Hubbry Logo
AmbivalenceAmbivalenceMain
Open search
Ambivalence
Community hub
Ambivalence
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Ambivalence
Ambivalence
Ambivalence
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Ambivalence[1] is a state of having simultaneous conflicting reactions, beliefs, or feelings towards some object.[2][3][4][5] Stated another way, ambivalence is the experience of having an attitude towards someone or something that contains both positively and negatively valenced components.[6] The term also refers to situations where "mixed feelings" of a more general sort are experienced, or where a person experiences uncertainty or indecisiveness.

Although attitudes tend to guide attitude-relevant behavior, those held with ambivalence tend to do so to a lesser extent. The less certain an individual is in their attitude, the more impressionable it becomes, hence making future actions less predictable and/or less decisive.[7] Ambivalent attitudes are also more susceptible to transient information (e.g., mood), which can result in a more malleable evaluation.[7][8] However, since ambivalent people think more about attitude-relevant information, they also tend to be more persuaded by (compelling) attitude-relevant information than less-ambivalent people.[9]

Explicit ambivalence may or may not be experienced as psychologically unpleasant when the positive and negative aspects of a subject are both present in a person's mind at the same time.[10][11] Psychologically uncomfortable ambivalence, also known as cognitive dissonance, can lead to avoidance, procrastination, or to deliberate attempts to resolve the ambivalence.[12] People experience the greatest discomfort from their ambivalence at the time when the situation requires a decision to be made.[13] People are aware of their ambivalence to varying degrees, so the effects of an ambivalent state vary across individuals and situations. For this reason, researchers have considered two forms of ambivalence, only one of which is subjectively experienced as a state of conflict.[4]

Types of attitudinal ambivalence

[edit]

Felt ambivalence

[edit]

The psychological literature has distinguished between several different forms of ambivalence.[4] One, often called subjective ambivalence or felt ambivalence, represents the psychological experience of conflict (affective manifestation), mixed feelings, mixed reactions (cognitive manifestation), and indecision (behavioral manifestation) in the evaluation of some object.[4][14][15] Ambivalence is not always acknowledged by the individual experiencing it. Although, when the individual becomes aware to a varying degree, discomfort is felt, which is elicited by the conflicting attitudes about a particular stimulus.[5]

Subjective ambivalence is generally assessed using direct self-report measures regarding one's experience of conflict about the topic of interest.[4] Because subjective ambivalence is a secondary judgment of a primary evaluation (i.e., I'm conflicted of my positive attitude towards the president), it is considered to be metacognitive. The point of these measures is to find out how much a person experiences ambivalence in a particular evaluation. Their report may be provided in a number of ways.

Priester and Petty,[16] for example, utilized a rating system where they had subjects rate the level of conflict they were experiencing on a scale from 0 (as in the subject experienced "no conflict at all") to 10 (as in the subject experienced "maximum conflict").[4][14] However, people do not like to experience the negative emotions associated with ambivalence and therefore may not acknowledge, or report, their level of conflict as accurately as possible. This makes the measure of felt ambivalence a bit less reliable than a researcher may desire.[7]

Potential ambivalence

[edit]

Another measure of ambivalence that has been developed is called objective ambivalence or potential ambivalence, which represents the simultaneous acknowledgement of both positive and negative evaluations regarding a particular stimulus. Objective ambivalence is an indirect measure of attitude conflict that allows individuals to answer questions based on more accessible aspects of their attitude and is therefore generally viewed as an advantageous means of measurement. This indirect measure does not assume that the individual has complete knowledge and/or awareness of their attitudinal conflict and helps to eliminate confounding factors that may be affecting their attitudes.[5]

Objective ambivalence is generally assessed using a method first developed by Kaplan, in which a standard bipolar attitude scale (e.g., extremely negative to extremely positive) is split into two separate scales, each independently assessing the magnitude of one valence (e.g., not at all negative to extremely negative).[3] If a person endorses both positive and negative reactions towards the same object, then at least some objective ambivalence is present.

Kaplan initially defined ambivalence as total affect (the sum of positive and negative reactions) minus polarity (the absolute difference of positive and negative reactions).[3] For example, if objective ambivalence towards exercising was assessed using two separate 6-point scales, and a person indicated that his or her evaluation was slightly negative (e.g., 2 on a 6-point scale) and extremely positive (e.g., 6 on a 6-point scale), this person's ambivalence would be quantified by 2 times the lesser of these two evaluations (i.e., 4 in this example).

Kaplan's measure yields the formula:

Here, S represents the smaller rating or reaction (called "conflicting" reaction in the seminal paper by Priester and Petty[16]), and L represents the larger rating or dominant reaction.

However, Kaplan's measure has largely been replaced in practice by one proposed by Thompson et al.[5] Thompson' s formula fulfills the three necessary conditions for any scale measuring ambivalence as suggested by Breckler.[5][17]

The three conditions are as follows:

  1. If the larger value is maintained, while the smaller rating increases, ambivalence will increase.
  2. If the smaller value is maintained, while the larger rating increases, ambivalence will decrease.
  3. If both the larger and smaller values are the same, ambivalence will increase when both ratings increase (as the difference between the two will increase) or decrease as the values decrease.

Thompson et al. refined Kaplan's formula to incorporate Breckler's components:

Predictors of felt ambivalence

[edit]

Research has shown only a moderate correlation between felt and potential ambivalence, although, both measures are useful depending on what is being asked. Potential ambivalence is often utilized by ambivalence researchers to gather more information about diversity of attitudes across contexts.[18] Each individual experiences the after-effects of unpleasant feelings in a different way, whether or not associated with ambivalence awareness.

There are two primary moderators that link felt and potential ambivalence: simultaneous accessibility and preference for consistency.

Simultaneous accessibility is when potential ambivalence depends on how quickly and uniformly conflicting evaluations come to mind.[10] Positive and negative knowledge regarding beliefs about an attitude object are concurrently known, but not always accessible. Only when the connection of the evaluations are applicable and coinciding to awareness, does potential ambivalence result in felt ambivalence.[5]

Preference for consistency uses incentives to combine incoming stimuli with current variables in order to respond to approaching impulses. In other words, people often review past behaviors when making new decisions; if preference for consistency is high, they are more likely to ignore new information and are thus bias to past behaviors.

Dimensions of attitudinal assessment as applied to ambivalence

[edit]

One-dimensional perspective

[edit]

Traditionally, attitudes were considered one-dimensional—from positive to negative—but given the rise of research findings, this perspective has lost much of its value. Ambivalence studies were a primary reason that attitudinal assessments demanded a new design. Because the basic assumption of an ambivalent attitude is that it is paradoxical, a one-dimensional perspective is likely to portray faulty information. For instance, a numerical rating of zero can be produced both by someone with a love-hate relationship toward an object, and someone who is completely indifferent about that object.[19] There is a significant difference in the behaviors and experiences of those possessing strong conflicting attitudes, compared to those who are simply neutral. This perspective is unsuitable for examining ambivalence and based on current research does not appear to accurately reflect how attitudes function and are experienced.

