The ambivalence story: using refutation to counter the negative effects of ambivalence in two-sided messages

References

• Abendroth, L.J., and J.E. Heyman. 2013. Honesty is the best policy: the effects of disclosure in word-of-mouth marketing. Journal of Marketing Communications 19, no. 4: 245–57.
   Google Scholar
• Ahn, H.Y., L. Wu, S. Kelly, and E. Haley. 2011. A qualitative study of college student responses to conflicting messages in advertising: anti-binge drinking public service announcements versus wine promotion health messages. International Journal of Public Health 56, no. 3: 271–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armitage, C.J., and M. Conner. 2000. Social cognition models and health behaviour: a structured review. Psychology & Health 15: 173–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bargh, J., S. Chaiken, R. Govender, and F. Pratto. 1992. The generality of the attitude activation effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41: 161–89.
   Google Scholar
• Bassili, J.N. 1996. Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: the case of measures of attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71, no. 4: 637–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beatty, S.E., and S. Talpade. 1994. Adolescent influence in family decision making: a replication with extension. Journal of Consumer Research 21, no. 2: 332–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bohner, G., S. Einwiller, H.P. Erb, and F. Siebler. 2003. When small means comfortable: relations between product attributes in two-sided advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology 13, no. 4: 454–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brehm, J.W. 1966. A theory of psychological reactance. Oxford, England: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chang, C.T., and Y.K. Lee. 2010. Effects of message framing, vividness congruency and statistical framing on responses to charity advertising. International Journal of Advertising 29, no. 2: 195–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, J.K., D.T. Wegener, and L.R. Fabrigar. 2008. Attitudinal ambivalence and message-based persuasion: Motivated processing of proattitudinal information and avoidance of counterattitudinal information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34, no. 4: 565–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarkson, J.J., Z.L. Tormala, and D.D. Rucker. 2008. A new look at the consequences of attitude certainty: the amplification hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 95, no. 4: 810–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conner, M., and P. Sparks. 2002. Ambivalence and attitudes. European Review of Social Psychology 12, no. 1: 37–70.
   Google Scholar
• Cornelis, E., V. Cauberghe, and P. de Pelsmacker. 2013. Two-sided messages for health risk prevention: the role of argument type, refutation, and issue ambivalence. Substance Use & Misuse 48, no. 9: 719–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crowley, A.E., and W.D. Hoyer. 1994. An integrative framework for understanding two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research 20, no. 4: 561–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisend, M. 2006. Two-sided advertising: a Meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing 23, no. 2: 187–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisend, M. 2007. Understanding two-sided persuasion: an empirical assessment of theoretical approaches. Psychology and Marketing 24: 615–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisend, M. 2010. Explaining the joint effect of source credibility and negativity of information in two-sided messages. Psychology and Marketing 27: 1032–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisend, M. 2013. The moderating influence of involvement on two-sided advertising effects. Psychology & Marketing 30: 566–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Etgar, M., and S.A. Goodwin. 1982. One-sided versus two-sided comparative message appeals for new Brand introductions. Journal of Consumer Research 8, no.4: 460–5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Florack, A., S. Ineichen, and R. Bieri. 2009. The impact of regulatory focus on the effects of two-sided advertising. Social Cognition 27, no.1: 37–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Golden, L.L., and M.I. Alpert. 1987. Comparative analysis of the relative effectiveness of one-sided and two-sided communication for contrast products. Journal of Advertising 16, no. 1: 18–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hass, R.G., I. Katz, N. Rizzo, J. Bailey, and L. Moore. 1992. When racial ambivalence evokes negative affect, using a disguised measure of mood. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18, no. 6: 786–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins, E.T. 1997. Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist 52, no. 12: 1280–300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ivanov, B., S.A. Rains, S.A. Geegan, S.C. Vos, N.D. Haarstad, and K.A. Parker. 2017. Beyond simple inoculation: Examining the persuasive value of inoculation for audiences with initially neutral or opposing attitudes. Western Journal of Communication 81, no. 1: 105–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonas, K., M. Diehl, and P. Brömer. 1997. Effects of attitudinal ambivalence on information processing and attitude-intention consistency. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 33, no. 2: 190–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, E.E., and K.E. Davis. 1965. From acts to dispositions. In Advances in experimental psychology, ed. Leonard Berkowitz, 219–266. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kamins, M.A., and H. Assael. 1987. Two-sided versus one-sided appeals: a cognitive perspective on argumentation, source derogation, and the effect of disconfirming trial on belief change. Journal of Marketing Research 24, no. 1: 29–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamins, M.A., M.J. Brand, S.A. Hoeke, and J.C. Moe. 1989. Two-sided versus one-sided celebrity endorsements: the impact on advertising effectiveness and credibility. Journal of Advertising 18, no. 2: 4–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, K.J.. 1972. On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: a suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin 77, no. 5: 361–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly, H.E. 1973. A test of the relationship between trait and causal attribution. American Psychologist 28: 107–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Küster, F., and M. Eisend. 2016. Time heals many wounds – explaining the immediate and delayed effects of message sidedness. International Journal of Advertising 35, no. 4: 664–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau-Gesk, L. 2005. Understanding consumer evaluations of mixed affective experiences. Journal of Consumer Research 32: 23–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakens, D. 2017. Equivalence tests: a practical primer for t tests, correlations, and Meta-analyses. Social Psychology and Personality Science 8, no. 4: 355–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lecheler, S., and C.H. de Vreese. 2013. What a difference a day makes? the effects of repetitive and competitive news framing over time. Communication Research 40, no. 2: 147–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, H.C., S.F. Liu, and Y.C. Cheng. 2018. Positive or negative? the influence of message framing, regulatory focus, and product type. International Journal of Communication 12: 788–805.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maheswaran, D., and J. Meyers-Levy. 1990. The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research 27, no. 3: 361–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maio, G.R., D.W. Bell, and V.M. Esses. 1996. Ambivalence and persuasion: the processing of messages about immigrant groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 32, no. 6: 513–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGuire, W. 1961. Resistance to persuasion conferred by active and passive prior refutation of the same and alternative counterarguments. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 63, no. 2: 326–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newby-Clark, I.R., I. McGregor, and M.P. Zanna. 2002. Thinking and caring about cognitive inconsistency: When and for whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel uncomfortable? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 82, no. 2: 157–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niederdeppe, J., K. Heley, and C.L. Barry. 2015. Inoculation and narrative strategies in competitive framing of three health policy issues. Journal of Communication 65, no. 5: 838–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordgren, L.F., F. van Harreveld, and J. van der Pligt. 2006. Ambivalence, discomfort and motivated information processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42, no. 2: 252–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nowlis, S.M., B.E. Kahn, and R. Dhar. 2002. Coping with ambivalence: the effect of removing a neutral option on consumer attitude and preference judgments. Journal of Consumer Research 29, no. 3: 319–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obermiller, C. 1995. The baby is sick/the baby is well: a test of environmental communication appeals. Journal of Advertising 24, no. 2: 55–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, D.J. 1999. How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: a Meta-analytic review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided messages. Communication Yearbook 22, : 209–49.
   Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, D.J., and B. Amjarso. 2011. Handling counterarguments: the intersection of pragma-dialectical normative concerns and practical persuasive success. In Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics: in honor of Frans van Eemeren, ed. Eveline T. Feteris, Bart Garssen and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, 221–229. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Olsen, S.O., J. Wilcox, and U. Olsson. 2005. Consequences of ambivalence on satisfaction and loyalty. Psychology and Marketing 22 : 247–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otnes, C., T.M. Lowrey, and L.J. Shrum. 1997. Toward an understanding of consumer ambivalence. Journal of Consumer Research 24, no. 1: 80–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pechmann, C. 1990. How do consumer inferences mediate the effectiveness of two-sided messages? In Advances in consumer research, ed. Marvin E. Goldberg, Gerald Gorn, and Richard W. Pollay, vol. 2, 337–341 Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
   Google Scholar
• Pechmann, C. 1992. Predicting when two-sided ads will be more effective than one-sided ads: the role of correlational and correspondent inferences. Journal of Marketing Research 24: 441–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pham, N., N. Mandel, and A.C. Morales. 2016. Messages from the food police: How food-related warnings backfire among dieters. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research 1, no. 1: 175–90.
   Google Scholar
• Pizzutti, C., K. Basso, and M. Albornoz. 2016. The effect of the discounted attribute importance in two-sided messages. European Journal of Marketing 50, no. 9/10: 1703–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Priester, J.R., and R.E. Petty. 1996. The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: Relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71, no. 3: 431–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Priester, J.R., and R.E. Petty. 2001. Extending the bases of subjective attitudinal ambivalence: Interpersonal and intrapersonal antecedents of evaluative tension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80, no. 1: 19–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Priester, J.R., R.E. Petty, and K. Park. 2007. Whence univalent ambivalence? from the anticipation of conflicting reactions. Journal of Consumer Research 34, no. 1: 11–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rucker, D.D., R.E. Petty, and P. Briñol. 2008. In a frame anyway? a Meta-cognitive analysis of the impact of one versus two-sided message framing on attitude certainty. Journal of Consumer Psychology 18, no. 2: 137–49. What’s
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawicki, V., D.T. Wegener, J.K. Clark, L.R. Fabrigar, S.M. Smith, and G.R.O. Durso. 2013. Feeling conflicted and seeking information: When ambivalence enhances and diminishes selective exposure to attitude-consistent information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 39, no. 6: 735–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawyer, A.G. 1973. The effects of repetition of refutational and supportive advertising appeals. Journal of Marketing Research 10, no. 1: 23–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sengupta, J., and G.V. Johar. 2002. The effects of inconsistent attribute information on the predictive value of product attitudes: toward a resolution of opposing perspectives. Journal of Consumer Research 29, no. 1: 39–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Settle, R.B., and L.L. Golden. 1974. Attribution theory and advertiser credibility. Journal of Marketing Research 11, no. 2: 181–5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, R.E., and S.D. Hunt. 1978. Attributional processes and effects in promotional situations. Journal of Consumer Research 5, no. 3: 149–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sniderman, P.M., and S.M. Theriault. 2004. The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In Studies in public opinion: attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change, ed. Saris E. Willem & Paul M. Sniderman, 133–165. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stayman, D., W.D. Hoyer, and R. Leon. 1987. Attribute importance in discounting product features in advertising. In AMA Educators' Proceedings, vol. 53, American Marketing Association Summer Educator's Conference. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: American Marketing Association.
   Google Scholar
• Swanson, L.A. 1987. The persuasive effect of volunteering negative information in advertising. International Journal of Advertising 6, no. 3: 237–48.
   Google Scholar
• Swinyard, W.R.. 1981. The interaction between comparative advertising and copy claim variation. Journal of Marketing Research 18, no. 2: 175–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, M.M., M.P. Zanna, and D.W. Griffin. 1995. Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. ed. Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick, 361–386. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• van Harreveld, F., B.T. Rutjens, M. Rotteveel, L.F. Nordgren, and J.V. Der Pligt. 2009a. Ambivalence and decisional conflict as a cause of psychological discomfort: feeling tense before jumping off the fence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45, no. 1: 167–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Harreveld, F., J.V. der Pligt, and Y.N. de Liver. 2009b. The agony of ambivalence and ways to resolve it: Introducing the MAID model. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. 13, no. 1: 45–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visser, P.S., and R.R. Mirabile. 2004. Attitudes in the social context: the impact of social network composition on individual-level attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87, no. 6: 779–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wan, H.H., and M. Pfau. 2004. The relative effectiveness of inoculation, bolstering, and combined approaches in crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations Research 16, no. 3: 301–28.
   Google Scholar
• Xu, J. 2019. The impact of self-construal and message frame valence on reactance: a cross-cultural study in charity advertising. International Journal of Advertising 1, no. 23
   Google Scholar
• Yang, L., and H.R. Unnava. 2016. Ambivalence, selective exposure, and negativity effect. Psychology & Marketing 33: 331–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao, X., and X. Cai. 2008. The role of ambivalence in college nonsmokers’ information seeking and information processing. Communication Research 35: 298–318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar