as well as indicating their
perceptions of the strength of the essay.
The third part of the study was a Eiller task
concerning English Canadian and French Canadian people,
Participants read the same essay as that used in Study One,
which described the contributions of English Canadian and
French Canadian people to Canadian demographics, the sport
of hockey, and Canadian cuisine. Participants then answered
a series of factual questions on the essay.
The fourth part of the study dealt with ~ a t i v eland
claims and included the manipulation of message valence and
the dependent measures of attitudes toward ~ a t i v eland
claims and attitudes toward Native people. participants read
an essay that was either positive or negative toward Native
land claims (the same essays as those used in Study One).
Then, they responded to the same questions regarding their
attitudes toward Native land claims and toward ~ a t i v e
people, as well as indicating their perceptions of the
49
strength of the essay. In addition, participants were asked
to indicate the thouahts that
occurred to them while they
were reading the essay on land claims. They were told that
the thoughts may have been relevant or irrelevant to the
essay. They were asked to list a maximum of five thoughts,
which should reduce the probability of participants
reporting new thoughts constructed after reading the message
(see Petty & Cacioppo, 1984)
.
Finally, participants were asked to indicate their sex,
age, and the ethnic group(s) to which they belonged. They
were then probed for suspicion, debriefed, and thanked for
their participation. The consent form, feedback letter, and
measures which were not used in Study One can be found in
Appendix B.
Motive manipulation
and manipulation check.
Participants read either a positive or a negative essay on
seeing both the good and the bad in people and situations
.
(i.e , ambivalence is positive or ambivalence is negative)
.
The positive essay described the advantages of seeing both
the good and the bad in a person, or seeing both sides of an
issue in a romantic, business, or political context. For
example, the political context discussed ~residentBush's
ability to organize a coalition to respond to Iraq's
invasion of Kuwait by considering both the positive and
negative consequences of his actions. ~ r e s i d e n tBush
realized that unilateral ~ m e r i c a naction would have the
50
advantage of freeing Kuwait but would also have many
negative consequences. Thus, he orqanized a world coalition
that included as many .&ab
states as possible, The negative
essay described t h e disadvantages of seeing both the good
and the bad in a persan, or seeing both sides of an issue in
a romantic, business, or political context- For example, the
political context discussed President Carter's inability to
free the hostages in Iran because he considered both t h e
positive and negative consequences of his actions, President
Carter was unable to commit himself wholeheartedly t o the
use of force when other means had failed, because he could
see both the advantages and disadvantages of this action.
Participants then responded to six questions on 7-point
scales running from -3 to +3. The first two questions
elicited their opinion on seeing both the good and the bad
in other people, and seeing both sides of a situation. These
two questions served as a manipulation check. The next two
questions were filler questions, and the last two questions
examined participantsn perception of the strength of the
essay.
Results
Ambivalence
A median split of participantsn overall ambivalence
scores was conducted such that the top half was classified
as ambivalent
(M
= 36.48, SD = 2.85) and the bottom h a l f was
classified as not ambivalent (g = 29.90,
= 3.58).
A
51
2(Ambivalence toward Native people) x 2(Motive manipulation)
x 2(Message valence) ANOVA on participantsf ambivalence
scores revealed only a significant main effect of
Ambivalence toward Native people, F(1, 245) = 249.63, E <
-001, demonstrating that individuals assigned to the
different motive and message conditions did not differ in
initial ambivalence.
Initial Attitudes
A 2
x
2 x 2 ANOVA
was conducted on participantsf
initial attitudes toward Native people as determined by the
attitude thenaorneter. This analysis revealed a significant
main effect of Ambivalence toward Native people, F ( 1 , 245) =
6.60,
E c -05, Ambivalent participants indicated less
favousable attitudes toward Native people
(M
= 64.04,
=
14.94) than did nonambivalent participants (g = 69.89,
20.52).
=
To control for this difference, initial attitudes
toward Native people were entered as a covariate in a l 1
analyses of the dependent measures relevant to ~ a t i v epeople
described below. 4
Motive Manipulation Check
Participantsf responses to the questions about (1)
seeing both the good and the bad in other people and (2)
seeing both sides of a situation were significantly
correlated, ~ ( 2 5 1 )= -38, E < .001, and were therefore
g
a
n
t in a11 analyses of the
dependent measures, with the exception of the dependent
measure of perceivea essay strength.
52
averaged ta form a check on whether the motive manipulation
was havinq the desired effect. An ANOVA on the averaoed
scores revealed a significant main effect of the Motive
manipulation, E ( 1 , 245) = 124.39,
Q
< .001. Participants who
received the positive motive manipulation indicated a more
favourable opinion of seeing both sides of people and
situations (M = 2.64,
ÇD = 0 - 4 3 )
than did participants who
received the negative motive manipulation
(M
= 1.70,
SD =
0.83).
Participantst responses to the questions about the
strength of the motive manipulation essay and how well the
essay was written were significantly correlated, ~ ( 2 5 1 )=
.66,
2 < .001, and were therefore averaged,
An ANOVA on the
averaged scores revealed a significant main effect of the
Motive manipulation, F(1, 245) = 11.93, 2 = ,001.
Participants who received the positive motive manipulation
perceived the essay to be stronger
(M
= 1.31,
= 0.99)
than did participants who received the negative motive
manipulation
(s=
0.84, SD = 1.13).
Dependent Measures
Intercorrelations between the dependent measures are
presented in Table 4.
Attitudes toward Native people, Responses t o the two
questions regarding Native people were h i g h l y correlated,
r (251) =
-
-88, E < -001, and were averaged to form an index
of Attitudes toward Native people. An ANCOVA conducted on
Table 4
~ntercorrelationsBetween the De~endentMeasures (Study Twol
Dependent Measure
1) Attitudes toward
Native people
2) Attitudes toward
N a t i v e land c l a i m s
3)
Thought-listing
4)
Perceived essay strength
Note: *E < ,001 (two-tailed)
1
54
participants8 scores on the index of ~ttitudestoward Native
oeople. with initial attitudes toward Native people entered
as a covariate, revealed several significant effects. A
significant main effect of message valence was obtained, F
(1, 244) = 9.35,
E < .01. Participants who received the
positive message (BJ = 1.28) were more favourable toward
Native people than were participants who received the
negative message
(M
= 0.77). A significant main effect of
ambivalence was also obtained,
F (1, 244)
= 4.42, 2 < . O S .
ona ambivalent participants (M = 1.20) were more favourable
(M
towaxd Native people than were ambivalent participants
0.85).
=
Of more importance, these main effects were qualified
by a significant three-way interaction between ambivalence
toward Native people, motive manipulation, and message
valence,
F
(1, 244) = 3.80, E = . 0 5 .
As shown in Table 5,
pairwise contrasts revealed that ambivalent participants in
the negative motive condition were significantly more
favourable toward Native people when they received the
positive message about Native land claims than when they
received the negative message about Native land claims,
t ( 2 4 4 ) = 3.19, E < -05. In contrast, ambivalent participants
-
in the positive motive condition did not differ
significantly between the positive and the negative message
conditions, g ( 2 4 4 ) = 0.24, E. Nonambivalent participants in
both the negative motive condition, f(244) = 0.85,
m,
and
the positive motive condition, t(244) = 1.86, E ,did not
Table 5
Attitudes Toward Native People as a Function of Ambivalence
Toward Native P e o n l e , Motive Mani~ulation. and M e s s a c r e
Valence (Studv Two)
Ambivalent Participants
Negative Message
P o s i t i v e Message
~ e g a t i v eMotive
0.25,
1. 2gb
Positive Motive
0.88,
0.96,
Nonambivalent ~ a r t i c i ~ a n t s
Negative Message
Positive Message
Negat ive Motive
1.16,
1.45,
Positive Motive
0.78,
1.40,
N o t e : Means presented in the t a b l e are adjusted means.
Possible range = -4 to + 4 . Ce11 sizes range from 25 to 39.
Within rows, means that do not share a common s u b s c r i p t
differ at E < .05.
56
differ significantly between the positive and the negative
message conditions.
In line with the hypotheses, a one-tailed planned ttest was also conducted in which the difference in responses
to the positive and negative messages for ambivalent
participants who received the positive motive manipulation
was subtracted from the difference in responses to the
positive and negative messages for ambivalent participants
who received the negative motive manipulation. This test
revealed that ambivalent participants who received the
negative motive manipulation displayed a greater difference
between positive and negative messages in their attitudes
toward Native people than did ambivalent participants who
received the positive motive manipulation, g ( 2 4 4 ) = 2.08,
< -05 (see means in Table 5).
Q
A similar test for
nonambivalent participants revealed no significant
differences, t ( 2 4 4 ) = -0.69, nç.
Attitudes toward Native land claims. Responses to the
four questions regarding Native land claims were
significantly correlated, rs ranging from - 5 3 to -77, al1 ES
< .001, and were averaged to f o m an index of Attitudes
toward Native land claims. An ANCOVA was conducted on
participants' scores on the index of Attitudes toward ~ a t i v e
land claims, with initial attitudes toward Native people
entered as the covariate. A significant main effect o f
message valence was obtained,
F(1,
244) = 39.88,
E <
.001.
Participants who received the positive message (&
=l
1.07)
were more favourable toward Native land d a i m s than were
participants who received the negative message (M = -0.21).
5
A one-tailed planned t-test was also conducted in which
the difference in responses to the positive and negative
messages for ambivalent participants who received the
positive motive manipulation was subtracteà from the
difference in responses to the positive and negative
messages for ambivalent participants who received the
negative motive manipulation. This test revealed that
ambivalent participants who received the negative motive
manipulation tended to display a greater difference between
positive and negative messages in their attitudes toward
Native land claims than did ambivalent participants who
received the positive motive manipulation, t ( 2 4 4 ) = 1.42, E
<
.O9
(see means in Table 6). A similar test for
nonambivalent participants revealed no significant
differences, g ( 2 4 4 ) = -0.64, E.
Thouaht-listing. Two trained raters independently
classified thoughts (N= 224) from 57 participants. Inter-
'In addition, when participant sex was included as a factor
in the analysis, a significant participant sex x message
valence interaction was obtained. Pairwise contrasts
revealed that women who read the positive message about
Native land claims (g = 1.22) were more favourable toward
Native land claims than were women who read the negative
message about Native land claims (M = -0.28). In contrast,
men displayed no significant differences between positive
and negative messages about Native land claims (Es = 0.50
and 0.04, respectively)
.
Table 6
Attitudes Toward Native Land C l a i m s as a ~unctionof
Ambivalence Toward Native People, Motive ~anipuiation, and
Messaqe Valence (Studv Two 1
Ambivalent Participants
Negative Message
p o s i t i v e Message
Negative Motive
-0.44
1.18
Positive Motive
-0.24
0.58
Nonambivalent Partici~ants
Negative Message
Negative Motive
Positive Motive
0.04
-0.20
Positive Message
1.20
1.33
Note: Means p r e s e n t e d in the table are adjusted means.
Possible range = -4 to +4.
Cell sizes range from 25 to 39.
59
-rater reliability was high: 89.73%. Differences were
resolved throuqh discussion. One of the raters then
classified the thoughts from the remaining 194 participants
who listed thoughts. Thoughts were initially classified as
favourable, neutral, or unfavourable toward Native land
claims, favourable, neutral, or unfavourable toward Native
people, or irrelevant. Of the 251 participants who listed
thoughts, 98.01% of them listed thoughts about Native land
claims, whereas 45.82% of participants listed thoughts about
Native people. In addition, 78.6% of' al1 thoughts listed
were about Native land claims, whereas the remaining 21.4%
of thoughts were about Native people. Because of the
relatively small number of thoughts about Native people,
thoughts about Native land claims and thoughts about Native
people were combined and analysed together. An index of
favourability toward Native land claims and Native people
was obtained by averaging the valence of thoughts for each
participant.
A n ANCOVA conducted
on this index revealed a main
effect of message valence, F(1, 242) = 6.61, E < -05.
Participants who received the positive message
(H =
0.14)
were more favourable in their thoughts about Native land
claims and Native people than were participants who
received the negative message
were signif icant
(M
= -0.07).
No other effects
.
Perceived essav strenath. Responses to the two
60
questions regarding perceptions of the essay about Native
land .clairns were significantly correlated, ~ ( 2 5 1 )= . 7 5 , g <
.001, and were thus averaged to form an index of perceived
essay strength. An ANCOVA conducted on participants1 scores
on the index of perceived essay strength revealed a
significant main effect of message valence, Z ( I ,
5.31,
244) =
E < .05. Participants who read the positive message
about Native land claims
(M
= 1.49) perceived the essay to
be stronger than did participants who read the neqative
message about Native land d a i m s
(M
= 0.97).
Discussion
The second study provided support for the motivational
explanation of response polarization. Specifically,
ambivalent participants in the negative motive condition
were significantly more favourable in their attitudes toward
Native people when they received the positive message about
Native land claims than when they received the negative
message. In other words, these participants displayed
response polarization when they were told that ambivalence
was negative. In contrast, ambivalent participants in the
positive motive condition did not differ between positive
and negative messages in their attitudes toward Native
people. In other words, these participants did not polarize
when they were told that ambivalence was positive. In
addition, ambivalent participants in the negative motive
condition displayed a greater difference between the
61
positive and negative message conditions in their attitudes
toward Native people t h a n did ambivalent participants in the
positive motive condition. A s expected, this effect was
weaker on the measure of attitudes toward Native land claims
because participants who were ambivalent toward Native
people were presumably not similarly ambivalent toward the
specific issue of Native land claims.
A demand interpretation of the findings would contend
that the negative motive condition is telling participants
to be extreme, whereas the positive motive condition is
telling participants to be moderate. If this were the case,
one would expect both ambivalent and nonambivalent
participants to respond to these demands. An examination of
Table 5 clearly shows that this is not the case. Although
ambivalent participants show this effect (in line with the
motivational explanation) the pattern for nonambivalent
participants is in the opposite direction. T h u s , a demand
interpretation of the findings does not seem plausible.
Because of the absence of a no motive control
condition, it is a bit unclear whether support for the
motivational explanation occurred mainly because of the
negative motive condition or the positive motive condition.
However, using the means for ambivalent participants in
Study One as a baseline (see Table 2) and comparing them
with the means for ambivalent participants in Study Two (see
Table 5), it is apparent that the positive motive condition
62
is responsible for the effect. One can see that the means
for ambivalent participants in the negative motive condition
are similar to the means for ambivalent participants in
Study One. This is not surprising given that previous
research has shown that ambivalence is generally experienced
as negative (see Hass et al., 1992, Monteith, 1996). Thus, a
no motive contra1 condition and the negative motive
condition, which implies that ambivalence is negative, would
be expected to result i n similar effects.
.Why was support for the motivational explanation not
obtained on the thought-listing measure? Although the
messages about Native land claims were expected to prime
thoughts about Native people, t h e focal issue of the
messages was land claims. In addition, the instructions for
t h e thought-listing measure underscored the focal issue of
land claims and limited participants to listing five
thoughts. Thus, more thoughts would be expected to be listed
about Native land claims than about Native people; this is
what occurred. Because the analyses combined thoughts about
Native land claims with thoughts about Native people
(because of the small number of thoughts about Native
people), it is not surprising that no support for the
motivational explanation was obtained. As discussed earlier,
it does not follow that participants who were ambivalent
toward Native people were similarly ambivalent toward the
specific issue of Native land claims.
63
The findings of this study add to previous research in
a number of w a y s -
First, it is a seminal demonstration of
the importance of motivational factors in ambivalenceinduced response polarization. Earlier research has
suggested that ambivalence can lead to negative feelings
(see Hass et al., 1992; Katz, 1981; Monteith, 1996) but has
not provided any evidence that motivation is involved in
response polarization. In addition, some previous research
has shown the importance of cognitive factors (e.g.,
Esses, 1997; MacDonald
&
Bell &
Zanna, 1998) in ambivalence-induced
response polarization.
Second, this study demonstrates that interventions can
be used to reduce ambivalence-induced response polarization
effects, just as they have been used to reduce dissonance
effects. In earlier dissonance research, Steele and Liu
(1983) allowed participants to affirm a value important to
the self. These researchers suggested that the self was
threatened in dissonance experiments and that allowing
people to feel good about themselves would reduce
dissonance. A s expected, participants who affirmed this
value did not display the dissonance effect. In the current
research, some participants were provided with a positive
message about ambivalence. This message indicated that there
were advantages t o seeing both t h e good and bad in other
people and situations. As expected, ambivalent participants
who received the positive message about ambivalence did not
64
display the response polarization e f f e ~ t . ~
Tb. conclude, the current research provided support for
the motivational explanation of ambivalence-induced response
polarization. Importantly, the results were obtained using a
relatively indirect manipulation that discussed the
advantages of seeing the good and bad in a political,
business, and interpersonal context. Ambivalence was not
directly discuçsed and an intergroup context was not used in
either condition.
"For exploratory purposes, a final measure of ambivalence
was included to determine whether ambivalent participants in
the negative motive condition would become less ambivalent
t h a n ambivalent participants in the positive motive
condition. Results indicated that this difierence was
statistically significant using a one-tailed t-test, g ( 2 4 4 )
= 1.69, E < .O5 (Negative motive, M = 4.13, Positive motive
M
= 4.65).
