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.
An updated meta-analysis of the primed goal-organizational behaviour relationship
Gary P. Latham, Xiao Chen, Ronald F. Piccolo and Guy Itzchakov
Goal Setting
Environmental cues (e.g. achievement-related words and pictures) can prime/activate, in the absence of awareness, a mental representation of importance stored in memory. Chen et al.'s 2021 Applied Psychology: An International Review70, 216–253. (doi:10.1111/apps.12239) meta-analysis revealed a moderate, significant overall effect for the goal priming-organizational behaviour relationship, with three moderators identified: context-specific versus a general prime, prime modality (i.e. visual versus linguistic) and experimental setting (field versus laboratory). An independent researcher found that their finding was negligibly affected by a publication bias. Shanks & Vadillo (2021), Royal Society Open Science8, 210544. (doi:10.1098/rsos.210544) (field: k = 13, N = 683, d = 0.64), questioned Chen et al.'s conclusion regarding the effect size found in field studies (field: k = 8, N = 357, d = 0.68). In this paper, we discussed Shanks & Vadillo's selection of additional field experiments that led to their conclusion of a publication bias. We updated Chen et al.'s meta-analysis to include relevant studies conducted since that study's publication. The present meta-analysis reproduced the original findings in Chen et al. (field: k = 11, N = 534, d = 0.67). The updated findings are consistent with: (i) laboratory findings, (ii) the findings obtained in field experiments on consciously set goals and (iii) goal setting theory (Latham & Locke, 2018 In Handbook of industrial, work & organizational Psychology, vol. 1 (eds D Ones, N Anderson, C Viswesvaran, H Sinangil), pp. 103–124).
Keep reading
Attitudes in an interpersonal context: Psychological safety as a route to attitude change
Guy Itzchakov, Kenneth G. DeMarree
Attitudes
Interpersonal contexts can be complex because they can involve two or more
people who are interdependent, each of whom is pursuing both individual
and shared goals. Interactions consist of individual and joint behaviors
that evolve dynamically over time. Interactions are likely to affect people’s
attitudes because the interpersonal context gives conversation partners a
great deal of opportunity to intentionally or unintentionally influence each
other.
Keep reading