From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAmbivalence is a state of having simultaneous, conflicting feelings toward a person or thing. Stated another way, ambivalence is the experience of having thoughts and emotions of both positive and negative valence toward someone or something. A common example of ambivalence is the feeling of both love and hate for a person. The term also refers to situations where "mixed feelings" of a more general sort are experienced, or where a person experiences uncertainty or indecisiveness concerning something. The expressions "cold feet" and "sitting on the fence" are often used to describe the feeling of ambivalence.
Ambivalence is experienced as psychologically unpleasant when the positive and negative aspects of a subject are both present in a person's mind at the same time. This state can lead to avoidance or procrastination, or to deliberate attempts to resolve the ambivalence. When the situation does not require a decision to be made, people experience less discomfort even when feeling ambivalent.
 In psychoanalysisIn psychoanalysis, the concept of ambivalence (introduced by Bleuler in 1911) refers to an underlying emotional attitude in which the co-existing contradictory impulses (usually love and hate) derive from a common source and are thus held to be interdependent. Moreover, when the term is used in this psychoanalytic sense, it would not usually be expected that the person embodying ambivalence would actually feel both of the two contradictory emotions as such. With the exception of cases of obsessional neurosis, one or other of the conflicting sides is usually repressed. Thus, for example, an analysand's love for his father might be quite consciously experienced and openly expressed – while his 'hate' for the same object might be heavily repressed and only indirectly expressed, and thus only revealed in analysis.
Another relevant distinction is that whereas the psychoanalytic notion of 'ambivalence' sees it as engendered by all neurotic conflict, a person's everyday 'mixed feelings' may easily be based on a quite realistic assessment of the imperfect nature of the thing being considered.
In science we readily acknowledge that nature is full of complexity and ambiguity. Ambivalence is a personal acknowledgment of the emotional experience of ambiguity. Viewed psychologically it is nothing more or less than a clever inventive psyche, capable of simultaneously holding several options in mind, recognizing that all possibilities probably take place, and precedence, at one time or another, and can therefore be learned from. This attitude could be described as the scientific approach to experience, which recognizes infinite possibility as constantly operative.
Science generally excludes emotional experience from its territory. Psychology has discovered this to be impossible; so lets first notice, and then explore what’s happening when ambiguity crosses our path-as it does every day of our lives.
At any given moment in time, a disturbingly ambiguous conflict of desire, or opinion, or both, occurs spontaneously in order to find an as yet unseen third alternative; which more effectively resolves particularly contradictory circumstances. This is best accomplished by allowing polarized options to slug it out subconsciously and unconsciously-more in dreams than in thinking about it-a very different strategy than the forced premature decision we usually expect of ourselves. This spontaneous discovery of additional options will always take place in an open mind given enough time, and in the absence of prejudice.
Ambivalence is the emotional awareness of the most dominant characteristic of reality, that whatever is happening can always reverse itself and go in the opposite direction. We call it change that is perpetually taking place, like a transformation of matter into energy, or the reverse happening, energy into matter. A more familiar ordinary example is standing on unstable ground, literally or metaphorically; if we move we may trigger a landslide; yet if we don’t move it means perpetually to live in impossibly unreliable circumstances.
Ambiguity, the noun that describes our awareness of opposite conflicting possibilities, is best illustrated by Einstein’s equation, E«MC2, which moves in both directions; either to release enormous energy by tearing apart the forces that bind particles to each other, the atom bomb; or to capture potential energy by attracting particles full of energy, such as potassium and chloride precipitating to form salt.
The word, ambivalence, is most commonly used to describe the human experience with which we have the most trouble: i.e. the emotional dilemma of feeling 2 or more ways about the same event, possibility or person. It’s an experience we perceive almost entirely as dysfunctional, something to be avoided at all cost. Indeed emotional ambivalence is generally regarded as pathological-”indecisive, can’t make up their mind”.
When the possibility of feeling contradictory emotions about the same idea, event or person, is the most fundamental skill required for handling conflict of both varieties: internal and interpersonal. Indeed it’s the essential skill that will eventually vault us into the wisdom of a peaceful world community; without which we will continue to wander cynically on the premise that it can never be accomplished.
Violence is one of the principle outcomes of our misguided belief in single-mindedness. In order for one side of the argument to be absolutely true, the other side must be erased by all means possible-usually in the name of God as a holy cause! Human history is overwhelmingly dominated by such primitive violent behavior.
