An integrative model of ambivalence

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Ambivalence is a widely experienced psychological state, but inter-disciplinary studies, to a certain extent, define and conceptualize ambivalence independently. In spite of its lack of clarity, ambivalence has become an increasingly popular concept, utilized in hypotheses concerning a variety of social phenomena. This study provides an overview of extant studies on ambivalence, and summarizes the similarities and differences in how practitioners of social psychology, political science, and sociology have adopted the concept. A survey of literature from the three fields suggests four distinctive definitions of ambivalence or antecedents that have caused ambivalence: (1) co-activation of both positivity and negativity; (2) co-emergence of conflicting attitudes; (3) co-constraint of conflicting values; and (4) co-existence of conflicting reference groups. Some potential problems, such as inconsistent findings and lack of relevant measures or indices are indicated, and alternative methods are suggested. The paper concludes by suggesting a more sophisticated and precise integrative model of ambivalence.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)609-629
Number of pages21
JournalSocial Science Journal
Volume47
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010 Sep 1

Fingerprint

Social Psychology
Sociology
ambivalence
Psychology
political sociology
reference group
lack
social psychology
coexistence
Surveys and Questionnaires
political science
activation

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Social Psychology
  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

@article{fa006e2396f745f1ae7034c51075a724,
title = "An integrative model of ambivalence",
abstract = "Ambivalence is a widely experienced psychological state, but inter-disciplinary studies, to a certain extent, define and conceptualize ambivalence independently. In spite of its lack of clarity, ambivalence has become an increasingly popular concept, utilized in hypotheses concerning a variety of social phenomena. This study provides an overview of extant studies on ambivalence, and summarizes the similarities and differences in how practitioners of social psychology, political science, and sociology have adopted the concept. A survey of literature from the three fields suggests four distinctive definitions of ambivalence or antecedents that have caused ambivalence: (1) co-activation of both positivity and negativity; (2) co-emergence of conflicting attitudes; (3) co-constraint of conflicting values; and (4) co-existence of conflicting reference groups. Some potential problems, such as inconsistent findings and lack of relevant measures or indices are indicated, and alternative methods are suggested. The paper concludes by suggesting a more sophisticated and precise integrative model of ambivalence.",
author = "Baek, {Young Min}",
year = "2010",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.soscij.2010.02.003",
language = "English",
volume = "47",
pages = "609--629",
journal = "Social Science Journal",
issn = "0362-3319",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "3",

}

An integrative model of ambivalence. / Baek, Young Min.

In: Social Science Journal, Vol. 47, No. 3, 01.09.2010, p. 609-629.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - An integrative model of ambivalence

AU - Baek, Young Min

PY - 2010/9/1

Y1 - 2010/9/1

N2 - Ambivalence is a widely experienced psychological state, but inter-disciplinary studies, to a certain extent, define and conceptualize ambivalence independently. In spite of its lack of clarity, ambivalence has become an increasingly popular concept, utilized in hypotheses concerning a variety of social phenomena. This study provides an overview of extant studies on ambivalence, and summarizes the similarities and differences in how practitioners of social psychology, political science, and sociology have adopted the concept. A survey of literature from the three fields suggests four distinctive definitions of ambivalence or antecedents that have caused ambivalence: (1) co-activation of both positivity and negativity; (2) co-emergence of conflicting attitudes; (3) co-constraint of conflicting values; and (4) co-existence of conflicting reference groups. Some potential problems, such as inconsistent findings and lack of relevant measures or indices are indicated, and alternative methods are suggested. The paper concludes by suggesting a more sophisticated and precise integrative model of ambivalence.

AB - Ambivalence is a widely experienced psychological state, but inter-disciplinary studies, to a certain extent, define and conceptualize ambivalence independently. In spite of its lack of clarity, ambivalence has become an increasingly popular concept, utilized in hypotheses concerning a variety of social phenomena. This study provides an overview of extant studies on ambivalence, and summarizes the similarities and differences in how practitioners of social psychology, political science, and sociology have adopted the concept. A survey of literature from the three fields suggests four distinctive definitions of ambivalence or antecedents that have caused ambivalence: (1) co-activation of both positivity and negativity; (2) co-emergence of conflicting attitudes; (3) co-constraint of conflicting values; and (4) co-existence of conflicting reference groups. Some potential problems, such as inconsistent findings and lack of relevant measures or indices are indicated, and alternative methods are suggested. The paper concludes by suggesting a more sophisticated and precise integrative model of ambivalence.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77955089390&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77955089390&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.soscij.2010.02.003

DO - 10.1016/j.soscij.2010.02.003

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:77955089390

VL - 47

SP - 609

EP - 629

JO - Social Science Journal

JF - Social Science Journal

SN - 0362-3319

IS - 3

ER -