Two-dimensional perspective

[edit]

The two-dimensional perspective separately rates positive and negative attitudes toward an attitudinal object.[19] The relative magnitude of positive and negative rankings are recognized by this model, providing a distinction between ambivalence and indifference. By comparing the magnitude of attitudes, the two-dimensional perspective also allows for an approximation of the degree of ambivalence; similarity in the magnitude of an individual's positive and negative attitude towards an object indicating ambivalence, and the strength of these attitudes reveals its degree. The two-dimensional view can report everything the one-dimensional perspective can, but it has the added ability to account for ambivalence.[19] Though this model of attitude is clearly more useful for understanding and potentially assessing ambivalence than a one dimensional model it still suffers numerous paradoxes which are difficult to argue away without acknowledging that there is more contributing to one's attitudes and their stability than perceptions regarding the object alone. These issues prompt the recent emergence of multidimensional models.

Multidimensional perspective

[edit]

The Multidimensional model for attitude deviates from the linear perspectives previously mentioned. Conceptually the multidimensional model can be thought of as a network of attitudinal hubs which form a web of contributions contributing to one's attitude about a particular object.[19] Thus ones attitude toward an object is a product of the attitudes one holds for all related objects which are activated consciously or unconsciously when considering the object in question, and is not simply an attribution regarding the object alone in a vacuum. Ambivalence occurs when there are near equal weight of contributions of both positive and negative sources according to this perspective. Note in this view the ambivalent attitude is not tied directly to the object but rather the near equivalence of positive and negative contributing attitudes.[19]

This model is very useful for understanding why attitude towards an object can fluctuate often within a relatively short span. If this model is accurate than a change in the degree of activation of particular objects related to the attitudinal object in question will alter the degree to which they contribute their attitudinal influence towards one's current attitude regarding the object in question.[19] This allows for variance in attitude towards an object without requiring any permanent change in one's beliefs regarding neither the object nor the objects related to it. According to this model one's attitude towards eating a high calorie dessert food would likely become more positive during times when an individual is hungry, as the centers associated with the satiation property of food are now more active and contributing more influence to the attitude regarding consuming the dessert. The other contributing attitudes do not need to have been suppressed (though they can be) for the temporary change in attitude all that is required, is an increase in the output of one contributor.

Continued or repeated activation of the same related objects to a given attitudinal object will likely be reinforced and over time lend more stability to the attitude, and are likely to diminish the activation of those objects not strongly activated; however, the contributing objects are themselves also subject to changes in attitudes regarding them, so no final resolution of stability will necessarily occur. In addition if the same conflicting attitudinal contributors are continuing to "fire together" they will both be reinforced and thus may not contribute towards the resolution of ambivalence.

Meta-cognitive model

[edit]

Not all attitude objects are linked to both positive and negative relations. This model is built on the idea that meta-cognition has to do with "knowing about knowing." The process works if someone has the knowledge about cognition and is also able to control their thoughts. An evaluation creates initial thoughts that are then analyzed by a secondary thought which may vary in strength toward an assessment. Once an evaluation is obtained, the strength of the validity affects how the interpretation is perceived. If a successful univalent attitude is achieved, final evaluations are labelled as either true or false based on varying degrees of confidence.[11][20]

Consistency theories and ambivalence

[edit]

Overview

[edit]

Cognitive consistency theories were established on the premise that individuals prefer dependable and coherent cognition. Inconsistency in one's thoughts, feelings, emotions, values, beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors causes tension. In the past, consistency theorists focused primarily on the instinctive drive to reduce this psychological discomfort and return to a simple, balanced state. Unlike classical approaches, however, theories of attitudinal ambivalence are more concerned with the perceived paradoxical state itself.[5]

Balance theory

[edit]

Fritz Heider established the first approach in the growing family of consistency theories; balance theory seeks to understand one's thoughts regarding their personal relationship with others and with the environment. Triadic relationships are used to evaluate the structure and quality of attitudes within a given arrangement.

Social ties, for example, can be analyzed in terms of an individual's perception of the relationships between his or her self (p), another person (o), and the topic (e.g., issue, belief, value, object) of focus (x). According to Heider, a balanced triangle is accomplished when all three links are positive, or two are negative and one is positive (since a positive number is still achieved).

The overall assumption of balance theory is rooted in the philosophy that unbalanced states have a tendency to wreak havoc.[21] Satisfying relationships require balance, otherwise, it is not uncommon to experience consequences like stress, tension, or ambivalence.[5]

Evaluative-cognitive consistency theory

[edit]

Evaluative-cognitive consistency theory refers to a condition in which one holds opposing attitudes towards an object that are not of equal magnitude; the focus is the overall difference in evaluations, with no regard to magnitude.

"Ambivalence is a function of the amount of conflict within an attitude, whereas evaluative-cognitive consistency is a function of the magnitude of the difference between evaluations."[22]

In a set of dimension scores, for example, positive 5 and negative 5 have the same degree of consistency as does the set of positive 9 and negative 1. Yet, the degree of ambivalence in each set is vastly different. This distinction is important when examining the implications and effects of ambivalence, since seemingly similar ratings are in fact quite different.

The two-dimensional perspective of attitudinal assessment can distinguish between ambivalence and evaluative-cognitive consistency. As ratings increase, both ambivalence and evaluative-cognitive consistency have a tendency to be less stable and less effective at predicting behavior.[22]

Past studies have linked ambivalent mental states to slower response times (due to low accessibility) and mild attitudes, although theories of evaluative-cognitive consistency have yet to report such findings.[22]

Cognitive dissonance theory

[edit]

The feeling of discomfort that results from inconsistent cognition is a powerful determinant of human behavior.[10] The emergence of research on intellectual tension dates back to the mid-20th century, and has been a hot topic in social psychology ever since. In 1957, Leon Festinger was the first to investigate the phenomenon, thereupon coining the theory of cognitive dissonance.[21] Festinger and other early psychologists held the notion that cognitive dissonance was the result of any two conflicting thoughts or opinions. Currently, however, research has proven that not all cognitive inconsistencies are equally upsetting, for it is not necessarily the dissonance itself that causes strife, rather, it is the individuals construct of the given contention.

Dissonance, then, is characterized as a discrepancy between an attitude held by an individual and the actual behavior that is practiced by that individual, whereas ambivalence is seen as having a disparity within the attitude itself.[5] Though unique, the ambivalent state, still, is closely connected to dissonance theory, being its most common product.[23]

Individuals seek to satisfy a stable and positive self-image.[21] For this reason, the greatest tension is encountered when there is an incongruity between who one thinks they are and their actual behavior. Such threats to self-esteem evoke motivation to rid oneself of the distress. According to present research, there are three widely accepted methods to reduce cognitive dissonance:

  1. Justify the behavior by changing the dissonant cognition
  2. Justify the behavior by adding new cognitions
  3. Change the behavior to meet the dissonant cognition

Motivation and information processing

[edit]

As noted above, the desire to maintain one's preconceived notions can have vast implications. Studies have shown it is not uncommon for people to distort reality while attempting reduce ambivalence. The manner by which one chooses to replace unwanted thoughts is mostly an unconscious process, yet several factors influence the ability and likelihood of doing so.

Heuristic-systematic model

[edit]

Information processing for ambivalent attitudes is less efficient and takes longer than processing of attitudes that are relatively univalent. The information is less accessible, so it takes longer for a person to integrate multiple viewpoints regarding an attitude object into one cohesive opinion or judgement.[24] The lack of accessibility here does serve to reduce a biased thought process. Yet, since it takes a greater amount of effort to resolve two conflicting attitudes, if one desires to form a conclusion, a more extensive thought process is necessary.[4][7]

Antecedents of ambivalence

[edit]

Behavioral indicators

[edit]

Researchers have sought to understand the relationship between objective and subjective ambivalence. Thompson and his colleagues argue that people with positive and negative evaluations which are of similar magnitude (e.g., +4 and -3) should experience more ambivalence than people whose evaluations are of dissimilar magnitude (e.g., +4 and -1). Similarly, they argue that even with relatively similar positive and negative evaluations, people whose evaluations are more extreme (e.g., +6 and -5) should experience more ambivalence than people whose evaluations are less extreme (e.g., +2 and -1).

The Griffin formula, also known as the similarity-intensity model:

Here, P and N are the magnitude of positive and negative reactions, respectively.[14]

Some research has stated that as the relative contribution of dominant reactions decreases, the magnitude of conflicting reactions increases.[4] Other studies have found that objective ambivalence predicts subjective ambivalence to a greater extent when both the positive and negative reactions are accessible, or when a decision about the attitude object is imminent.[10][13] Still, more evidence has demonstrated that objective ambivalence is not the only precursor to subjective ambivalence. For example, interpersonal ambivalence, the presence of attitudes which are in conflict with those of important others, independently predicts subjective ambivalence, as does the mere anticipation of information which may conflict with one's preexisting attitude.[25]

Both personal and circumstantial aspects must be considered in order to accurately assess relationship sustainability between subjective and objective ambivalence.[15]

Individual differences

[edit]

Individual characteristics are essential in deciding the most beneficial coping strategies. Research has shown that certain personality traits may impact an individual's likelihood of experiencing ambivalence. There are certain personality traits that are not as relevant to ambivalence, such as the need for closure. Other components may alter these traits that may contribute toward ambivalence, such as tolerance to ambiguity. Particularly, those possessing the need for cognition, or the inclination to evaluate the discrepancies between positive and negative emotions, are less likely to experience ambivalence. In other words, the desire to resolve issues, which requires a great deal of cognitive resources, fosters cognitive strength and thus the ability to overcome ambivalence.[7]

Ambivalent attitudes that demonstrate weakness are accessed slower than strong attitudes. This leads to a conflict called response competition; the process of slowing down responses because of the difficulty to choose between positive and negative beliefs and feelings. Bottom-up processing shows how greater cognitive effort entwined with combined beliefs results in non congruent information. Once individuals are confronted several choices, they are then followed by uncertain outcomes.[12] Thus concluding that slower response times may be due to systematic processing.[7]

Individuals with a greater concern for invalidity experience a heightened amount of ambivalence, presumably because they are concerned with making wrongful judgments, and as a result, efforts to adjust attitude become inhibited.[22] Response to ambivalence, then, is affected by an individual's need for consistency; hence, the higher the need for consistency, the more adverse the reaction will be to maintaining two contradictory attitudes simultaneously, whereas someone with a reduced need for consistency will experience less mental frustration[7] Those seeking to rectify inconsistencies and resolve conflict are able to reject ambivalence better than most.

Additionally, some individuals have a more pronounced fear of invalidity than others. When this fear is experienced to a stronger degree, these individuals will not want to acknowledge the ambivalence as it is especially uncomfortable. Since the ambiguity is not being resolved, it will persist within the person.[7] Gebauer, Maio, and Pakizeh discuss the possibility that many perfectionists, despite the seemingly positive qualities exerted, are at risk of neglecting internal inconsistencies. Consequently, it is not unlikely for those individuals to confront a plethora of unexplained, ambivalent feelings.[7]

Goal conflicts

[edit]

Ambivalence will emerge when two (or more) goals valued by an individual are in conflict regarding the same attitudinal object. The individual becomes ambivalent about the object to which they both reference, not as much when regarding the individual goals themselves.

Many decisions as common as food consumption or selection can invoke some degree of ambivalence every day. An action can seem to have pleasant outcomes, but it can simultaneously cause issues as well.[7] Emotions or attitudes that are ambivalent may spark both quick and far-off consequences that are inconsistent.[12] A chronic dieter, for example, may experience ambivalence between the goals of eating enjoyment and weight control. Each of these goals independently are viewed as positive, but when conjoined in regards to actually eating more food, the resulting conflict prompts ambivalence. The object of eating enjoyment and the object of losing weight are both regarded with positive attitude, but these two goals are incongruent with each other and are both activated when considering eating.[22]

The goal driven ambivalence that produces several forms of behavior modification may have profound implications on the behaviors and outcomes. Some examples are overcoming addiction, procrastination, health maintenance, and many others. Much of the focus of previous work has been concentrated on pain avoidance and pleasure seeking (focus on the ambivalent object itself), and not enough to the "pleasure" goal objectives related to and driving the conflict. Under certain circumstances, people who are exposed to unpleasant experiences are motivated to decrease unpleasant feelings toward ambivalence. One way to accomplish such a task is by acquiring new knowledge that can result in more immediate conclusions about the attitude object, or result in an adjustment in the individuals attitudes regarding the contributing goals which prompted the conflict.

Ambivalent attitudes that demonstrate weakness are accessed slower than strong attitudes and are thought to have less of an influence on behavior. This leads to a conflict called response competition; the process of slowing down responses because of the difficulty to choose between positive and negative beliefs and feelings. Bottom-up processing shows how greater cognitive effort entwined with combined beliefs results in incongruent information. Once individuals are confronted several choices, they are then followed by uncertain outcomes.[5] Thus concluding that slower response times may be due to systematic processing.[12]

Value conflicts

[edit]

Ambivalence is often the result of conflict arising from personal or social values. Different cultures, and the individuals within them, have different values surrounding race, ethnicity, nationality, class, religion or beliefs, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, and health status. Social constructs and perceived norms and values within a given society create contradictory feelings for many individuals. If opposing values are activated by the same object they are likely to clash upon encounter.

Conflicted value items do not need to come from the same category, but to be considered a contributor of ambivalence, discordance must occur.

The attitudinal object of women in the workplace could, for example, be affected by religious or political values. The contributing value systems are both held in positive regard but are opposed to each other in reference to the attitudinal ambivalent item. The amount of ambivalence experienced corresponds to the positive regard of each value contributing to the conflict. In other words, weakly held conflicting values should not generate as much ambivalence as strongly held values.

Affective-cognitive ambivalence

[edit]

Affective ambivalence (A+/A-) refers to disparity between feelings, whereas cognitive ambivalence (C+/C-) focuses on the disagreement between beliefs. Together, the notion of affective-cognitive ambivalence (A+/C-) or (A-/C+) embodies the commonly known conundrum of "the heart vs. mind conflict."

When each state is in balance, the influence on attitude is equal (A+/C+). Yet, there is compelling evidence that affect tends to overpower cognition (A+/C-).[5]

That is to say, the degree of ambivalence construed at any given moment can alter the mechanisms by which one views the world. When ambivalent cognitive states become psychologically agonizing, motivation rises to eliminate distress.[12][26] Under those circumstances, people generally pay more attention to information that is relevant to their ambivalent state, in particular when it is perceived as having the potential to reduce discomfort.[7][9][27]

Consequences of ambivalence as a dimension of attitude strength

[edit]

Attitude stability

[edit]

Ambivalence is often conceptualized as a negative predictor of attitude strength.[4] That is, as an attitude becomes more ambivalent, its strength decreases. Strong attitudes are those that are stable over time, resistant to change, and predict behavior and information processing.[28]

Studies have found that ambivalent attitudes are less stable over time, less resistant to change, and less predictive of behavior.[1][26][29]

Ambivalent attitudes are subject to change based on the concepts, feelings, or objects that are salient at the time. Since an ambivalent attitude is one in which positive and negative feelings are held simultaneously, the strength of either may wax or wane depending on what context the individual finds themselves in; different aspects of an attitude may be activated across situations.[7]

Attitude pliability

[edit]

Ambivalent attitudes are known to be susceptible to persuasion.[7] Since there is less certainty associated with an ambivalent attitude, both facts and trivial information are assessed, assimilated, and determinant of one's attitude. Accordingly, this may bias or persuade an individual's attitude. Strong attitudes, on the other hand, are less likely to be manipulated because they are essentially "anchored in knowledge structures".[1]

Armitage and Conner conducted a study regarding attitudes toward eating a low-fat diet.[1] Attitudes of a high ambivalence group and a low ambivalence group were recorded two times within five months. Following an attitude change intervention the high ambivalence group demonstrated a significant positive change in attitude toward the diet (compared to a control group) whereas the low ambivalence group demonstrated very little change if any.