Unfortunately our experience, particularly of emotional conflict and contradiction has never been successfully cut down to size in ways that remove it from the category of trauma to become simply problem solving. We almost always experience conflict, whether internal or interpersonal, as traumatic-beyond coping, something that can’t be tolerated, which must be stopped or run away from. We regard those who in any way contribute to conflict, even when they’re non-violent, as villains deserving of censure, punishment or even retaliation.
This is why we invented good and evil, good guys and bad guys, in order to vastly oversimplify this seemingly intolerable experience. To avoid the responsibility of conflict and its contradictions, thousands of years ago we even handed over most of the power of our own lives to anyone whom we could believe was a god; meaning someone capable of being in touch with the gods that ran the universe and made disaster, or good times, happen; so on our behalf they could plead for mercy and special treatment. Many people still believe and function in these ways.
Ambiguity exists in everything human-seen because we are an animal capable of perceiving things in contradictory and multiple dimensions. Though some of the other apes have some degree of self-consciousness, only we can simultaneously hold in the mind’s eye several layers of possibility. The simplest way of expressing it is that we can simultaneously do things, watch ourself do them, comment upon what we’re doing, even criticize it, and at the same time imagine doing it in other ways. That complexity of perception is the principle trait that makes us what and who we are; and ambivalence is the key skill necessary for the creative management of this remarkable gift of multilayered comprehension.
Within the scientific realm dealing with tangible objects, we have become very accustomed and skilled at managing and using contradictory possibilities and options. In fact that’s how science has progressed. It’s become the art of putting things together that previously weren’t supposed to be married, and taking apart things that were supposed to remain together.
But when it comes to dealing with ambiguity in the intangibles of human life, most accurately described as the realm of the human spirit-of which the psyche is the principle agency-we suddenly lose it! We stumble into ambiguity-illiteracy. We try and make reality caveman-simple, of which good and evil is the best example; in making the most important decisions of life we have only 2 options instead of a thousand or more.
Lets face it. Ambiguity, particularly the emotional variety, still scares the hell out of us. But truth is, the problem is ours, not everybody else’s, or God’s. We seem to connect simple-mindedness to being safe, which, as has been seen, it isn’t. This misperception could mean the problem has a lot to do with the ways we love, where we confuse a lot of things in our mad dash for the human essentials: i.e. support, encouragement and comfort. Perhaps we need to rethink how we do, and understand love. At the very least we need to find alternative ways of thinking about the human spirit, its emotional experience, and the personal management of conflict.
In my efforts to do all of this I sometimes regard the active spiritual part of us, the human psyche, with all of its remarkable parts, as the only thing we’ll ever experience in this life that’s holy-not what we do with it, but what it’s capable of-something I suspect that we’ve hardly begun to comprehend.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaApproach-avoidance conflicts are choices between something positive, say going out to a party, that has a negative valence (avoidance), say getting grounded for being at the party. These decisions and the emotional state of ambivalence cause stress.
Approach-avoidance occurs when an individual moves closer to a seemingly desirable object, only to have the potentially negative consequences of contacting that object push back against the closing behavior. The negative consequences often are only imagined so that it is frequently the patterning of fear that creates the problem.
Kurt Lewin (September 9, 1890 - February 12, 1947), a Jewish psychologist who is recognized as the founder of social psychology, created theories about the conflicts humans experience as: approach-avoidance, approach-approach, avoidance-avoidance, and double approach-avoidance.
Approach-avoidance conflicts occur when one goal contains both positive and negative characteristics. That is, an individual fears something that s/he desires. When the goal is far away, both positive and negative feelings about the goal are less strong; however, as s/he approaches the goal, a person's feelings about the negative characteristics arise, and s/he backs down, avoiding getting too close to achieving the goal. Then, as the goal is further away, s/he approaches again, only to have the same feelings of avoidance arise again, and s/he backs off, which decreases the internal conflict. Balance in ambivalence is achieved.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions. Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.
Experience can clash with expectations, as, for example, with buyer's remorse following the purchase of an expensive item. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment. People are biased to think of their choices as correct, despite any contrary evidence. This bias gives dissonance theory its predictive power, shedding light on otherwise puzzling irrational and destructive behavior.
