人際因素對矛盾態度的影響

當個體對態度對象物同時具有正向與負向評價時，此時態度矛盾程度較高，稱之為矛盾態度（ambivalent attitude）。當個體的態度具有高矛盾性時，常會經歷到不舒服、緊張的感覺，也較難從個體的態度去預測行為，也較容易受到說服訊息的影響改變自己的態度。至於要如何降低矛盾性，過往文獻中發現個體可藉由不斷重複表達，透過訊息處理歷程增加本身對態度信心而降低矛盾性；或者也會因為外在情境中凸顯了特定方向的相關訊息，使其「選邊站」，降低態度矛盾性。華人重視人際關係、也強調與他人間的互動，因此人際因素也可能會造成個體矛盾態度的改變，但過去研究卻鮮少對此加以探討。本研究從華人重視重要他人、重視人際關係的角度發想，探討人際因素中情緒、認知，以及行為如何影響到個體的態度。透過三個實驗，分別從好友展現的情緒、內團體他人的認知，以及可能連結對象之態度行為，來瞭解其對個體態度之影響。研究一A與一B採用2（事件框架：正向／負向）× 3（好友情緒展現：開心／難過／中性）完全參與者間設計，結果發現當「手機得爛獎而好友開心」時，具矛盾態度的個體對於手機的購買意願及推薦程度明顯低於「手機得好獎好友開心」及「得爛獎好友難過」時，顯示在事件框架與情緒展現不一致的情況下，個體會透過情緒推斷路徑而去察覺好友對於手機的態度，因而使其矛盾態度偏向於負向。研究二A與二B採用2（團體類型：內團體／外團體）× 3（團體態度方向：正向／負向／矛盾）完全參與者間設計，結果發現當內團體態度方向與自己不一致時，個體會參考其態度而趨向於正向或負向，但是當內團體之態度與個體本身一致（亦即皆為矛盾時），個體的態度則不會改變。相對地，外團體之團體態度方向則對個體並無任何明顯的影響。研究三採用2（社會排斥：排斥組／控制組）× 3（新人態度方向：正向／負向／矛盾）完全參與者間設計，結果發現反而是沒有被社會排斥的個體才會參考可能連結之新人態度而改變自己的態度。最後針對三個研究的結果、限制、未來研究進行討論。

關鍵字

態度；矛盾態度；人際因素；重要他人；內團體；社會排斥

並列摘要

Ambivalent attitude refers to a psychological state in which a person holds both strong positive and negative evaluations toward the same object. Possessing high level of ambivalent attitude often elicits uncomfortable and tense feelings. Ambivalent attitude is more likely to be affected by persuasive messages and also less predictive to individuals’ behavior. Previous research found that attitude ambivalence can be reduced by increasing individuals’ confidence in their attitude through repeating expression, or influenced by providing directional information in the context. Chinese culture values the importance of interpersonal relationships and interactions, however, previous research has not explore the possible impacts of these interpersonal factors. In the present research, we conducted five experiments to explore the effects of significant others’ emotion, cognition and behavior on individual’s ambivalent attitude. Study 1A and 1B were a 2 (event framing: positive / negative) × 3 (emotion of friend: happy/sad/neutral) complete between-participant design. Results showed that when event framing was inconsistent with friend’s emotion (i.e., they are glad to know the cell phone was evaluated negatively), participants inferred and were affected by their friend’s attitude, and therefore evaluated the cell phone most negatively. Study 2A and 2B were a 2 (group type: ingroup/outgroup) × 3 (attitude direction: positive/negative/ambivalence) complete between-participant design. Results showed that individuals with ambivalent attitude would take only ingroup attitude into consideration and affected their own attitude accordingly. Study 3 was a 2 (social exclusion: exclusion/control) × 3 (attitude direction of a potential friend: positive/negative/ambivalence) complete between-participant design. We found that individuals with ambivalent attitude would change their attitude towards the directions of the potential friend only when they were not socially excluded (control condition). Further implications and limitations were discussed.