In situations that highlight one dimension over the other, individuals who are high in ambivalence are more likely to embrace the clear-cut better aspect of the attitude object.[5]

Ambivalence in clinical psychology

[edit]

Bleuler's tripartite scheme

[edit]

The concept of ambivalence was introduced into psychiatric parlance by Eugen Bleuler, who used it in print for the first time in his 1910 article Vortrag über Ambivalenz.[30][31][32] Bleuler distinguished three main types of ambivalence: volitional, intellectual, and emotional.[33] Volitional ambivalence refers to an inability to decide on an action—what Montaigne called "a spirit justly balanced betweene two equal desires".[34] The concept (if not Bleuler's term) had a long prehistory, reaching back through Buridan's ass, starving between two equally attractive bales of hay in the Middle Ages, to Aristotle.[35] Intellectual ambivalence—the sceptical belief that "There is no reason but hath a contrary to it"[36] —also follows a long tradition reaching back through Montaigne to Sextus Empiricus and Pyrrho.[37] (Freud considered Bleuler's stress on intellectual ambivalence particularly appropriate given his own ambivalence towards Freud's intellectual constructs, alternatively praising and criticizing them).[38] Emotional ambivalence involved opposing affective attitudes towards the same object, as with the man who both loved and hated his wife.[39]

While mainly dealing with ambivalence in relation to the psychological splitting of schizophrenia, Bleuler also noted how "in the dreams of healthy persons, affective as well as intellectual ambivalence is a common phenomenon".[40]

Freudian usage

[edit]

Freud was swift to pick up Bleuler's concept of ambivalence, applying it to areas he had previously dealt with in terms of ambiguous language,[41] or the persistent co-existence of love and hatred aimed at the same person.[42] Freud also extended the scope of Bleuler's term to cover the co-existence of active and passive trends in the same instinctual impulse[43]—what Freud called "pairs of contrary component instincts" such as looking and being looked at.[44]

Karl Abraham explored the presence of ambivalence in mourning—something he thought to be a universal phenomenon.[45] Others in psychoanalysis have traced the roots of contradictory impulses (usually love and hate) to very early stages of psychosexual development.[46]

Defences against feeling both of the two contradictory emotions include psychological repression, isolation and displacement.[47] Thus, for example, an analytic patient's love for his father might be quite consciously experienced and openly expressed—while his "hate" for the same object might be heavily repressed and only indirectly expressed, and thus only revealed in analysis. A drug addict may feel ambivalently about their drug of choice; they are aware of their drug use as a negative-impact agent in their lives (socially, financially, physically, etc.) while simultaneously seeking and using the drug because of the positive-impact results they receive from the drug's usage (the "high"). (More recent discourse of addiction as a mental health concern and chemically-induced/encoded imperative, rather than as a behavioral choice, complicates the notion of ambivalence as it relates to addiction.)

Another relevant distinction is that whereas the psychoanalytic notion of "ambivalence" sees it as engendered by all neurotic conflict, a person's everyday "mixed feelings" may easily be based on a quite realistic assessment of the imperfect nature of the thing being considered.[citation needed]

Ambivalence in philosophy

[edit]

Philosophers such as Hili Razinsky consider how ambivalence relates to other aspects of the human experience, such as personhood, action, and judgement, and what it means that strict ambivalence is possible.[48]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Ambivalence

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Ambivalence is a psychological state characterized by the simultaneous coexistence of opposing positive and negative attitudes, emotions, or evaluations toward the same object, person, situation, or idea, often resulting in and motivational tension. This state violates individuals' innate drive for cognitive consistency, leading to discomfort and potentially influencing decision-making processes. The term "ambivalence" was coined in 1911 by Swiss psychiatrist in his seminal work on , where he described it as the simultaneous presence of contradictory emotions, such as and hate, toward a single entity, positioning it as one of the fundamental symptoms of the disorder. Bleuler's conceptualization drew from observations of patients exhibiting rigid, conflicting affective responses, which he saw as central to schizophrenic thought disturbances. Although originally tied to , the concept was later expanded by and others to encompass broader psychoanalytic dynamics, such as unresolved oedipal conflicts manifesting as mixed feelings. In contemporary , ambivalence is distinguished by several types, reflecting its multifaceted nature across cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains. Cognitive ambivalence involves conflicting beliefs or thoughts about an object, such as holding both favorable and unfavorable evaluations simultaneously. Affective ambivalence, often termed emotional ambivalence, arises from opposing feelings like and toward the same stimulus. Behavioral ambivalence manifests as competing action tendencies, such as the urge to approach and avoid the same goal. These can occur within components (intracomponent ambivalence, e.g., conflicting cognitions) or between them (intercomponent ambivalence, e.g., mismatched thoughts and feelings). Additionally, ambivalence is measured as objective (quantifiable difference in positive versus negative evaluations) or subjective (perceived experience of conflict). Ambivalence plays a significant role in , interpersonal relationships, and , often correlating with heightened stress, indecision, and negative affect, particularly in high-stakes contexts like romantic partnerships or clinical choices. In , unresolved ambivalence is linked to disorders such as , , and depression, where failure to integrate conflicting emotions impairs functioning. Conversely, in adaptive scenarios, it can promote deeper information processing, more nuanced judgments, and by encouraging consideration of multiple perspectives. studies reveal that ambivalent states activate brain regions involved in conflict monitoring (e.g., ) and social-affective processing (e.g., ), underscoring its cognitive and emotional demands. Overall, managing ambivalence through tolerance or resolution is a key developmental and therapeutic goal, fostering psychological well-being.

Definition and Historical Context

Core Definition

Ambivalence in refers to the simultaneous coexistence of positive and negative evaluations toward the same object, , or situation within an , creating an internal state of conflict. This state involves opposing attitudinal positions that can generate psychological tension, as individuals grapple with contradictory thoughts, feelings, or inclinations. Unlike related concepts such as , which stems from a lack of sufficient or predictability about an outcome, or indifference, which reflects a neutral or apathetic absence of feelings, ambivalence emphasizes active internal opposition and emotional discomfort arising from conflicting valences. In everyday life, ambivalence commonly manifests in scenarios involving significant personal decisions, such as mixed feelings toward a career change, where one might simultaneously value the potential for growth and stability while fearing the risks of and loss of familiarity. This internal tug-of-war can lead to or , as the individual weighs pros and cons without a clear resolution. Contemporary views ambivalence as a multidimensional construct encompassing affective (emotional), cognitive (thought-based), and behavioral (action-oriented) components, each contributing to the overall experience of conflict and its potential influences on judgment and .