A classical example of this idea (and the origin of the expression "sour grapes") is expressed in the fable The Fox and the Grapes by Aesop (ca. 620–564 BCE). In the story, a fox sees some high-hanging grapes and wishes to eat them. When the fox is unable to think of a way to reach them, he surmises that the grapes are probably not worth eating, as they must not be ripe or that they are sour. This example follows a pattern: one desires something, finds it unattainable, and reduces one's dissonance by criticizing it. Jon Elster calls this pattern "adaptive preference formation."
Smoking is often postulated as an example of cognitive dissonance because it is widely accepted that cigarettes can cause lung cancer, yet virtually everyone wants to live a long and healthy life. In terms of the theory, the desire to live a long life is dissonant with the activity of doing something that will most likely shorten one's life. The tension produced by these contradictory ideas can be reduced by quitting smoking, denying the evidence of lung cancer, or justifying one's smoking. For example, smokers could rationalize their behavior by concluding that only a few smokers become ill, that it only happens to very heavy smokers, or that if smoking does not kill them, something else will. While chemical addiction may operate in addition to cognitive dissonance for existing smokers, new smokers may exhibit a simpler case of the latter.
This case of dissonance could also be interpreted in terms of a threat to the self-concept. The thought, "I am increasing my risk of lung cancer" is dissonant with the self-related belief, "I am a smart, reasonable person who makes good decisions." Because it is often easier to make excuses than it is to change behavior, dissonance theory leads to the conclusion that humans are sometimes rationalizing and not always rational beings.
effort justification, where working for something causes someone to like it more; Self-evaluation maintenance theory, in which the skills or interests that define us can cause dissonance when they appear superior in others close to us; counter-attitudinal advocacy, where behaviours supporting a dissonant attitude causes one to adopt that attitude; post-decision dissonance, where one justifies an unalterable decision as the right one; insufficient punishment, the practice of punishing a person without doing it so harshly that they can tell themselves "I still like the behaviour, but I avoid it because of the devastating punishment"; overjustification effect, when an intrinsic (internal) motivation is shifted to extrinsic motivations through external reward; balance theory, a general tendency to seek consonance between our views of others, and our views of their attitudes; self-handicapping, avoiding effort in the hopes of keeping potential failure from hurting self-esteem; and finally justification of altruism, a habit of attributing kind actions to selfish motivations to avoid feeling committed to being a 'good person', or to thinking the deed was 'the right thing to do'.
 Ben Franklin effectOne situation that may create dissonance is when someone does a favor for a person that they dislike. Here, the dissonance is between those negative feelings for the other person, and the awareness of having expended effort to help them. Cognitive dissonance theory predicts that people will try to resolve this dissonance, by adopting a more positive attitude towards the other person. Several experiments have borne out this prediction. This has been named the Ben Franklin effect because it was anticipated by Franklin when he served in the Pennsylvania legislature in the 18th Century. In his autobiography, he explains how he dealt with the animosity of a rival legislator:
Having heard that he had in his library a certain very scarce and curious book, I wrote a note to him, expressing my desire of perusing that book, and requesting he would do me the favour of lending it to me for a few days. He sent it immediately, and I return'd it in about a week with another note, expressing strongly my sense of the favour. When we next met in the House, he spoke to me (which he had never done before), and with great civility; and he ever after manifested a readiness to serve me on all occasions, so that we became great friends, and our friendship continued to his death. This is another instance of the truth of an old maxim I had learned, which says, "He that has once done you a kindness will be more ready to do you another, than he whom you yourself have obliged."A counterpart to this effect is when someone's actions hurt another person, whom they regard positively or neutrally. In this case, one way to resolve the dissonance is to think more negatively about that person, so that they seem to deserve what happened to them.
 VariantsAn overarching principle of cognitive dissonance is that it involves the formation of an idea or emotion in conflict with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a successful/functional person", "I am a good person", or "I made the right decision." The anxiety that comes with the possibility of having made a bad decision can lead to rationalization, the tendency to create additional reasons or justifications to support one's choices. A person who just spent too much money on a new car might decide that the new vehicle is much less likely to break down than his or her old car. This belief may or may not be true, but it would reduce dissonance and make the person feel better. Dissonance can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of dis-confirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.
Within this overarching principle, there are two main forms of dissonance: hedonistic dissonance and moral dissonance (Holland, Meertens & Van-Vugt, 2002).
- Hedonistic dissonance is elicited when people act in a way which results in negative consequences for themselves. For instance, a person is late for a meeting because of traffic but could have been on time had he taken the subway.
- Moral dissonance is aroused when people act in a way that causes negative consequence for others. For instance, cheating and lying.
 Theory and researchMost of the research on cognitive dissonance takes the form of one of four major paradigms. Important research generated by the theory has been concerned with the consequences of exposure to information inconsistent with a prior belief, what happens after individuals act in ways that are inconsistent with their prior attitudes, what happens after individuals make decisions, and the effects of effort expenditure.
 The Belief Disconfirmation ParadigmDissonance is aroused when people are confronted with information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one's belief, the dissonance can result in misperception or rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others to restore consonance.
An early version of cognitive dissonance theory appeared in Leon Festinger's 1956 book, When Prophecy Fails. This book gave an inside account of the increasing belief which sometimes follows the failure of a cult's prophecy. The believers met at a pre-determined place and time, believing they alone would survive the Earth's destruction. The appointed time came and passed without incident. They faced acute cognitive dissonance: had they been the victim of a hoax? Had they donated their worldly possessions in vain? Most members chose to believe something less dissonant: the aliens had given earth a second chance, and the group was now empowered to spread the word: earth-spoiling must stop. The group dramatically increased their proselytism despite the failed prophecy.
 The Induced-Compliance ParadigmIn Festinger and Carlsmith's classic 1959 experiment, students were asked to spend an hour on boring and tedious tasks (e.g., turning pegs a quarter turn, over and over again). The tasks were designed to generate a strong, negative attitude. Once the subjects had done this, the experimenters asked some of them to do a simple favor. They were asked to talk to another subject (actually an actor) and persuade them that the tasks were interesting and engaging. Some participants were paid $20 (inflation adjusted to 2010, this equates to $150) for this favor, another group was paid $1 (or $7.50 in "2010 dollars"), and a control group was not asked to perform the favor.
When asked to rate the boring tasks at the conclusion of the study (not in the presence of the other "subject"), those in the $1 group rated them more positively than those in the $20 and control groups. This was explained by Festinger and Carlsmith as evidence for cognitive dissonance. The researchers theorized that people experienced dissonance between the conflicting cognitions, "I told someone that the task was interesting", and "I actually found it boring." When paid only $1, students were forced to internalize the attitude they were induced to express, because they had no other justification. Those in the $20 condition, however, had an obvious external justification for their behavior, and thus experienced less dissonance.
In subsequent experiments, an alternative method of inducing dissonance has become common. In this research, experimenters use counter-attitudinal essay-writing, in which people are paid varying amounts of money (e.g. $1 or $10) for writing essays expressing opinions contrary to their own. People paid only a small amount of money have less external justification for their inconsistency and must produce internal justification in order to reduce the high degree of dissonance that they are experiencing.
A variant of the induced-compliance paradigm is the forbidden toy paradigm. An experiment by Aronson and Carlsmith in 1963 examined self-justification in children. In this experiment, children were left in a room with a variety of toys, including a highly desirable toy steam-shovel (or other toy). Upon leaving the room, the experimenter told half the children that there would be a severe punishment if they played with that particular toy and told the other half that there would be a mild punishment. All of the children in the study refrained from playing with the toy. Later, when the children were told that they could freely play with whatever toy they wanted, the ones in the mild punishment condition were less likely to play with the toy, even though the threat had been removed. The children who were only mildly threatened had to justify to themselves why they did not play with the toy. The degree of punishment by itself was not strong enough, so the children had to convince themselves that the toy was not worth playing with in order to resolve their dissonance.
 The Free-Choice ParadigmIn a different type of experiment conducted by Jack Brehm, 225 female students rated a series of common appliances and were then allowed to choose one of two appliances to take home as a gift. A second round of ratings showed that the participants increased their ratings of the item they chose, and lowered their ratings of the rejected item. This can be explained in terms of cognitive dissonance. When making a difficult decision, there are always aspects of the rejected choice that one finds appealing and these features are dissonant with choosing something else. In other words, the cognition, "I chose X" is dissonant with the cognition, "There are some things I like about Y." More recent research has found similar results in four-year-old children and capuchin monkeys.
