Ambivalent Attitudes in a Communication Process: An Integrated Model
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022 · see citing works
Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (2001) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.19 · Cited by 255 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication
Gustafson, A., & Rice, R. E. (2020) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662520942122 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
Chang, C. (2015) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547015597914 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Chang, C.
- Affiliations
- National Chengchi University (TW)
- Corresponding author
- Chang, Chingching
- ORCID
- Chang, Chingching
- Venue
- Human Communication Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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