scholarly journals Ambivalence and Interpersonal Liking: The Expression of Ambivalence as Social Validation of Attitudinal Conflict

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Toribio-Flórez ◽  
Frenk van Harreveld ◽  
Iris K. Schneider
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Toribio-Flórez ◽  
Frenk van Harreveld ◽  
Iris K. Schneider

Literature on attitude similarity suggests that sharing similar attitudes enhances interpersonal liking, but it remains unanswered whether this effect also holds for ambivalent attitudes. In the present research, we shed light on the role attitudinal ambivalence plays in interpersonal liking. Specifically, we examine whether people express ambivalence strategically to generate a positive or negative social image, and whether this is dependent on the attitudinal ambivalence of their perceiver. We test two alternative hypotheses. In line with the attitude-similarity effect, people should express ambivalence towards ambivalent others to enhance interpersonal liking, as sharing ambivalence might socially validate the latter’s experience of attitudinal conflict. On the other hand, people might express more univalence, as ambivalence may drive ambivalent others towards the resolution of their attitudinal conflict and univalent stances could help to achieve that goal. In two studies (N = 449, 149), people expressed similar attitudes to those of their perceivers, even when the latter experienced attitudinal conflict (Study 1 and 2). Moreover, they composed an essay, the message of which validated their perceiver’s attitudinal conflict (Study 2). In line with these results, we further observe that the more people experienced their ambivalence as conflicting, the more they liked others who similarly experienced attitudinal conflict (Study 1). These findings suggest that the expression of ambivalence can have important interpersonal functions, as it might lead to an enhanced social image when interacting with those coping with attitudinal conflict.


2007 ◽  
Vol 103 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 244-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Cupit ◽  
Elizabeth Rochon ◽  
Carol Leonard ◽  
Laura Laird
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 817-832
Author(s):  
Kirsty Bastable ◽  
Sandra Klopper ◽  
Alecia Samuels ◽  
Shakila Dada

Introduction Social validation or the inclusion of stakeholders in the research process is beneficial, as it may decrease bias, increases efficacy, and prevents harm. For direct stakeholders such as individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), social validation has mostly included participants who do not experience significant speech, language, and communication limitations while frequently omitting individuals with ASD who have complex communication needs (CCN). The presence of CCN indicates that augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) strategies are needed for individuals to express themselves. Social validation should not be limited to being participants in an intervention but should include involvement in the research process. This requires an understanding of the current trends, levels, and mechanisms of involvement in AAC research. Purpose This review aimed to identify and describe the inclusion of direct stakeholders with ASD in the social validation of AAC research. Method A scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews) methodology to identify AAC research that included stakeholders with ASD (direct and indirect) for social validation and to evaluate their level of involvement using the Typology of Youth Participation and Empowerment pyramid framework. Results Twenty-four studies were identified. Studies primarily included indirect stakeholders (e.g., caregivers) giving in-depth perspectives, while direct stakeholders were limited to being intervention participants. Conclusions Voices of direct stakeholders with ASD and CCN remain limited or excluded in research. Reasons for the exclusion of individuals with ASD and CCN from research and strategies for future inclusion are raised and discussed.


Author(s):  
Alessia Barbagallo ◽  
Antonio De Nicola ◽  
Michele Missikoff

Author(s):  
Ana Paula Pimentel ◽  
Daniel Schneider ◽  
Luiz Oliveira ◽  
Jano de Souza ◽  
I Antonio Correia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document