Etymology and Early Usage

The term "ambivalence" was coined in 1910 by Swiss psychiatrist as the German Ambivalenz, derived from the Latin prefix ambi- meaning "both" or "on both sides" and valentia meaning "strength" or "vigor," thus denoting the coexistence of strong feelings or impulses in opposing directions. Bleuler introduced the concept in his seminal 1911 work , where he applied it to describe core symptoms of , distinguishing three forms: intellectual ambivalence (simultaneous contradictory ideas), emotional ambivalence (conflicting affective responses toward the same object), and volitional ambivalence (opposing desires or intentions that hinder ). This formulation drew partial influence from Sigmund Freud's earlier psychoanalytic theories on conflicting psychic drives and instincts, though Freud initially employed terms like "ambitendency" for similar ideas before adopting Bleuler's "ambivalence" in his own writings, praising it as a precise descriptor for the dual-directed emotional states in neuroses and normal . Throughout the , the term evolved from its origins in clinical —where it primarily denoted pathological conflict in mental disorders—to broader applications in , particularly in the 1960s, when researchers like William A. Scott and Milton J. Kaplan began exploring attitudinal ambivalence as a normal cognitive state involving mixed positive and negative evaluations of objects or issues.

Types and Dimensions of Ambivalence

Types of Attitudinal Ambivalence

Attitudinal ambivalence manifests in distinct forms, primarily categorized by the subjective experience of conflict and the objective presence of opposing evaluations. Felt ambivalence refers to the psychological discomfort or internal tension individuals consciously report when holding conflicting positive and negative reactions toward an attitude object. This subjective form is typically assessed through self-report scales that capture feelings of being "mixed," "conflicted," or "undecided" about the object. In contrast, potential ambivalence represents the objective coexistence of positive and negative components within an attitude, independent of whether the individual perceives or feels the conflict. It is calculated using formula-based measures that quantify the balance between positive (P) and negative (N) evaluations, such as the Griffin formula: Ambivalence = (P + N)/2 - |P - N|. This approach emphasizes the structural properties of the attitude, where ambivalence is highest when positive and negative evaluations are similarly intense and low when one dominates the other. Within these broader categories, attitudinal ambivalence can be further distinguished by its basis in affective or cognitive components. Affective ambivalence involves emotional reactions, such as simultaneous liking and disliking toward an object, often leading to heightened discomfort. Cognitive ambivalence, meanwhile, stems from conflicting beliefs or thoughts, like recognizing both benefits and drawbacks without strong emotional pull. These types highlight how ambivalence operates through different psychological channels, with affective forms more tied to immediate experiential tension and cognitive forms to evaluative reasoning.

Dimensions of Attitudinal Assessment

In attitude research, ambivalence is assessed through various dimensional perspectives that conceptualize how positive and negative evaluations coexist within an individual's attitude toward an object. The one-dimensional perspective treats attitudes as existing on a single bipolar continuum ranging from negative to positive, with ambivalence interpreted as a neutral or position indicating uncertainty or lack of clarity. This approach, rooted in early scales, has been critiqued for failing to capture the simultaneous presence of positive and negative reactions, as it forces evaluations into oppositional categories that obscure . For instance, an individual might rate an attitude object neutrally on a scale despite holding strong but balanced positive and negative views, leading to an underestimation of ambivalence. The two-dimensional perspective addresses these limitations by positing separate, independent dimensions for positive and negative evaluations, allowing ambivalence to be measured as the extent to which both coexist without assuming they are inversely related. This framework employs split-semantic differential scales, where respondents rate an attitude object on positive attributes (e.g., beneficial, favorable) and negative attributes (e.g., harmful, unfavorable) separately, often using methods like the Potential Ambivalence formula by Griffin to quantify the balance of opposing evaluations. Objective ambivalence in this view is calculated from the discrepancy or balance between these dimensions, while subjective ambivalence is gauged through self-reports of felt conflict, such as ratings of being "mixed" or "conflicted." This separation better reflects real-world attitudes, like mixed feelings toward a , where positive and negative aspects operate independently. Building on these, the multidimensional perspective incorporates affective, cognitive, and behavioral components to provide a more integrated understanding of ambivalence, recognizing that attitudinal conflict manifests across emotional, intellectual, and action-oriented domains. Affective ambivalence involves co-occurring positive and negative emotions, often leading to discomfort or when both are accessible; cognitive ambivalence arises from contradictory beliefs or thoughts, prompting systematic processing or compensatory reasoning to resolve tension; and behavioral ambivalence reflects inconsistencies in intentions or actions, such as delayed or motoric like side-to-side swaying. Integration models, such as the ABC framework, link these components dynamically, with negative affect typically driving cognitive and behavioral responses aimed at mitigation, as evidenced in studies showing ambivalence's role in choice avoidance. here combines objective indices (e.g., separate scales for each component) with subjective reports to assess overall conflict, emphasizing how these dimensions interact rather than operate in isolation. The meta-cognitive model further extends assessment by focusing on individuals' awareness and evaluation of their own ambivalence, treating it as a higher-order process involving the and perceived validity of conflicting thoughts. In this view, ambivalence emerges when positive and negative evaluations are both stored in but vary in accessibility based on contextual cues, with meta-cognitive tags (e.g., or ) determining whether individuals recognize and endorse the conflict. For example, implicit ambivalence occurs when automatic associations reveal opposition that deliberate reflection suppresses or doubts, assessed via discrepancies between implicit measures like the and explicit self-reports. This model highlights how awareness of ambivalence influences attitude expression, with accessible conflicting thoughts increasing subjective discomfort only if deemed valid.

Theoretical Foundations

Consistency Theories

Consistency theories in posit that ambivalence emerges from inconsistencies within an individual's cognitive, evaluative, or relational structures, creating a motivational drive to restore equilibrium and resolve internal conflicts. These theories emphasize the aversive nature of such imbalances, which prompt psychological adjustments to achieve coherence in attitudes, beliefs, and sentiments. Balance theory, developed by Fritz Heider in 1946, addresses ambivalence in social perceptions through triadic relationships involving a person (P), another person or entity (O), and a third entity (X). In this P-O-X model, relations are represented as positive (L for liking or U for unit formation, such as similarity) or negative (~L or U for disliking or differentiation), with balance achieved when the product of these signed relations is positive—either all positive or an even number of negatives. Imbalance, such as P liking O but disliking X while O is positively linked to X (pLo + oUx + pLx), generates tension akin to ambivalence, motivating cognitive reorganization, attitude shifts, or behavioral changes to restore . For instance, in cases of , P may alter perceptions of the O-X relation to reduce discomfort. Heider described this as forces arising "towards [a balanced] state" through "cognitive reorganization." Evaluative-cognitive consistency theory, proposed by in 1968, explains ambivalence as arising from discrepancies between cognitive components (beliefs about an object's attributes) and evaluative components (affective responses or values toward it) within attitude systems. Such conflicts create psychological tension, particularly when central values (core, stable beliefs) clash with peripheral attitudes (more flexible evaluations), driving reorganization or change to align the system. For example, believing an action has both positive and negative attributes may lead to evaluative inconsistency, prompting to resolve the ambivalence. Rokeach argued that this consistency motive influences broader value-attitude hierarchies, with resolution favoring changes in less central elements. Cognitive dissonance theory, formulated by Leon Festinger in 1957, views ambivalence as a manifestation of the discomfort produced by holding conflicting cognitions, such as incompatible beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors, which motivates reduction efforts to maintain consistency. The magnitude of dissonance depends on the number and importance of the dissonant elements, with resolution strategies including altering cognitions (e.g., changing an attitude), adding consonant elements (e.g., rationalizing), or minimizing the conflict's importance. Post-decisional dissonance exemplifies ambivalence, occurring after a choice when attractive aspects of the rejected alternative create lingering tension, often leading to enhanced justification of the decision. Festinger likened this state to a basic drive, as fundamental as hunger, compelling action to alleviate the "uncomfortable tension."

Motivational and Processing Models

In motivational and processing models of ambivalence, attitudinal conflict is viewed as a motivational force that drives cognitive engagement to resolve internal inconsistency, often integrating with dual-process theories of information processing. Within the Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM) developed by Chaiken, individuals under low ambivalence rely more on heuristic cues (e.g., source expertise) for quick judgments, conserving cognitive resources. However, high ambivalence reduces attitude confidence, prompting a shift to systematic processing, where individuals scrutinize message arguments in detail to alleviate uncertainty. Similarly, the by Petty and Cacioppo posits that ambivalence heightens elaboration likelihood, motivating deeper central-route processing over peripheral cues, as the discomfort of conflicting evaluations signals the need for thorough evaluation to form more stable attitudes. This integration across dual-process frameworks underscores ambivalence as an accuracy-oriented motivator, distinct from mere involvement, that enhances message scrutiny in decision-making contexts. Motivationally, ambivalence acts as an aversive signal akin to mild discomfort, spurring information-seeking behaviors to reconcile opposing evaluations, though outcomes depend on contextual factors like prior . For instance, when issue is low, ambivalent individuals preferentially seek attitude-consistent to reduce conflict efficiently, amplifying selective exposure. Conversely, ambivalence can foster avoidance of counterattitudinal messages, as the potential to intensify discomfort motivates defensive of proattitudinal content instead. These dynamics highlight ambivalence's role in adaptive , where resolution efforts prioritize efficiency but may bias toward maintaining partial consistency rather than full neutrality. In terms of and , ambivalent states render attitudes more malleable, increasing susceptibility to influence through heightened processing. Ambivalent individuals show greater openness to new arguments during , leading to stronger attitude shifts via systematic elaboration compared to univalent counterparts. indicates that this vulnerability stems from low attitude certainty, allowing persuasive messages to tip the balance toward one evaluative side, though persistent ambivalence may sustain over time. Overall, these effects emphasize how ambivalence facilitates dynamic attitude adjustment in motivational contexts, promoting change when processing is engaged.

Causes and Antecedents

Individual and Cognitive Factors

Individual differences in personality traits significantly influence the propensity to experience attitudinal ambivalence. Individuals high in , characterized by a preference for engaging in effortful cognitive activities, tend to exhibit lower levels of ambivalence as they actively resolve conflicting evaluations through deeper processing. In contrast, those with high tolerance for ambiguity, the ability to withstand uncertainty and conflicting information without discomfort, are more likely to maintain ambivalent attitudes, as they are less motivated to eliminate inconsistencies. Similarly, , a Big Five trait reflecting curiosity and receptivity to novel ideas, positively predicts ambivalence in domains like political issues, where individuals consider multiple perspectives, leading to coexisting positive and negative evaluations. Cognitive factors contributing to ambivalence often arise from mismatches between affective and cognitive components of attitudes. Affective-cognitive inconsistency occurs when emotional responses (e.g., liking) conflict with rational beliefs (e.g., recognizing drawbacks), generating internal tension that manifests as ambivalence. This mismatch disrupts attitude-behavior consistency, as the overall attitude becomes a weaker predictor of actions when such conflicts are present. Behavioral indicators of ambivalence frequently appear as approach-avoidance patterns in . These patterns involve simultaneous tendencies to pursue an option for its benefits while avoiding it due to perceived costs, resulting in or vacillation. For instance, in consumer choices, ambivalent individuals may repeatedly weigh pros and cons, leading to delayed decisions or shifts in preferences when neutral options are unavailable. Metacognition, the awareness and regulation of one's own thinking processes, plays a dual role in ambivalence by either amplifying discomfort through heightened awareness of conflicts or mitigating it via doubt-inducing strategies. According to the metacognitive model of attitudes, valid feelings of ambivalence (e.g., confidence in both positive and negative evaluations) intensify subjective experience, whereas metacognitive doubts about one evaluative side can reduce perceived ambivalence and promote resolution.

Situational and Conflict-Based Factors

Situational and conflict-based factors contribute to ambivalence by introducing external pressures or internal tensions that disrupt consistent evaluations or motivations toward an object or decision. These factors often manifest in transient contexts, such as competing demands or unclear cues, fostering a state of evaluative conflict akin to , where individuals experience discomfort from incompatible elements in their attitudes or goals. Goal conflicts arise when the pursuit of one valued objective impedes another, generating motivational ambivalence characterized by simultaneous approach and avoidance tendencies. For instance, individuals for benefits may experience ambivalence due to the tension between achieving wellness and the immediate of indulgent foods, leading to reduced commitment and progress. A meta-analysis of 54 studies involving over 12,000 participants confirmed that such conflicts correlate negatively with psychological , as they heighten rumination and inhibit effective self-regulation. This ambivalence is particularly pronounced in domains like exercise adherence, where aspirations clash with avoidance of discomfort, resulting in mixed affective reactions toward the itself. Value conflicts emerge from clashes between core personal principles, such as versus , which elicit ambivalence in social or moral choices. In decisions involving egalitarian ideals against traditional norms, individuals often report heightened attitudinal ambivalence; for example, surveys on and gay rights issues revealed that 68-74% of respondents exhibited ambivalence when values like conflicted with to societal roles. This tension persists when conflicting values hold equal weight and cannot be fully reconciled, as seen in career-family trade-offs where personal opposes relational duties, prompting hesitation or without resolution. Empirical tests across multiple U.S. samples demonstrated that such value oppositions significantly predict ambivalence levels, independent of other attitudinal factors. Situational antecedents further exacerbate ambivalence through environmental demands, including high-stakes decisions and ambiguous information landscapes. In high-consequence scenarios, such as financial investments requiring precise evaluations, the to achieve accuracy amplifies , engaging regions like the associated with error detection and emotional arousal. Ambiguous information, like mixed signals in data, induces ambivalence by presenting conflicting cues that violate expectations of clarity, prompting extended to resolve the . Experimental studies with over 500 participants showed that such situational ambiguity in decision tasks increases ambivalence only when initial evaluations are mixed, leading individuals to favor univalent (clear) data to alleviate discomfort. These dynamics highlight how transient contexts, rather than stable traits, can trigger evaluative splits in otherwise straightforward judgments. Affective-cognitive ambivalence specifically involves the discord between emotional responses and rational assessments in reaction to events, creating a potent tension that underlies broader attitudinal conflicts. This form arises when feelings and thoughts diverge, such as experiencing guilt (negative affect) alongside recognition of relaxation benefits (positive ) toward during a stressful event. The MAID model posits that this inconsistency generates discomfort by highlighting incompatible evaluations, often in response to personally relevant stimuli like health risks or social dilemmas. Research operationalizing this as the discrepancy between affective and cognitive valences found it prevalent in everyday decisions, where events like ambiguous social feedback provoke mixed reactions that hinder unified attitudes. Such tension is aversive, activating neural conflict monitors and motivating resolution strategies, yet it can persist if the triggering event reinforces the divide.

Effects and Consequences

Impact on Attitudes and Behavior

Attitudinal ambivalence undermines the stability of attitudes by introducing that reduces resistance to change, rendering attitudes more volatile over time. indicates that individuals with higher levels of ambivalence exhibit greater fluctuations in their evaluations of an attitude object across repeated measurements, as the coexistence of positive and negative components erodes temporal consistency. For instance, in longitudinal studies tracking attitudes toward social issues, ambivalent respondents showed significantly larger shifts in overall attitude valence compared to those with univalent attitudes. This volatility is particularly pronounced when ambivalence interacts with low attitude , further destabilizing the attitude structure. The pliability of ambivalent attitudes stems from unresolved evaluative conflicts, heightening susceptibility to persuasive influences. Ambivalent individuals are more open to processing and incorporating new information that could tip toward one side of the conflict, making their attitudes less resistant to counterarguments or appeals. from persuasion experiments demonstrates that messages addressing one pole of the ambivalence—such as emphasizing benefits to resolve negative evaluations—produce larger shifts in overall attitudes among ambivalent participants than among those with consistent evaluations. This increased openness can facilitate in contexts like or health campaigns, where targeted messaging exploits the internal tension. Ambivalence weakens the correspondence between attitudes and behavior, often resulting in inaction, inconsistent actions, or a pronounced intention-behavior gap. When attitudes are ambivalent, the motivational force to act is diluted by competing positive and negative impulses, leading to lower for relevant behaviors. For example, in studies on dietary choices, individuals with ambivalent attitudes toward low-fat foods reported stronger intentions to consume them but demonstrated weaker actual adherence, highlighting how ambivalence moderates the attitude-behavior link. This pattern extends to other domains, such as environmental behaviors, where ambivalent attitudes predict sporadic rather than sustained action. Within the attitude strength framework, serves as a critical moderator that diminishes the overall potency of attitudes. Seminal conceptualizations position alongside dimensions like and , where higher signals weaker attitude strength, thereby reducing its influence on judgments, resistance to change, and behavioral outcomes. This moderating role implies that ambivalent attitudes exert less directional pull on actions, consistent with models emphasizing structural coherence as a prerequisite for strong attitudes.

Role in Mental Health and Decision-Making

In , ambivalence has been recognized as a core feature in certain psychiatric disorders, notably , where Swiss psychiatrist introduced the concept in 1911 as part of his foundational work on the condition. Bleuler described a tripartite scheme of ambivalence—volitional (difficulty in making decisions or initiating actions), intellectual (conflicting thoughts or ideas), and emotional (simultaneous positive and negative feelings)—positing these as fundamental symptoms present in all cases of , contributing to the disorder's fragmented psyche. Later, incorporated ambivalence into , viewing it as arising from conflicting drives within the psyche, such as the opposition between love and hate or instincts, which manifest in neuroses and require resolution through analysis to alleviate internal conflict. Chronic ambivalence is associated with adverse mental health outcomes, including heightened anxiety, depressive symptoms, and persistent indecision, as it perpetuates emotional turmoil and hinders adaptive . Research indicates that individuals experiencing high levels of emotional ambivalence report elevated depression and anxiety, with ambivalence acting as a mediator that intensifies rumination and avoidance behaviors. In severe cases, this can evolve into , a pathological indecisiveness linked to anxiety disorders and depression, where individuals feel paralyzed by competing emotional pulls. Therapeutic interventions, particularly (CBT), target ambivalence to improve psychological well-being by fostering clarity in thoughts and emotions. CBT techniques, such as and , help clients identify and resolve conflicting beliefs, reducing associated anxiety and depression; for instance, integrated with CBT addresses treatment ambivalence, enhancing engagement and symptom relief. In brief psychotherapy for depression, explicit ambivalence resolution strategies— like exploring pros and cons of change—have been shown to predict better outcomes by mitigating indecision. In , ambivalence often leads to paralysis through approach-avoidance conflicts, as outlined in Kurt Lewin's field theory, where a single goal exerts both attractive (approach) and repulsive (avoidance) forces, resulting in vacillation or inaction as the forces balance. This dynamic is evident in real-world scenarios, such as career transitions, where the appeal of new opportunities clashes with fears of instability, or relationship commitments, where affection competes with doubts about compatibility, prolonging deliberation and stress. Recent research post-2020 highlights ambivalence as a symptom in , where it exacerbates mood instability and treatment non-adherence by fostering internal conflict over self-management strategies. For example, qualitative studies of individuals with reveal ambivalence toward self-binding directives—advance decisions to restrict during manic episodes—as a barrier that intensifies depressive and anxious states during euthymic periods. This underscores the need for targeted interventions to mitigate ambivalence's role in amplifying bipolar symptomatology.

Applications in Broader Fields

Philosophical Interpretations

In Søren Kierkegaard's philosophy, ambivalence emerges as a profound existential tension inherent in human freedom and choice, particularly in the transition between life's stages and the leap of faith. In works such as The Concept of Anxiety (1844), he describes anxiety as the "dizziness of freedom," a vertiginous state arising when the spirit confronts its infinite possibilities, blending sympathetic antipathy toward action and inaction. This ambivalence underscores the individual's struggle in the aesthetic and ethical stages outlined in Either/Or (1843), where the aesthetic life of immediate pleasure clashes with the ethical demand for universal duty, culminating in the religious stage's paradoxical leap of faith beyond reason, as exemplified by Abraham's suspension of ethics in Fear and Trembling (1843). Kierkegaard's framework portrays ambivalence not as mere indecision but as the essential condition for authentic selfhood, where freedom's dual pull toward possibility and necessity fosters spiritual growth. Friedrich Nietzsche extends this theme through his ambivalence toward life itself, advocating an affirmation that embraces opposites amid eternal recurrence and the Dionysian-Apollonian duality. In The Birth of Tragedy (1872), he contrasts the Apollonian principle of structured illusion and individuation with the Dionysian force of chaotic unity and dissolution, viewing their tension as vital for artistic and existential vitality, rather than a flaw to resolve. This duality reflects Nietzsche's broader philosophical stance in Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883–1885), where eternal recurrence—the idea of willing one's life to repeat infinitely, including all suffering—serves as a test of amor fati, transforming life's inherent ambivalence into joyous affirmation for the higher type who reveres existence's contradictions. Nietzsche's approach rejects moral resolution of such tensions, instead celebrating them as drivers of overcoming nihilism and herd conformity. In modern existentialism, conceptualizes ambivalence as the anguish of , where individuals deceive themselves to evade freedom's burden. In (1943), manifests as adopting fixed roles—such as the waiter who over-identifies with his profession—to deny the for-itself's transcendent freedom and , creating an internal conflict between what one is and what one is not. This highlights existential ambivalence as an oscillation between authenticity and inauthenticity, resolvable only through resolute choice amid nothingness. , in postmodern , reframes such tensions through undecidability, where binary oppositions like presence/absence dissolve into , an ambivalent deferral of meaning that resists stable resolution. In essays like "Force of Law" (1990), undecidability demands ethical decisions in the face of , echoing ambivalence as a productive instability in justice and interpretation. Feminist philosophy addresses ambivalence in , where collective mobilization grapples with intersecting oppressions and universal claims. As noted in critiques of , thinkers like (1981) and (1989) reveal the ambivalence in prioritizing gender over race or class, leading to fragmented and hybrid identities that challenge singular narratives of womanhood. This tension, explored in Gloria Anzaldúa's Borderlands/La Frontera (1987), positions ambivalence as a site of resistance, fostering mestiza consciousness amid cultural and political undecidability. In recent , Hili Razinsky's Ambivalence: A Philosophical Exploration (2016) defends ambivalence as rationally coherent rather than irrational , arguing it constitutes a unitary, tension-laden attitude that enriches subjectivity and value judgments without implying contradiction. Razinsky contends that such states, often dismissed in traditional analytic frameworks, enable perceptive action and moral depth, countering views of them as mere .

Cultural and Social Contexts

In , ambivalence manifests in intergroup attitudes through mixed evaluations of outgroups, often rooted in perceived competition for resources as outlined in . This theory posits that intergroup hostility arises from conflicts over limited resources, which can foster ambivalent prejudices where outgroups are simultaneously viewed positively and negatively. For instance, the explains how societal groups are stereotyped along dimensions of warmth (trustworthiness) and competence (capability), leading to ambivalent patterns such as toward groups perceived as warm but incompetent (e.g., the elderly) or toward those seen as competent but cold (e.g., certain professional minorities). These mixed stereotypes reflect underlying tensions from resource competition, influencing behaviors like paternalistic helping or discriminatory avoidance. In interpersonal relationships, emotional ambivalence is prominent in , particularly the anxious-ambivalent (or resistant) style identified by through the experiment. Children with this attachment pattern exhibit distress upon separation from caregivers and ambivalence upon reunion, displaying both clinging behavior and resistance to comfort due to inconsistent caregiving experiences. This early dynamic extends into adulthood as anxious-preoccupied attachment, where individuals experience push-pull tensions in romantic relationships—craving intimacy while fearing rejection, leading to relational ambivalence. Research shows that attachment-anxious adults report higher attitudinal ambivalence toward partners, with simultaneous desires for closeness and apprehensions about abandonment, often resulting in cycles of approach and withdrawal. Cultural depictions of ambivalence frequently portray it as a source of and indecision, as seen in like Shakespeare's , where the protagonist grapples with moral and existential dilemmas, delaying action due to conflicting duties of revenge and ethical restraint. Hamlet's famous soliloquies reveal this push-pull between duty and doubt, symbolizing broader human ambivalence in the face of tragedy and uncertainty. In media, anti-heroes embody moral ambivalence, blending admirable traits with ethical flaws to challenge viewers' binary notions of ; characters like Walter White in evoke enjoyment through their complexity, as audiences derive pleasure from morally ambiguous narratives that mirror real-life ethical gray areas. Such representations highlight ambivalence as a driver of narrative tension and character depth. Contemporary political contexts in polarized societies of the 2020s, amid rising , reveal ambivalence as voters hold mixed views toward leaders and policies, fostering discomfort and potential when extreme ideologies clash with nuanced sentiments. For example, populist movements like those in the U.S. and elicit simultaneous admiration for and wariness of authoritarian tendencies, exacerbating societal divisions. Cross-cultural variations in ambivalence tolerance further illustrate this, with East Asian cultures, influenced by naïve dialecticism—a accepting contradictions and change—showing greater comfort with attitudinal and emotional ambivalence compared to Western cultures emphasizing consistency. This cultural difference mediates responses to conflicting information, allowing higher tolerance for mixed feelings in social and political judgments.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4090963/
  2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23428171/
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4505081/
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027273589090106K
  5. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19485506231165585
  6. https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12417
  7. https://morrispsych.com/the-emotional-tasks-of-adulthood-unsullied-ideas-about-uncertainty-ambiguity-and-ambivalence-by-jeffrey-c-singer-ph-d/
  8. https://misq.umn.edu/misq/article/47/2/705/2211/Ambivalence-Is-Better-than-Indifference-A
  9. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00996/full
  10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103108001595
  11. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0065260115000039
  12. https://www.etymonline.com/word/ambivalence
  13. https://uselessetymology.com/2018/06/16/the-etymology-of-psychological-terms-ambivalence-schizophrenia-and-autism/
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3196955/
  15. https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article/37/3/471/1893651
  16. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/paul-eugen-bleuler-1857-1939
  17. https://www.oxfordreference.com/abstract/10.1093/acref/9780198794790.001.0001/acref-9780198794790-e-22
  18. https://read.dukeupress.edu/common-knowledge/article/25/1-3/51/140047/The-Achievement-of-Ambivalence
  19. https://problemi.si/issues/p2017-1/10problemi_international_2017_1_troha.pdf
  20. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199828340/obo-9780199828340-0254.xml
  21. https://richardepetty.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/1996-jpsp-priesterpetty.pdf
  22. https://dornsife.usc.edu/norbert-schwarz/wp-content/uploads/sites/231/2023/12/17_COBS_Schneider_Schwarz_Mixed_feelings.pdf
  23. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2015.01.002
  24. https://richardepetty.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2007soccog-petty-brinol-demarree-mcm.pdf
  25. https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1300&context=mgmt_fac
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378873320300368
  27. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00223980.1946.9917275
  28. http://snap.stanford.edu/class/cs224w-readings/heider49balance.pdf
  29. https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1968.tb01466.x
  30. https://www.sup.org/books/sociology/theory-cognitive-dissonance
  31. https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/Cognitive-Dissonance-Intro-Sample.pdf
  32. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1981-28035-001
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103196913177
  34. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-35897-001
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103105000594
  36. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-18214-003
  37. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18340037/
  38. https://business.columbia.edu/sites/default/files-efs/pubfiles/1956/attitudinal.pdf
  39. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-06401-001
  40. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7782994/
  41. https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/concern/dissertations/vh53ww230
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7961742/
  43. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167220945900
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9773158/
  45. https://guilfordjournals.com/doi/10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.657
  46. https://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~kgdemarr/Pub/2015.DBP.SPPS.pdf
  47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308324518
  48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656616302781
  49. https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/112809/1/20152436.pdf
  50. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235463287_Ambivalence_and_Value_Conflict_A_Test_of_Two_Issues
  51. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10790-021-09859-1
  52. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394127777_Too_Much_Information_A_Systematic_Investigation_of_the_Antecedents_and_Consequences_of_Ambivalence-Induced_Information_Seeking_Behavior
  53. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103115300202
  54. https://pablobrinol.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/2016JESPLuttrellPettyBrinolAmbivalenceandCertainty.pdf
  55. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23547350_Attitudinal_Ambivalence_and_Openness_to_Persuasion_A_Framework_for_Interpersonal_Influence
  56. https://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ijssr/article/download/21865/16858
  57. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.117
  58. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-18506-007
  59. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494424000847
  60. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167200263009
  61. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2019-20593-005.pdf
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12240293/
  63. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381901301_Emotional_Ambivalence_in_Daily_Life_Implication_for_Depression_Anxiety_and_Stress
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10407977/
  65. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01244/full
  66. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cpp.2169
  67. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/approach-avoidance-conflict
  68. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34022972/
  69. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/
  70. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-aesthetics/
  71. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-moral-political/
  72. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sartre/
  73. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida/
  74. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/
  75. https://philpapers.org/rec/RAZAAP
  76. https://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/1736
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4955357/
  78. https://www.simplypsychology.org/mary-ainsworth.html
  79. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-02829-008
  80. https://www.folger.edu/blogs/shakespeare-and-beyond/action-hamlet-indecision/
  81. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15213269.2016.1182030
  82. https://news.osu.edu/ambivalence--polarized-views-can-promote-political-violence/
  83. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886907003820
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.