CHAPTER FOUR
-
GENERAL DISCUSSION
RecaD of Mai or Results
In two studies, the current research provides evidence
of ambivalent attitudes leading to response polarization. In
Study One, participants who were ambivalent toward Native
people displayed a response polarization effect. That is,
ambivalent participants who read the positive message about
Native land claims were more positive toward Native people
than were ambivalent participants who read the negative
message about Native land claims. In'contrast, nonambivalent
participants did not d i s p l a y response polarization. That is,
these participants were similarly positive toward Native
people, whether they were exposed to either the positive or
the negative message about Native land claims.
In Study
Two, participants were provided with an essay that implied
that ambivalence was bad ( L e . , the negative motive
manipulation) or an essay that implied that ambivalence was
good (i.e., the positive motive manipulation). Only
ambivalent participants who received the negative motive
manipulation displayed response polarization. That is,
ambivalent participants who read the positive message about
Native land claims were more positive toward ~ a t i v epeople
then were ambivalent participants who read the negative
message about Native land claims. In contrast, ambivalent
participants who received the positive motive manipulation
displayed no differences between the messages.
66
Additionally, the current research provides support for
the motivational explanation of ambivalence-induced response
polarization. In Study Two, response polarization did not
occur when ambivalent participants received the positive
motive manipulation (i.e., the essay implying that
ambivalence was good). This essay emphasized the advantages
of seeing both the good and the bad in people and
situations. In contrast, response polarization did occur
when ambivalent participants received the negative motive
manipulation (Le., the essay implying that ambivalence was
bad)
.
It should be noted that the effects in both studies
were stronger on the dependent measure of Attitudes toward
Native people than on the dependent measure of Attitudes
toward Native land claims. This probably occurred because
participants who were initially ambivalent toward Native
people were not similarly ambivalent toward the specific
issue of Native land cïaims. For example, it is possible
that some individuals who were ambivalent toward Native
people had either a very positive or a very negative
attitude toward Native land claims.
A question concerning the findings is whether they can
be explained by the different perceptions of the strength of
the essays. In both studies, the positive land claim essay
was perceived to be stronger than the negative land d a i m
essay. Although this might explain a main effect of message
valence, it cannot explain an interaction in which
nonambivalent participants show no differences between
positive and negative messages, whereas ambivalent
participants show differences between the messages (see
Table 2). In Study Two, the positive motive manipulation was
perceived as stronger than the negative motive manipulation.
This may explain why the positive motive manipulation seems
to be carrying the effects of Study Two (see pp. 61-62 in
~iscussionof Study Two).
Theoretical Implications
The current research presents evidence that
motivational factors are involved in response polarization.
Ambivalent participants who were told that ambivalence iç
positive (Le., the positive motive manipulation) did not
display responçe polarization, whereas ambivalent
participants who were told that ambivalence is negative
( e . , the negative motive manipulation) displayed response
polarization. To the best of Our knowledge, this is the
first demonstration of a motivational mechanism underlying
response polarization. Other researchers have shown that
ambivalence can lead to negative feelings ( e . g . , Hass et
al.,
1992; Monteith, 1996) but have not shown that
motivational factors are driving response polarization- The
current research shows that by removing the perceived
aversive nature of ambivalence ( e , the positive motive
manipulation), response polarization no longer occurs for
ambivalent participants.
Of added importance, the results were obtained using a
relatively indirect manipulation. I n the positive motive
condition, participants read an essay that emphasized the
advantages of seeing both the good and the bad in a
political, business, and interpersonal context. For example,
the business context described the owner of a small business
who had to fil1 a newly created position from among the
current employees. Because t h e owner was aware of the
positive and negative qualities of the top two candidates,
he/she was able to choose the candidate who best fit the
job. Of interest, intergroup relations were never discussed
and ambivalence was never directly mentioned, yet support
for the motivational explanation of response polarization
was found.
The motivational explanation used in the c u r r e n t
research differs to some extent from the one offered by Katz
and his colleagues to explain response amplification (Katz,
1981; Katz, Wackenhut, & Hass, 1986). Our explanation does
not require a threat to self-regard as articulated in the
earlier theorizing. This threat to self-regard was supposed
to occur because White people saw themselves as t*discerning'v
yet "hurnanef1in their treatment of others. Sympathetic
feelings toward discredited others ( e . g . , Blacks) were said
to threaten the discerning part of White peuples' selfimage, whereas aversive feelings toward unfortunate people
69
(e.g., Blacks) were said to threaten the humane part of
their self-image. As noted earlier, our explanation does not
presume this threat to the self. In addition, we are not
suggesting that ambivalent participants overcompensate ( s e e
response amplification). Instead, we are suggesting that
ambivalent participants polarize in different directions to
attempt to reduce their negative feelings. Ambivalent
individuals may assume that by focussing on the positive
or
negative dimension of their attitude they can avoid the
aversive feelings associated with ambivalence. Thus, both
the earlier explanation for response amplification and Our
explanation for response polarization assume the presence of
negative feelings, which participants are trying to avoid.
Explanations for phenornena have often been portrayed in
either/or terms ( L e . , a motivational explanation vs a
cognitive explanation). Thus, much research has been dune to
determine whether the behaviour in question can be explained
by cognitive factors or by motivational factors. Frequently,
both cognitive factors and motivational factors are found to
contribute to the behaviour.
In the current context, does support for the
motivational explanation of response polarization rule out
the cognitive explanation ( e . g . , priming)? Not necessarily,
because of the possibility that cognitive factors may still
be involved in response polarization. However, in the
current research, it appears that any cognitive factors, if
70
operating, were overcome by the positive motive
manipulation. It is possible that the positive or negative
message about land claims primed the positive or negative
dimension of ambivalent participants1 attitudes. In the
negative motive condition, ambivalent participants may have
used the primed attitude dimension to determine the
direction of polarization. In contrast, ambivalent
participants in the positive motive condition may not have
used the primed attitude dimension because they were not
motivated to do so. One conclusion that can be drawn is that
cognitive factors alone cannot account for response
polarization. If cognitive factors alone were operating,
then the positive motive manipulation would not have
influenced ambivalent participants in the manner in which it
did.
Practical Im~lications
A n important practical implication of the current
research is that the negative consequences of intra-psychic
conflict can be ameliorated, Telling people that it is okay
to be conflicted would seem to be beneficial in this regard.
Recall that ambivalent participants who received the
positive motive manipulation ( e . , ambivalence is positive)
did not display response polarization, whereas ambivalent
participants who received the negative motive manipulation
( e , ambivalence is negative) did display response
polarization. Thus, i n f orming ambivalent participants that
71
it is acceptable to be conflicted in their attitudes may
have reduced the negative feelings aroused by ambivalence
and eliminated polarized responses.
It is possible that ambivalent attitudes are a stage in
the evolution from negative to positive attitudes toward
minority groups. Negative attitudes toward minority groups
seem, over tirne, to have evolved into ambivalent attitudes
(see Bell & Esses, 1997; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986). A
positive development would be for ambivalent attitudes
toward minority groups to evolve into positive attitudes.
The potential shift from ambivalent attitudes to
positive attitudes toward minority groups would be
beneficial for members of minority groups. Ambivalent
attitudes can lead to response polarization which can be
especially difficult for members of rninority groups to
contend with because the behaviour of majority group members
is then very unpredictable. M i n o r i t y group members may be
treated in a positive way, if positive response polarization
occurs, or they may be treated in a negative way, if
negative response polarization occurs. For example, on one
occasion an ambivalent individual may interact with a
minority group member in a friendly fashion, whereas on
another occasion the ambivalent individual may interact with
the minority group member in a hostile fashion. Thus,
predictable positive intergroup relations may occur once the
evolution from ambivalent attitudes to positive attitudes is
complete
.
Limitations of the Research
One limitation of the research is the absence of a no
land claim message control condition in either study. Thus,
it is unclear whether response polarization occurred because
of the positive land d a i m message, the negative land claim
message, or both messages. In a similar vein, the absence of
a no motive control condition in Study Two could be
considered a limitation. However, as discussed earlier,
using the means from Study One as a baseline, it appears
that the effects in Study Two occurred because of the
positive motive condition.
Another limitation of this research is the lack of a
direct measure of affect, which is important to the
motivational explanation of response polarization. W e did
not include a mood measure in this research because we
thought it would sensitize participants to their mood state.
However, it would be useful to show that ambivalence is
experienced as aversive in the same study in which we are
attempting to alleviate the aversive nature of participantst
ambivalence.
Directions for Future Research
An important direction for future research would be to
include the appropriate control conditions in a replication
of this research. In future research, the inclusion of a no
land d a i m message control condition would allow researchers
73
to determine if response polarization occurs because of the
positive message, the negative message, or both messages. In
addition, the inclusion of a no motive control condition
would allow researchers to determine the relative influence
of the positive and negative motive conditions.
An additional interesting direction for future research
would be to use alternative manipulations of motivation to
further rule out a possible demand explanation. One such
approach could parallel that of Zanna and Cooper's (1974)
dissonance study in which some participants misattributed
their arousal from engaging in counterattitudinal behaviour
to a pi11 they had taken in an "unrelatedW experiment. These
participants did not display the dissonance effect ( e . g . ,
changing their attitude in the direction of their
behaviour). Likewise, future research could determine
whether ambivalent participants who were given a pi11
designed to induce tension would not display the response
polarization ef fect
.
Another direction for future research is to include
measures of affect and mood to determine the exact nature of
the negative feelings that ambivalent participants are
experiencing. This would be useful because an important
tenet of the motivational explanation is that ambivalent
participants polarize so they can avoid the emotional
tension they are experiencing.
Current and previous research has demonstrated that
74
majority group members are ambivalent toward minority groups
(e-g,, Bell et al., 1996; Katz, 1981). In addition, this
ambivalence can lead to response amplification (see Katz,
1981) or response polarization as demonstrated here. A
logical progression of this reseaxch would be to determine
whether minority group members are ambivalent toward
majority groups. For example, are Native people ambivalent
toward English Canadians or French Canadians? If so, the
positive dimension of their attitudes may contain liking for
these groups due to friendly interactions, whereas the
negative dimension of their attitudes may contain anger over
treatment in the past. Similar research should be conducted
in the United States to detemine the extent of ambivalent
attitudes held by Blacks toward mites. In addition, do
ambivalent attitudes held by minority groups lead to
response polarization toward majority groups? For example,
will Native people who are ambivalent toward English
Canadians display polarized responses to them? X t is logical
to expect so, but it remains a proposition that needs
testing with r e s p e c t to minority groups,
The findings of the current research could also be
extended by using a different sample of participants from
outside the university. Psychological research has often
been criticized for using a narrow segment of the population
( e . g . , university undergraduates, see Sears, 1986 for a
discussion of this issue). Thus, it would be interesting to
75
discover if our findings would be replicated using a sample
of people employed in different jobs. Will ambivalent
participants in the working world be as receptive to our
positive motive manipulation as the ambivalent participants
in Our xesearch? To surmise, it would seem probable that
ambivalent participants outside the confines of the
university setting would respond in a similar manner to the
positive motive manipulation. This is likely to occur
because both types of participants would have the same
psychological state: an ambivalent attitude.
Finally, an ambitious direction for future research
would be to test the cognitive and motivational explanations
of response polarization in the same study. As discussed
earlier, it is likely that both cognitive and motivational
factors play a role in ambivalence-induced response
polarization. Determinhg the relative contribution of each
to response polarization would be an important next step.
For example, it is possible that a two-stage process may be
operating. In the first stage, the positive or negative
attitude dimension may be primed. In the second stage,
response polarization occurs if the ambivalent individual is
motivated to reduce ambivalence. The direction of response
polarization would depend on whether the positive or
negative attitude dimension had been primed. Response
polarization would not occur if the ambivalent individual is
not motivated to reduce ambivalence (e.g.,
the individual is
76
told that ambivalence is positive). In addition, there may
be situations in which the relative contribution of
cognitive and motivational factors Vary, and a delineation
of these situations would be important. For example,
motivational factors rnay not corne into play unless an
ambivalent individual is aware of his/her ambivalent
attitude. If the ambivalent attitude is not accessible, then
the individual would be unlikely to experience the
concomitant negative feelings.
on cl usions
The current research provides a demonstration of
ambivalence-induced response polarization in a new context.
Participants were presented with a positive or negative
message about an issue relevant t o the target group. Only
ambivalent participants were more positive about Native
people after reading the positive message then after reading
the negative message ( i . e . , response polarization).
In addition, the current research tested a motivational
explanation for ambivalence-induced response polarization
using a relatively indirect manipulation which indicated
that ambivalence was either positive or negative. Ambivalent
participants who were told that ambivalence was negative
displayed response polarization, whereas ambivalent
participants who were told that ambivalence was positive did
not. Thus, support for the motivational explanation was
obtained. In conclusion, whether or not ambivalent attitudes
77
lead to response polarization p a r t l y depends on the
motivational state of the ambivalent individual.
78
References
Bell, D. W.,
h Esses, V.
M.
(1997). Ambivalence and
response amplification toward Native peoples. Journal of
A p ~ ï i e dSocial Psvcholocnr, 27, 1063-1084.
Bell, D. W.,
Esses, V.
M.,
&
Maio, G. R. (1996). The
utility of open-ended measures to assess intergroup
ambivalence. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. 28, 112.
Blaney, P. H. (1986). Affect and memory: A review.
Psvcholocjical Bulletin, 99, 229-246.Breckler, S. J. (1994). A comparison of numerical
indexes for measuring attitude ambivalence. Educational and
Psvcholosical Measurement, 54, 350-365.
Cacioppo, S . T.,
&
Bernston, G. G.
(1994). Relationship
between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review,
with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative
substrates. Psvcholosical Bulletin, 115, 401-423.
~acioppo,J. T., Gardner, W. L.,
&
Bernston, G. G.
(1997). Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The
case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personalitv and
Social Psvcholosv ~ e v i e w ,1, 3-25.
Campbell, A.
(1971). White attitudes toward Black
p e o ~ l e . Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research.
Cooper, J.,
&
Fazio, R. H. (1984). A new look at
dissonance theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
-
experimental social ~svcholocw (Vol. 17, pp. 229-266). San
79
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Dovidio. J. F.,
&
(1999). Are evaluations of
Mullen, B.
minorities more extreme? A meta-analvtic intesration.
Unpublished manuscript.
Eagly, A. H.,
Chaiken, S. (1993). The ~svcholosvof
&
attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Eagly, A. H.,
&
.
Chaiken, S. (1998) A t t i t u d e structure
and function. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske,
(Eds. )
,
& G.
Lindzey
The handbook of social psvcholosv: Vol. 1 ( 4 t h ed. ,
pp. 269-322)
.
Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1993).
Esses, V. M.,
Values, stereotypes, and emotions as determinants of
intergroup attitudes. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton
(Eds.), Affect, cognition. and s t e r e o t ~ i n q : Interactive
n
137-166). New York:
processes in sroup ~ e r c e ~ t i o(pp.
Academic Press.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theorv of coanitive dissonance.
Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Fiske, S. T.,
(2nd ed.).
&
Taylor, S. E.
(1991). Social coqnition
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Gaertner,
S.
L. ,
&
.
Dovidio, 3. F. (1986) The aversive
form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio
&
S. L. Gaertner ( E d s - ) ,
Prejudice, discrimination. and racism (pp. 61-89). New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Gibbons, Fm X.,
Stephan, W. G.,
Stephenson, B.,
Petty, R. C. (1980). Reactions to stigmatized others:
6
80
Response amplification vs. syrnpathy. Journal of Experimenéal
Social Psvcholocw, 16, 591-605.
Glick, P.,
&
.
Fiske, S. T. (1996) The Ambivalent S e x i s m
Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism.
Journal of Personalitv and Social Psvcholoav, 70, 491-512.
Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B.,
&
Zhu, L.
(1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and
polarized attitudes toward women. Personalitv and Social
Psvcholocrv Bulletin. 23, 1323-1334.
Haddock, G., Zanna, M. P., & Esses, V. M.
(1993).
Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: The case
of attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Personalitv and
Social Ps~cholocw, 65, 1105-1118
Hass, R.
G.,
.
Katz, I., Rizzo, N., Bailey, J.,
&
Eisenstadt, D. (1991). Cross-racial appraisal as related to
attitude ambivalence and cognitive complexity. Personalitv
and Social Psvcholoav Bulletin, 17, 83-92.
Hass, R. G., Katz, I., Rizzo, N., Bailey, J., & Moore,
L. (1992). When racial ambivalence evokes negative affect,
using a disguised measure of mood. Personalitv and social
Psvcholocrv Bulletin, 18, 786-797.
Heinemann, W.
(1990). Meeting the handicapped: A case
of affective-cognitive inconsistency. In W. Stroebe, & M.
Hewstone (Eds.), Euro~eanreview of social i3svcholocw (Vol.
1, pp. 323-338). Chichester, England: John Wiley.
Jonas, K., Diehl, M.,
&
. Effects of
Bromer, P. (1997)
81
attitudinal ambivalence on information processing and
attitude-intention consistency. Journal of Experimental
Social Psvcholow. 33, 190-210.
Kaplan, K. J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference
problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested
modification of the semantic differential technique,
Psvcholoqical Bulletin, 77, 361-372.
Katz, 1. (1981). Stiama: A social ssvcholosical
analvsis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Katz, 1 ,
&
Hass, R. G. (1988):Racial
ambivalence and
American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies
of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personalitv and
Social Psvcholosv, 55, 893-905,
Katz, I., Hass, Re G., &
Bailey, J. (1988).
~ttitudinalambivalence and behavior toward people with
disabilities. In H. E. Yuker (Edo), Attitudes toward persans
with disabilities (pp. 47-57). New York: Springer.
