Feeling torn and fearing rue: Attitude ambivalence and anticipated regret as antecedents of biased information seeking
Abstract
Theoretical work on attitudinal ambivalence suggests that anticipated regret may play a role in causing
awareness of contradictions that subsequently induce a feeling of an evaluative conflict. In the present paper we empirically examined how the anticipation of regret relates to the association between the simultaneous pre-
sence of contradictory cognitions and emotions (objective ambivalence), and the evaluative conflict associated with it (subjective ambivalence), in the context of decision-making. Across three studies (Ns = 204,127,244), manipulating both objective ambivalence and regret, we consistently found that when a dichotomous ambiva-
lent choice had to be made, (objectively) ambivalent attitude holders for whom feelings of anticipated regret were made salient reported higher levels of subjective-attitude ambivalence than participants in the other
conditions. Moreover, in Studies 2 and 3 we found that the effect of anticipated regret on subjective ambivalence
had consequences on information processing. Specifically, anticipating regret made ambivalent participants
search for attitude-congruent information. This effect was mediated by the increase in subjective ambivalence. This work provides the first empirical evidence for the role of regret in the association between objective-and-
subjective attitude ambivalence, and its consequences.
Advancing Primed Goal Research in Organizational Behavior
Xiao Chen, Gary P. Latham, Ronald F. Piccolo, Guy Itzchakov
Goal Setting
In this rejoinder, we address three issues discussed in the commentaries on our lead article: possible ethical issues in goal priming in organizational settings, whether goal priming is restricted to routine behaviors, and the relationship of goal priming with self-fulling prophecies and an organization’s climate. Finally, our data were examined by an independent researcher who tested for publication bias.
Keep reading
How do people perceive listeners?
Guy Itzchakov, Geoffrey Haddock and Sarah Smith
Listening
Listening is essential in shaping social interactions,
relationships and communication. While listening research
has generated significant insights on how speakers benefit
from good listening, one fundamental question has been
largely overlooked: how do people perceive listeners?
This gap is crucial for understanding how perceptions of
listeners impact relational dynamics. In three studies (two
preregistered; total N = 1509), we assessed the attributes
and behaviours associated with good and bad listeners, and
whether the favourability of these attributes and behaviours
impact downstream consequences. In Study 1, participants
identified an acquaintance they judged as a good or bad
listener. Good listeners were rated higher in positive listening
attributes and behaviours, which mediated their perceived
warmth, competence and values. Study 2 replicated this using
a reverse correlation technique: one sample generated faces
of a good or bad listener, which were then evaluated by a
second, naïve sample. Consistent with Study 1, good listener
faces were rated higher in positive listening attributes and
behaviours, mediating perceptions of warmth, competence,
humility and values. Study 3 extended Study 2 by showing
that the effects were not due to a general positivity bias,
demonstrating the significant interpersonal consequences of
being perceived as a good or bad listener.
Keep reading