Cited by 24Social and Intergroup PsychologyMedia Studies and CommunicationMedia Influence and Health

Ambivalent Attitudes in a Communication Process: An Integrated Model

Chang, Chingching·2012·Human Communication Research

Abstract

In a communication process that involves a target subject (what is being communicated about) and a source, existing attitudes (positive or negative) toward the target or the source influence communication effects. People also may hold ambivalent attitudes (positive and negative) toward the target or the source, but the implications of such ambivalent attitudes on communication effects remain unclear in communication research. This study tries to fill that void by exploring ambivalent attitudes toward the target and source on communication effects and proposing an integrated model to demonstrate that ambivalent attitudes encourage systematic processing (Experiments 1 and 2) and that identification with the target or the source further encourages motivated processing among ambivalent people (Experiments 3 and 4).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01429.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Uncertainty may create especially fertile ground for confirmation bias and directional motivated reasoning because ambiguity, controversy, doubt, or imprecision may inherently allow for diverse interpretations.

    “Uncertainty may create especially fertile ground for confirmation bias and directional motivated reasoning (Nickerson, 1998;Taber and Lodge, 2006) because ambiguity, controversy, doubt, or imprecision may inherently allow for diverse interpretations (Chang, 2012(Chang, , 2015;;Jacques et al., 2008;McCright and Dunlap, 2003;Oreskes and Conway, 2011).”

    From A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication (2020) · cites this paper as Chang, 2012

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chang, C.
Affiliations
National Chengchi University (TW)
Corresponding author
Chang, Chingching
Venue
Human Communication Research
Published
2012-06-18
Volume
38
Issue
3
Pages
332-359
ISSN
0360-3989 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2027001290
Cited by
24
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
7.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Human Communication Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Media Influence and Health
Keywords
attitudinal ambivalence, communication effects, systematic processing, identification, integrated model

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review