 The Effort-Justification ParadigmDissonance is aroused whenever individuals voluntarily engage in an unpleasant activity to achieve some desired goal. Dissonance can be reduced by exaggerating the desirability of the goal. Aronson & Mills had individuals undergo a severe or mild "initiation" in order to become a member of a group. In the severe-initiation condition, the individuals engaged in an embarrassing activity. The group turned out to be very dull and boring. The individuals in the severe-initiation condition evaluated the group as more interesting than the individuals in the mild-initiation condition.
All of the above paradigms continue to be used in fruitful research.
Washing one's hands has been shown to eliminate post-decisional dissonance, presumably because the dissonance is often caused by moral disgust (with oneself) which is related to disgust from unsanitary conditions.
 Challenges and qualificationsDaryl Bem was an early critic of cognitive dissonance theory. He proposed self-perception theory as a more parsimonious alternative explanation of the experimental results. According to Bem, people do not think much about their attitudes, let alone whether they are in conflict. Bem interpreted people in the Festinger and Carlsmith study or the induced-compliance paradigm as inferring their attitudes from their behavior. Thus, when asked "Did you find the task interesting?" they decided that they must have found it interesting because that is what they told someone. Bem suggested that people paid $20 had a salient, external incentive for their behavior and were likely to perceive the money as their reason for saying the task was interesting, rather than concluding that they actually found it interesting.
In many experimental situations, Bem's theory and Festinger's dissonance theory make identical predictions, but only dissonance theory predicts the presence of unpleasant tension or arousal. Lab experiments have verified the presence of arousal in dissonance situations. This provides support for cognitive dissonance theory and makes it unlikely that self-perception by itself can account for all the laboratory findings.
self-concept. According to this new interpretation, cognitive dissonance does not arise because people experience dissonance between conflicting cognitions. Instead, it occurs when people see their actions as conflicting with their normally positive view of themselves. Thus, about the original Festinger and Carlsmith study using the induced-compliance paradigm, Aronson stated that the dissonance was between the cognition, "I am an honest person" and the cognition, "I lied to someone about finding the task interesting." Other psychologists have argued that maintaining cognitive consistency is a way to protect public self-image, rather than private self-concept. However, a recent result  seems to rule out such an explanation by showing revaluation of items following a choice even when people have forgotten their choices.
During the 1980s, Cooper and Fazio argued that dissonance was caused by aversive consequences, rather than inconsistency. According to this interpretation, the fact that lying is wrong and hurtful, not the inconsistency between cognitions, is what makes people feel bad. Subsequent research, however, found that people experience dissonance even when they feel they have not done anything wrong. For example, Harmon-Jones and colleagues showed that people experience dissonance even when the consequences of their statements are beneficial—as when they convince sexually active students to use condoms, when they, themselves are not using condoms.
Chen and colleagues have criticized the free-choice paradigm and have suggested that the "Rank, choice, rank" method of studying dissonance is invalid. They argue that research design relies on the assumption that, if the subject rates options differently in the second survey, then the subject's attitudes towards the options have therefore changed. They show that there are other reasons one might get different rankings in the second survey—perhaps the subjects were largely indifferent between choices. Although some follow-up studies have found supportive evidence for Chen's concerns, other studies that have controlled for Chen's concerns have not, instead suggesting that the mere act of making a choice can indeed change preferences. Nevertheless, this issue remains under active investigation.
 Cognitive dissonance in the brainUsing fMRI, Van Veen and colleagues investigated the neural basis of cognitive dissonance in a modified version of the classic induced compliance paradigm. While in the scanner, participants "argued" that the uncomfortable MRI environment was nevertheless a pleasant experience. The researchers replicated the basic induced compliance findings; participants in an experimental group enjoyed the scanner more than participants in a control group who simply were paid to make their argument. Importantly, responding counter-attitudinally activated the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and the anterior insular cortex; furthermore, the degree to which these regions were activated predicted individual participants' degree of attitude change. Van Veen and colleagues argue that these findings support the original dissonance theory by Festinger, and support the "conflict theory" of anterior cingulate functioning.
Using the free choice paradigm, Sharot and colleagues have shown that after making a choice, activity in the striatum changes to reflect the new evaluation of the choice object, increasing if the object was chosen and decreasing if it was rejected. Follow-up studies have largely confirmed these results.
 Modeling in neural networksNeural network models of cognition have provided the necessary framework to integrate the empirical research done on cognitive dissonance and attitudes into one model of explanation of attitude formation and change.
Various neural network models have been developed to predict how cognitive dissonance will influence an individual's attitude and behavior. These include: