CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 344Social and Intergroup PsychologyBehavioral Health and InterventionsDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 132 of the 134 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Agony of Ambivalence and Ways to Resolve It: Introducing the MAID Model

van Harreveld, Frenk, van der Pligt, Joop, de Liver, Yael N.·2009·Personality and Social Psychology Review
DOI 10.1177/1088868308324518
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

People are generally averse toward conflict between beliefs and/or feelings underlying their attitudes—that is, attitudinal ambivalence. This review integrates literature on attitudinal ambivalence with theories on decision making and coping strategies to gain a better understanding of when and how people deal with feelings of ambivalence. First it shows that ambivalence is experienced as being particularly unpleasant when the ambivalent attitude holder is confronted with the necessity to make a choice concerning the ambivalent attitude object; then, incongruent evaluative components of the attitude become accessible, and feelings of uncertainty about the potential outcomes arise, which may involve the anticipation of aversive emotions. Several coping strategies are employed when ambivalence is experienced as unpleasant. Emotion- and problem-focused coping strategies are discussed. The article concludes with a discussion of the MAID (model of ambivalence-induced discomfort), which aims to describe the consequences of ambivalence.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1088868308324518

Cites

132 of 132 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 134 references

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. 10.1037/0022-3514.62.6.893 · DOI
  2. 10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Bell, P.A. & Byrne, D. (1977). Repression-sensitization. In H. London & J. E. Exner Jr. (Eds.), Dimensions of personality (pp. 449-485). New York: Wiley.
  4. 10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752 · DOI · Paper page
  5. de Liver, Y., 2007, Ambivalence under pressure
  6. de Liver, Y., 2008, Effects of cognitive load on attitudinal ambivalence
  7. Festinger, L. & Walster, E. (1964). Post-decision regret and decision reversal. In L. Festinger (Ed.), Conflicty, decision, and dissonance (pp. 100-110). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  8. 10.1037/1076-898X.5.1.3 · DOI
  9. Jamieson, D.W., Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association
  10. 10.1037/0022-3514.42.3.436 · DOI
  11. Kruglanski, A.W., 1983, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 636
  12. Kuhl, J. (1994). Action versus state orientation: Psychometric properties of the Action Control Scale (ACS-90). In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 47-59). Göttingen , Germany: Hogrefe & Huber.
  13. 10.1037/0278-7393.23.2.384 · DOI
  14. Mangold, J., 1999, Girl, interrupted [Motion picture]
  15. 10.1037/0022-3514.52.2.345 · DOI
  16. Nordgren, L.F., Health Psychology.
  17. 10.1037/0022-3514.56.6.899 · DOI
  18. van Harreveld, F., 2001, Unpacking attitudes
  19. 10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.215 · DOI
  20. Walster, E. (1964). The temporal sequence of post-decision processes . In L. Festinger (Ed.), Conflict, decision, and dissonance (pp. 112-128). Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press.
  21. 10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.884 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 344

Related

Metadata

Authors
van Harreveld, F., van der Pligt, J., & de Liver, Y. N.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
Corresponding author
van Harreveld, Frenk
ORCID
van Harreveld, Frenk
Venue
Personality and Social Psychology Review
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2009-02
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
45-61
ISSN
  • 1088-8683 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7957
DOI
10.1177/1088868308324518
OpenAlex
W1924470037
Cited by
343
References
134
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 13
FWCI
4.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Personality and Social Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
attitudinal ambivalence, decision-making, coping strategies, emotion-focused coping, problem-focused coping, uncertainty, aversive emotions
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Attitude, Choice Behavior, Cognitive Dissonance, Conflict, Psychological, Decision Making, Emotions, Humans, Models, Psychological, Problem Solving

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