Katz, I., Wackenhut, J.,
&
Glass, D.
C.
(1986). An
ambivalence-amplification theory of behavior toward the
stigmatized. In S. Worchel
&
W. G o ~ u s t i n(Eds. )
of interarou~relations (pp. 103-117).
,
Psvcholow
Chicago: Nelson-
Hall.
. ~acial
Katz, I., Wackenhut, J., & Hass, R. G. (1986)
ambivalence, value duality, and behavior. In J. F a ~ o v i d i o&
S. L. Gaertner (Eds.)
(pp. 35-59)
. New
,
Preiudice, discrimination. and racism
York: Academic Press.
82
Linville, P. W.,
Salovey, P.,
&
Fischer, G. W.
(1986).
s t e r e o t p i n ~and perceived distributions of social
characteristics: An application to ingroup-outgroup
,
perception. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds. )
Preiudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 165-208). New
York, NY: Academic Press.
MacDonald, T. K.,
&
Zanna, M. P. (1998). Cross-
dimension ambivalence toward social groups: Can ambivalence
affect intentions to hire feminists?
Personalitv and Social
Psvcholocrv Bulletin, 2 4 , 427-441.
Maio, G . RI, Bell, D. W.,
&
Esses, V. M.
(1996).
Ambivalence and persuasion: The processing of messages about
immigrant groups. Journal of ExDerimental Social Psvcholoav.
32
I
513-536.
.
aMcConahay, J. B. (1986) Modern racism, ambivalence,
and the modern racism scale. In J. F. Dovidio,
Gaertner (Eds.)
91-125)
. New
,
L.
& S.
Preiudice. discrimination. and racism (pp.
York, NY: Academic Press.
McGregor, I., Newby-Clark, 1. R., & Zanna, M.
P.
(1999). wRememberinglldissonance: Simultaneous accessibility
of inconsistent elements moderates epistemic discornfort. In
E. Harmon-Jones & 3. Mills (Eds.), cosnitive dissonance:
Prosress on a nivota1 theorv in social ~svcholoav Cpp.325353). Washington, DC: American ~sychological~ssociation.
Monteith, M. J. (1996). Contemporary forms of
prejudice-related conflict: In search of a nutshell.
83
Personalitv and Social P s v c h o l o ~Bulletin, 22, 461-473.
Olson, J. M.!
&
Zama, M. P. f1993). Attitudes and
attitude change. Annual Review of Psvcholosv, 44, 117-154.
Petty, R. E.,
&
Cacioppo, J. T. (1984) The effects of
involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality:
Central and peripheral routes ta persuasion. Journal of
Personalitv and Social Psvcholocrv, 46, 69-81.
'~etty,
R. E., Fleming, M. A.,
&
.
White, P. H. (1999)
Stigmatized sources and persuasion: Prejudice as a
determinant of argument scrutiny. Journal of ~ e r s o n a l i tand
~
Social Psvcholoav, 76, 19-34.
Priester, J. R.,
&
Petty, R. E. (1996). The gradua1
threshold mode1 of ambivalence: Relating the positive and
negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence*
Journal of Personalitv and Social Psvcholoav. 71, 431-449.
Sears, D e 0. (1986). College sophomores in the
laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social
psychology~sview of human nature. Journal of ~ersonalitv
and Social Psvcholocrv, 51, 515-530.
Singer, S . A.,
&
.
Salovey, P. (1988) Mood and memory:
Evaluating the network theory of affect. Clinical Psvcholosv
Review, 8, 211-251.
Stangor, C., Sullivan, L. A.,
&
Ford, T. E l (1991).
Affective and cognitive determinants of prejudice. Social
Coqnition, 9, 359-380.
Steele, C e M., & Liu, T. J. (1983). Dissonance
84
processes as self-affirmation. Journal of Personalitv and
Social Psvcholoav, 45, 5-19.
Thompson, M. M.,
&
Zanna, M. P. (1995). The conflicted
individual: Personality-based and domain-specific
antecedents of ambivalent social attitudes. Journal of
Personalitv. 63, 259-288.
Thompson, M. M.,
Zanna, M. P.,
&
Griffin, D. W.
(1995).
Let's not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In
R. E. Petty
& J.
A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strenath:
Antecedents and consemences (pp. 361-386). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Zanna, M. P.,
&
. Dissonance and
Cooper, J. (1974)
the
pill: An attribution approach to studying the arousal
properties of dissonance. Journal of Personalitv and Social
P s v c h o l o ~ .29, 703-709.
Appendix A: Study One Materials
1) Ethics A p p r o v a l
2)
Consent Form
3) Initial Attitude Measure and Open-ended Measures of
Emotions, Stereotypes, and Symbolic Beliefs
4)
Essay on English Canadian and French Canadian People
5) Questions About Essay on English Canadian and French
Canadian People
6 ) Essay on N a t i v e Land C l a i m s
i) Positive Essay
ii) Negative Essay
7 ) Dependent Measures
8) ~emographic~nformation
9) P o s t - E x p e r i m e n t a l
1 0 ) Feedback Letter
Questionnaire
The U n i v e r s i t y o f Western O n t a r i o
Departmen t o f Psychology
To :
From:
David B e l l
C l i v e SeLigman on b e h a l f of t h e E t h i c s and S u b j e c t Pool Committee
Re:Ethical review of " Social a t t i t u d e s "
P r o t o c d #96 11 05
STATUS
X
-
- Approved
Approved c o n d i t i o n a l t o making
( p l e a s e f i l e changes w i t h your
pool w i t h Hel en Harris i n Rm.
Please make t h e changes l i s t e d
changes l i s t e d below
a p p l i c a t i o n t o use the s u b j e c t
7304)
below and resubmit f o r r e v i e w
SIGN-UP POSTER
B r i e f l y d e s c r i b e t h e cask required o f s u b j e c t s
Do n o t "hype" t h e a d v e r t i s i n g o f your s t u d y
Use lOcpi o r l z c p i , w i t h standard l e t t e r s i z e , f o r d e s c r i p t i o n
Other ( s e e attached s h e e t )
-
-
IWORKED CONSENT SHEET
-
-
-
-
B r i e f l y d e s c r i b e the t a s k ttre s u b j e c t s a r e agreeing t o perform
Promise t h a t t h e data w i l l be k e p t c o n f i d e n t i a l and used f o r
research purposes onLy
Promise t h a t audio and/or video t a p e s w i l l be e r a s e d , i n p a r t or
e n t i r e l y , a t the s u b j e c t s ' wishes a t any time
S t a t e how many c r e d i c s t h e s u b j e c t s w i l l r e c e i v e f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n
S t a t e chat s u b j e c t s may t e m i n a t e t h e experiment a t any t i m e
w i t h o u t l o s s o f promised c r e d i t ( s )
S t a t e t h a t t h e r e a r e no known x i s k s t o p a r t i c i p a t i o n o r s t a t e t h e
risks
S t a t e t h a t s u b j e c t s w i l l r e c e i v e w r i t t e n feedback a t t h e e n d o f
t h e s e s s i o n o r study and/or t h a t s u b j e c t s have h a d an o p p o r t m i t y
t o ask q u e s t i o n s about the s t u d y
Other ( s e e attached s h e e t )
W R T I T E N FEEDBACK
-
-
QTHER
c.
-
Esses
[ D B l B . eth]
Elaborate your feedback
Rewrite your feedback a t a level that is understandable t o a
Psychology 020/023 s t u d e n t
Add a few r e f e r e n c e s a t the end and/or your name and how you can
be reached
Other ( s e e attached s h e e t )
See atrached comments
CONSENT FORM
Social Attitudes
David Bell and Victoria Esses of the Department of
Psychology request your participation in a study which
examines people's perceptions of various groups and social
issues in Canada.
Your participation will involve
completing a number of questionnaires and should take
approximately forty-five minutes to complete for which you
will receive one credit.
A l 1 information that you provide will be confidential,
anonymous, and used for research purposes only.
There are
no known risks associated with your participation and you
will be debriefed and receive w r i t t e n feedback at the end of
the session.
In addition, you are free to withdraw at any
tirne without penalty or loss of credit.
Signature:
--
Date :
INITIAL ATTITUDE MEASURE
Please provide a number between
O*
and 100" t o indicate your
a t t i t u d e toward:
NATIVE PEOPLE
FAVOURABLE
10oO
Extremely favourable
90"
Very favourable
O
80°
~ u i t efavourable
70°
Fairly favourable
-..
60°
Slightly favourable
50°
Neither favourable nor unfavourable
O
40"
Slightly unfavourable
30'
Fairly unfavourable
20°
Quite unfavourable
loO
Very unfavourable
oO
Extremely unfavourable
89
OPEN-ENDED EMOTION MEASURE
We are interested in how members of various groups make you
feel
- that
is, the emotions you experience when you see,
meet or think about members of the group.
For each of t h e
following groups, please provide a list of the emotions you
experience in response to t y p i c a l members of the group
.
(e-g., "prideiV,"respectw, 'langerw, V e a r w )
Please list only emotions that are group relevant, that
is, feelings that are both aroused by and directed at the
group in question.
Provide as many feelings or emotions as
you think are necessary to convey your response to each
group and to describe your feelings adequately. P l e a s e b e
honest.
Your responses w i l l be k e p t s t r i c t l y confidential,
MY FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS TOWARD NATIVE PEOPLE ARE:
91
Please go back to the beginning of t h i s section and look at
the feelings and emotions that you have provided for each
group. ~ e c i d efor each feelina or emotion whether it is
favourable, unfavourable, or neutral, as you have
experienced it in response to t h a t particulas group.
Indicate the degree of favourableness of each feeling or
emotion as follows:
Emotions that are positive:
slightly positive: mite a plus (+) beside it.
q u i t e positive: mite two pluses (++) beside it.
extremely positive: m i t e t h r e e pluses (+++) beside it.
Emotions that are neqative:
slightly negative: write a minus ( - )
beside it.
q u i t e negative: m i t e two minuses ( - 0 )
beside it.
extremely negative: m i t e t h r e e minuses ( - O - )
beside it.
If the emotion is not at al1 ~ositiveor neaative, m i t e
a zero (O) beside it.
Give your immediate f i r s t impression. Donlt spend too much
time on any one emotion.
OPEN-ENDED STEREOTYPE MEASURE
We are interested in the characteristics that people use in
describing members of various groups.
For each of the
following groups, please provide a description of typical
members of the group.
Your description should consist of a
list of characteristics or, if necessary, short phrases
which you would use to d e s c r i b e t y p i c a l members of the group
(e.g.
,
.
Vriendlyfv
, ftintelligentN,nillogicalmm,ffrudemf)
Please list only characteristics that are group
relevant, that is, characteristics that you see as directly
describing group members. Provide as many characteristics or
short phrases as you think are necessary to convey your
impression of each group and to describe each group
adequately. Please be honest.
strictly confidential.
Your responses will be kept
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF NATIVE PEOPLE ARE:
94
Please go back to the beginning of this section and look at
the characteristics that you have provided for each group.
Decide for each characteristic whether it is favourable,
unfavourable, or neutral, as you have used it t o descrlbe
that particular group.
Indicate the degree of
favourableness of each characteristic as follows:
Characteristics that are positive:
slightly positive: mite a plus (+) beside it.
quite positive: m i t e two p l u s e s (++) beside it.
extremely positive: write three pluses (+++) beside it.
characteristics that are neqative:
slightly negative: m i t e a minus ( - )
quite negative: m i t e two minuses
beside it.
( - 0 )
beside it.
extremely negative: write three minuses ( O - - )
beside it.
If the characteristic is not at al1 positive or neaative,
m i t e a zero (O) beside it.
Give your immediate first impression.
tirne on any one characteristic.
Don't spend too much
OPEN-ENDED
SYMBOLIC B E L I E F MEASURE
We are interested in people's perceptions of the values,
customs, and traditions of various groups.
For each of the
following groups, please provide a list of the values,
customs, and traditions that vou believe are held or
practised by t y p i c a l members of the group ( e . g . , Vamily
valuesw, "pride in heritagew, "intoleranceW, llpoor work
ethic")
.
please list only values, customs, and traditions that
are group relevant, that is, values,~customs, and traditions
that you see as directly describing group members.
Provide
as many values, customs, and traditions as you think are
necessary to convey your impression of each group and to
describe your impression adequately.
Please be honest.
Your responses will be kept strictly confidential.
THE VALUES, CUSTOMS, AND TRADITIONS
NATIVE PEOPLE ARE:
97
P l e a s e go back t o t h e beginning of t h i s section and look at
t h e values, customs, and t r a d i t i o n s that you have provided
for each group.
Decide f o r each value, custom. and
t r a d i t i o n whether it is favourable, unfavourable, o r
neutral, as you have used it to describe that particular
group.
I n d i c a t e the degree of favourableness of each value,
custom, and tradition as follows:
Values, customs, and t r a d i t i o n s t h a t are p o s i t i v e :
s l i g h t l y positive: write a plus (+) beside it.
quite p o s i t i v e : write t w o pluses (++) beside it.
extremely p o s i t i v e : m i t e t h r e e p l u s e s (+++) b e s i d e it.
Values, customs, and t r a d i t i o n s that are neqative:
slightly negative: mite a minus
(
0
quite negative: write two minuses (
)
beside it.
)
beside it.
extremely negative: write t h r e e minuses
( - - 0 )
beside it.
I f t h e value, custom, o r t r a d i t i o n is n o t at a l 1 ~ o s i t i v e
o r nesative, mite a zero ( O )
beside it.
Give your first impression. Donvt spend too much t i m e on any
one v a l u e , custom, o r t r a d i t i o n .
98
ESSAY ON ENGLISH CANADIAN AND FRENCH CANADIAN PEOPLE
Canada is a nation composed of people from a variety of
ethnic backgrounds.
However, ~ n g l i s hCanadians and French
Canadians continue to be the largest groups in Canadian
demographics.
For example, in the 1991 census, 28% of
Canadians considered themselves to be English Canadians,
whereas 23% of Canadians considered themselves to be French
Canadians.
Of course, the French and English have been in
Canada since the early seventeenth century.
Thus, it is not surprising that.the two off i c i a l
languages of Canada are English and French.
It is
interesting to note that the two languages have adopted
words that are borrowed from the other language.
For
example, the French word rendezvous has become part of the
English language.
In addition, the English word fun has
become part of the French languageThe influence of English canadians and French Canadians
in Canada and worldwide can also be seen in the sport of
hockey.
For example, the two best players in the National
Hockey League over the past sixteen years have been Wayne
Gretzky (an English Canadian) and Mario Lemieux (a French
Canadian).
In the sixteen years Erom 1981 to 1996, Gretzky
and Lemieux have accounted for fifteen scoring titles (i.e.,
most points in the league).
Canadian cuisine has also been enriched by English
Canadians and French Canadians.
For example, French
99
Canadians have pxovided people w i t h tortiere which is a
tasty m e a t pie.
In addition, English Canadians have
provided people w i t h roast beef and Yorkshire pudding.
QUESTIONS ABOUT ESSAY ON ENGLISH CANADIAN AND FRENCH
CANADIAN PEOPLE
Please answer the following questions without referring to
the previous page.
1) In 1991, did English Canadians make up more than 25%
of the population in Canada
2) In 1991, did French Canadians make up more than 2 5 %
of the population in Canada
3) Which word in the English language comes from the
French language
4) Which word in the French language comes from the
~ n g l i s hlanguage
5) Who was the last French Canadian to win the scoring
title in hockey
6) Who was the last English Canadian to win the scoring
title in hockey
7) What food have French Canadians contributed to
Canadian cuisine
For the next question, please circle the most appropriate
answer
.
8) The information presented on the previous page is
a) more favourable t o English Canadians
b) more favourable to French Canadians
c) neither
d) cannot tell
101
POSITIVE ESSAY ON NATIVE LAND CLAIMS
The issue of Native land claims in Canada needs to be
resolved so that we can lead our country into the next
rnillennium.
Currently, there are more than 500 outstanding
Native land claims that have been filed.
Natives believe
that they are t h e legitimate owners of thousands of acres of
land in various parts of the country.
Thus, they have
instituted land claims in an effort to have their ownership
of the land recognized.
The federal and provincial gove-mments should quit
dragging their feet and settle the claims.
The Natives were
here long before we wexe, and it was originally their land.
T h u s , they're entitled to have it back.
In fact, this is
beginning to happen. For exarnple, the Nisga'a band in
British Columbia received support for their d a i m in 1993,
when three justices on the Supreme Court of Canada ruled
that their title to the land had not been extinguished
because they had never signed a treaty.
In addition, settling Native land claims would provide
major economic and educational benefits to Natives.
If land
daims are settled and Natives are given control of their
land, then they would be able to use it for security.
Currently, Natives are not allowed to use their lands as
collateral to obtain funds that would allow them to engage
in economic developrnent and improve the quality of life of
t h e i r people.
Consider t h e case of the Canadian Ojibwa in
Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario vs the American Ojibwa in Sault
Ste. Marie, Michigan.
The Canadian Ojibwa occu~yland worth
millions of dollars yet have an unemployment rate of 75% and
a high school dropout rate of 60%.
In contrast, their
American counterparts have an unemployment rate of 15% and a
high school dropout rate of 22%.
The major difference
between the two bands is that the American Ojibwatsland
claims were recognized and they were allowed to use their
land as collateral to obtain funds. With these funds, they
were able to purchase businesses and'provide jobs for
members of the tribe.
Finaiiy, we should settle Native land clairns because
should make up for the poor treatment Natives received in
the past from the Canadian government. In a misguided
attempt to assimilate Natives, the government took a number
of actions.
They banned the potlatch festival (an important
Native custom) in 1884, they outlawed the pursuit of land
claims in 1927, they forced Natives to attend Canadian
schools, and they atternpted to end Indian status in 1969.
We are now becoming aware that these were grievous erxows
and justice now demands that we try to right the wrongs of
the past.
Settling Native land clairns would definitelv be a
step in the right direction.
103
NEGATIVE ESSAY ON NATIVE LAND CLAIMS
The issue of Native land claims in Canada needs to be
resolved so that we can lead our country into the next
millenniurn.
Currently, there are more than 500 outstanding
Native land claims that have been filed.
Natives believe
that they are the legitimate owners of thousands of âcres of
land in various parts of the country.
Thus, they have
instituted land claims in an effort to have their ownership
of the land recognized.
Natives should realize that oth'er people live on the
land now, and it is neither possible nor desirable to uproot
these people.
For example, Native land claims filed in
British Columbia cover the entire land mass of British
Columbia.
Natives can't seriously expect that we will
uproot the citizens of British Columbia and send them to
other provinces so that Native land claims can be satisfied.
In addition, Native land claims are hurting economic
development that would benefit a number of people in areas
of the country that could use it.
Consider the case of
Labrador's Voisey Bay, in which a major nickel deposit has
been discovered- The development of this 'findl would
result in numerous jobs and would be a shot in the a m for
Newfoundlandlseconomy.
However, Native people in Labrador
are against development of the find and have instituted
proceedings that could delay the project until 2001.
In the
meantirne, investors are reluctant to invest in projects that
may be delayed or never get off the ground, and ordinary
Canadians have to pay the price.
Finaliy, Natives are using extralegal means to pursue
their land claims, For example, they have engaged in
various blockades across the country that have resulted in
inconvenience ( e . g . , people have had to use longer routes to
get to work) and f inancial costs (e.g., policing bills) for
nurnerous Canadians.
In addition, their blockades have
caused some businesses to go bankrupt ( e . g . , ski resort in
British Columbia).
These actions will cease only when
Canada definitelv says no to the Native land claims.
DEPENDENT MEASURES
Please answer the following questions without referring
to the prevlous page.
1) What is your overall attitude toward Native land
claims?
-4
-3
-2
-1
O
1
2
4
3
very
unfavourable
very
favourable
2) Do you agree or disagree that Canada should settle
land claims in favour of Natives?
-4
-3
-2
-1
O
1
2
4
3
strongly
disagree
strongly
agree
3) Do you agree or disagree that Canada should refuse
any further Native land claims?
-3
-4
-2
-1
O
1
2
3
strongly
disagree
4
strongly
agree
4 ) Do you believe that Native land claims are justified
or un justif ied?
-4
-3
-2
-1
O
1
2
4
3
extremely
unjustif ied
extremely
justified
5) What is your overall attitude toward Natives?
-4
-3
-2
-1
O
1
2
3
very
unf avourable
4
very
favourable
6) How positive or negative are you toward Natives?
-4
very
negat ive
-3
-2
-1
O
1
2
3
4
very
positive
106
7 ) How weak or strong did you find the arguments
essay?
-4
-3
2
3
very
weak
8)
-4
very
poorly
written
in the
4
very
strong
l
the essay written?
How t~ e l was
-3
-2
-1
O
1
3
4
very
well
written
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Information About You
Sex:
Age :
Date o f Birth:
Place
Birth:
Ethnicity:
Please mark an X beside the ethnic group(s) to
which you b e l o n g .
Arabic
Canadian
Chinese
Dutch
East Indian
English Canadian
French Canadian
German
Greek
Italian
Japanese
Jewish
N a t ive
Polish
Portuguese
Spanish
Other (please specify)
POST-EXPERIMENTAL OUESTIONNAIRE
In t h e space below, please indicate any comments,
ideas, or questions that you have about the studies you j u s t
completed.
FEEDBACK LETTER
Social ~ttitudes
Dear Research Participant:
Thank you for participating in our experiment. In the
present experiment we are attempting to demonstrate that
people who are ambivalent toward a group will display more
variable responses toward the group than will people who are
not ambivalent toward the group. People who are ambivalent
toward a group have attitudes that contain both positive and
negative elements
Thus, we had you complete open-ended measures about
Native peoples, English Canadians, and French Canadians so
that we could determine your degree of ambivalence toward
each group. Subsequently, we presented you with an essay
that was either Eavourable or unfavourable toward Native
land'claims. We expected that individuals who were
ambivalent toward Native peoples would show a greater
difference in responses between the favourable and
unfavourable essay than would individuals who were not
ambivalent toward Native peoples.
We assure you that your responses in this experiment
will be confidential. Your name will not be recorded or
associated with your answers. Thus, your participation is
anonymous
Once again, thank you for participating. If you are
interested in learning more about this experiment or related
topics, please do not hesitate to contact the following
researchers in the psychology department. Also, the
references listed below may prove interesting if you want to
learn more about the theoretical background to this
experiment.
.
.
Sincerely,
Dr. Victoria M o Esses, Ph-D.,
Room 6322, SSC, Phone- 679-2111 ext.4650
David Bell, Ph.D. Student
Room 7233, SSC
Susaested Readinqs
Hass, R. G., Katz, I., Rizzo, N., Bailey, J., &
Eisenstadt, D. (1991)
Cross-racial appraisal as related to
attitude ambivalence and cognitive complexity. Personalitv
and Social Psvcholoav Bulletin, 17, 83-92.
.
Katz, I., & Hass, R. G. (1988). Racial ambivalence and
American value conflict: Correlational and p r i m i n g studies
of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personalitv and
=,--,
rI"iCi-Y
UY,
C -
CI--
33,
033'7V3r
- A C
.
Appendix 8 : Study Two ~aterials'
1) Ethics Approval
2) Consent F o m
3) Motive Ma~ipulationEssay
-
i) Positive Motive
ii) Negative Motive
4) Motive Manipulation Check
5) Final Ambivalence Measure
6) Thought-Listing Measure
7) Feedback Letter
'0nly measures that were n o t included in Study One
Materials in Appendix A are presented in this appendix.
The Uni versi t y of western On t a r i O
Departmen t o f Psycho1 ogy
October 8 , 1 9 9 7
To :
From:
David B e l l
C l i v e Seligman on b e h a l f o f the E t h i c s and S u b j e c t Pool Commi t t e e
Re:Bthical review of " S o c i a l a t t i t u d e s "
Protocol #
97 1 0 02
- -
STATUS
-
Approved
Appxoved c o n d i t i o n a l t o making
( p l e a s e f i l e changes w i th y o u r
pool witrh Helen H a r r i s i n Rm.
P l e a s e make t h e changes l i s t e d
-
-
-
changes l i s t e d b e l o w
a p p l i c a t i o n t o u s e the s u b j e c t
7300)
b e l o w and r e s u b m i t f o r r e v i e w
-
-
- -
SIGN-UP POSTBR
B r i e f l y d e s c r i b e the t a s k r e q u i r e d o f s u b j e c t s
Do n o t "hypeU the a d v e r t i s i n g o f y o u r s t u d y
Lise l O c p i o r I S c p i , wi th s t a n d a r d l e t t e r s i z e , f o r d e s c r i p t i o n
Other (see a t t a c h e d sheetl
B r i e f l y d e s c r i b e the t a s k the s u b j e c t s are a g r e e i n g t o p e r f o n n
Promise t h a t the d a t a w i l l be k e p t c o n f i d e n t i a l and used f o r
research purposes o n l y
Promise t h a t a u d i o a n d / o r v i d e o t a p e s w i l l be e r a s e d , in p a r t o r
e n t i r e l y , a t the s u b j e c t s l wishes a t a n y t i m e
S t a t e how many c r e d i t s tbe s u b j e c t s w i l l receive f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n
S t a t e t h a t s u b j e c t s m a y t e n n i n a t e the e x p r i m e n t a t any t i m e
wz t h o u t l o s s of promised c r e d i t (SI
S t a t e t h a t there a r e n o k n o m r i s k s t o p a r t i c i p a t i o n or state the
ri sks
S t a t e t h a t s u b j e c t s w i l l receive w r i t t e n f e e d b a c k a t the e n d of
t h e s e s s i o n o r s t u d y and/or t h a t s u b j e c t s h a v e had an opgortuni t y
t o ask q u e s t i o n s about t h e s e u d y
O t h e r (see a t tached sheet)
-
OTHER
-
c.
-
Esses
[DB07.e t h ]
Elabora te y o u r f eedback
R e w r i t e your feedback a t a l e v e l t h a t i s u n d e r s t a n d a b l e t o a
P s y c h o l o g y 020/023 s t u d e n t
Add a f e w r e f e r e n c e s a t the end a n d / o r your name a n d how you can
be reached
- Other (see a t cached shee t )
See a t t a c h e d comments
CONSENT FORM
social Attitudes
David Bell and Victoria Esses of the Department of
Psychology request your participation in a study which
examines people's perceptions of various groups and social
issues.
Your participation will involve completing a number
of questionnaires and should take approximately forty-five
minutes to cornplete for which you will receive one credit.
Al1 information that you provide will be confidential,
anonymous, and used for research purposes only.
There are
no known risks associated with your participation and you
will be debriefed and receive written feedback at the end of
the session.
In addition, you are free to withdraw at any
time without penalty or loss of credit.
Signature:
Date:
114
POSITIVE MOTIVE MANIPULATION ESSAY
There are numerous advantages to seeing both the good
and the bad i n another person or situation.
One advantage
is t h a t you are able to view people as complex individuals,
which is often a reflection of reality*
more complicated then they seem.
People are often
In addition, the ability
to see both sides of an issue can lead to more complex
reasoning processes and better decisions.
Consider the institution of marriage.
A number of
marriages are successful because each person is able to see
both the good and the bad in his or her partner.
The
realization that everyone has faults as well as virtues can
lead a person to b e more accepting of a partner's faults.
It may also enhance a person's appreciation of the special
virtues that the partner possesses.
In addition, the
realization that marriage has bad t i m e s as well as good
times is beneficial.
When bad times are occurring, this
realization allows individuals to believe that good times
are just around the corner.
The advantages of perceiving the good and the bad in
another person can be seen in a business context.
imagine
that you are the owner of a small business and you have to
fil1 a newly created position from among your current
employees.
Two highly qualified applicants remain in the
running for the job. Both applicants have a number of
positive and negative qualities.
Upon careful analysis of
115
the position and what it entails, you realize that the
negative qualities of Applicant A are more likely to
interfere with performance on the job than the negative
qualities of Applicant B, whereas their positive qualities
are equivalent.
Thus, you select Applicant B for the job
because you are aware of the positive and negative qualities
of both applicants and how these qualities m a y interact with
the characteristics of the job.
In the political arena, leaders who have considered the
advantages and the disadvantages of a course of action have
generally made good decisions.
The liberation of Kuwait in
1991 was Eacilitated by President Bush's understanding of
the situation.
He realized that unilateral American action
could have the advantage of freeing Kuwait, but would have
many negative consequences, including substantial loss of
life.
Therefore, he put together an unprecedented world
coalition, involving as many Arab nations as possible.
By
considering the advantages and disadvantages of a number of
actions, the coalition was able to free Kuwait without
suffering s e r i o u s loss.
In conclusion, although some people may feel
uncomfortable about seeing both positive and negative
qualities of people and situations, the advantages of doing
so are evident in a number of domains.
116
NEGATIVE MOTIVE MANIPULATION ESSAY
There are numerous disadvantages to always seeing both
the good and the bad in another person or situation.
One
disadvantage is that you may never be able to decide whether
you like or dislike a person.
Consequently, an opportunity
for a relationship with that person may be missed.
In
addition, focussing on both sides of an issue can lead ta
ineffective decision-making.
Consider the institution of marriage.
Some people
never marry because they are always seeing both the good and
the bad in their potential mates.
Al1 too often, their
potential mates end up happily married to someone else while
they end up alone because they were unable to decide on a
particular marriage partner.
In addition, some married
people always look for both the good and the bad in their
partners.
As a result, a positive behaviour by the partner
may be interpreted in a negative light (IV Theywre only doing
this because they want something").
Ultimately, their
marriage is characterized by a lack of trust and by
dissatisfaction.
The disadvantages of perceiving the good and the bad in
another person can be seen in a business context.
Imagine
that you are the owner of a smali business and you have to
fil1 a newly created position from among your current
employees.
Two highly qualified applicants remain in the
running for the job. Both applicants have a number of
117
positive and negative qualities.
Because you keep focussing
on their positive and negative qualities, you cannot decide
what to do.
Ultimately, you do nothing because you cannot
decide between the two applicants.
In this way, a job
position which would have improved the future outlook of the
firm is left unfilled.
In addition, employee morale
declines because your employees cannot understand why
neither of the qualified applicants was promoted.
In the political arena, leaders who have considered
both the advantages and the disadvantages of every course of
action have generally not been very effective.
When the
American hostages were held in Iran from 1979-1981,
freeing
the hostages was generally considered a top priority.
However, President Carter was unable to commit himself
wholeheartedly to the use of force when other means had
failed, because he could see both the advantages and
disadvantages of this action.
As a result, the reputation
of the United States and President Carter suffered: America
and its president were seen as weak and ineffectual because
they could not deal with Iran.
President Carter lost the
next federal election in 1980.
In conclusion, although some people may feel
comfortable with seeing both positive and negative qualities
of people and situations, the disadvantages of doing so are
evident in a number of domains.
MOTIVE MANIPULATION CHECK
1) In your opinion, is seeing both t h e good and the bad
in other people
-2
-3
generally beneficial or harmful?
-1
O
I
2
3
very
beneficial
very
harmful
2) In your opinion, is seeing both sides of a situation
generally effective or ineffective?
-2
-3
-1
O
3
1
very
effective
very
ineffective
3) Do you believe that marriages
in the 21st Century
will be more or less successful t h a n marriages in the 20th
Century?
-3
-2
much more
successful
much less
successful
4) Do you believe that the power of the United States
in world affairs is increasing or decreasing?
-3
-2
-1
O
1
strongly
decreasing
2
3
strongly
increasing
5) How weak or strong did you find the arguments in the
essay?
3
-3
very
strong
very
weak
6 ) How well was the essay written?
-3
very
poor ly
written
-2
-1
O
1
3
very
well
written
FINAL AMBIVALENCE MEASURE
1) Consider only the favourable aspects of your overall
attituue towara Natives ana ignore tne u n f a v o u r a ~ l ea s p e ~ i s
of your attitude. How favourable are the favourable aspects
of your attitude toward Natives?
O
Not at al1
Favourable
1
Slightly
Favourable
2
Quite
Favourable
3
Extremely
Favourable
2) Consider only the unfavourable aspects of your
overall attitude toward Natives and ignore the favourable
aspects of your attitude. How unfavourable are the
unfavourable aspects of your attitude toward Natives?
O
Not at al1
Unfavourable
-1
Slightly
Unfavourable
-2
Quite
Unfavourable
-3
Extremely
Unfavourable
THOUGHT-LISTING MEASURE
' ~ l e a s eindicate the thoughts that occurred to you while
you were reading the essay that advocates settling
(refusing) Native land claims.
Your thoughts might have
been relevant to t h e essay or irrelevant to the essay.
Regardless of whether your thoughts w e r e relevant or
irrelevant to the essay, please list whatever thoughts
occurred to you.
List as many thoughts as you wish, up to a
maximum of five, and please number each thought.
FEEDBACK LETTER
Social Attitudes
Dear Research Participant:
Thank you for participating in our experiment. In the
present experiment we are attempting to demonstrate that
people who are ambivalent toward a group will display more
variable responses toward the group than will people who are
not ambivalent toward the group. We expect this finding to
hold only for ambivalent individuals who are motivated to
reduce their ambivalence. People who are ambivalent toward
a group have attitudes that contain both positive and
negative elements.
Thus, we had you complete open-ended measures about
Native peoples, French Canadians, and Americans so that we
could determine your degree of ambivalence toward each
group. In addition, we presented you with a message which
should either increase or decrease the motivation to reduce
ambivalence. Subsequently, we presented you with an essay
that was e i t h e r favourable or unfavourable toward Native
land claims. We expected that individuals who were
ambivalent toward Native peoples (and who had received the
message designed to increase their motivation to reduce
ambivalence) would show a greater difference in responses
between the favourable and unfavourable essay than would
individuals who were not ambivalent toward Native peoples.
W e assure you that your responses in this experiment
will be confidential. Your name will not be recorded or
associated with your answers, Thus, your participation i s
anonymous
'Once again, thank you for participating. If you are
interested in learning more about this experiment or related
topics, please do not hesitate to contact t h e following
researchers in the psychology department. Also, the
references listed below may prove interesting if you want to
learn more about the theoretical background to this
experiment.
.
Sincerely,
Dr. Victoria M. Esses, Ph.D.,
Room 6322, SSC, Phone- 679-2111 e x t . 4 6 5 0
David Bell, P h J , Student
Room 7238, SSC
Suaaested Readinss
Hass, R. G., Katz, I., Rizzo, N., Bailey, J., &
Eisenstadt, D. (1991). Cross-racial appraisal a s related ta
a t t i t u d e ambivalence and cognitive complexity. Personalitv
and Social Psvcholocrv Bulletin, 17, 83-92.
.
Katz, I . , & Hass, R. G. (1988)
Racial ambivalence and
American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies
of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personalit~and
Social Psvcholocrv. 55, 893-905.