Social evaluations under conflict: negative judgments of conflicting information are easier than positive judgments

Identifying the Shared and Dissociable Neural Bases between Self-Worth and Moral Ambivalence

Self-ambivalence, a prevalent phenomenon in daily life, has been increasingly substantiated by research. It refers to conflicting self-views and evaluations, primarily concerning self-worth and morality. Previous behavioral research has distinguished self-worth and moral ambivalence, but it remains unclear whether they have separable neural bases. The present study addressed this question by examining resting-state brain activity (i.e., the fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations, fALFF) and connectivity (i.e., resting-state functional connectivity, RSFC) in 112 college students. The results found that self-worth ambivalence was positively related to the fALFF in the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) and left superior parietal lobule (SPL). The RSFC strength between the SPL and precuneus/posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) was positively related to self-worth ambivalence. Moral ambivalence was positively associated with the fALFF in the left SPL (extending into the temporoparietal junction) and right SPL. The RSFC strengths between the left SPL/TPJ and OFC, as well as the RSFC strengths between the right SPL as a seed and the bilateral middle and inferior temporal gyrus, were associated with moral ambivalence. Overall, the neural bases of self-worth and moral ambivalence are associated with the SPL and OFC, involved in attentional alertness and value representation, respectively. Additionally, the neural basis of moral ambivalence is associated with the TPJ, responsible for mentalizing.

When a smile is still a conflict: Affective conflicts from emotional facial expressions of ingroup or outgroup members occur irrespective of the social interaction context

Facial expressions play a crucial role in human interactions. Typically, a positive (negative) expression evokes a congruent positive (negative) reaction within the observer. This congruent behavior is inverted, however, when the same positive (negative) expression is displayed by an outgroup member. Two approaches provide an explanation for this phenomenon. The social intentions account proposes underlying social messages within the facial display, whereas the processing conflict account assumes an affective conflict triggered by incongruent combinations of emotion and the affective connotation of group membership. In three experiments, we aimed at further substantiating the processing conflict account by separating the affective conflict from potential social intentions. For this, we created a new paradigm, in which the participant was an outside observer of a social interaction scene between two faces. Participants were required to respond to the emotional target person that could represent an ingroup or outgroup member. In all three experiments, irrespective of any social intention, responses were consistently affected by the group relation between participant and emotional target, i.e., the affective (in)congruency of the target seen by participants. These results further support the processing conflict account. The implications for the two theoretical accounts are discussed.

Meating Conflict: Toward a Model of Ambivalence-Motivated Reduction of Meat Consumption

An increasing number of people are concerned about eating meat, despite enjoying doing so. In the present research, we examined whether the desire to resolve this ambivalence about eating meat leads to a reduction in meat consumption. Our model of ambivalence-motivated meat reduction proposes that the pervasive nature of evaluative conflict motivates meat avoidance, and we highlight two potential mechanisms involved: the anticipation of ambivalence reduction through behavioral change, and information seeking for contents that facilitate meat reduction. Study 1 drew on a cross-sectional 6-day food diary with 7485 observations in a quota sample to investigate why meat-related ambivalence arises and to demonstrate the correlation of ambivalence with meat reduction. Two experiments investigated the causal direction of this association by showing that ambivalence-induced discomfort motivated participants to eat less meat when they introspected on their preexisting incongruent evaluations (Study 2 and 3), which was mediated by the aforementioned mechanisms involved (Study 3; preregistered). The studies utilized diverse samples from Germany, England, and the US (total N = 1192) and support the proposed model by indicating that behavioral change is an important coping strategy to resolve ambivalent discomfort in the context of meat consumption. Our model of ambivalence-motivated meat reduction contributes to theorizing on the consequences of ambivalence and the psychology of (not) eating meat.

Ambivalence and Self-Reported Adherence to Recommendations to Reduce the Spread of COVID-19

Abstract. Governments worldwide still, to some extent, rely on behavioral recommendations to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We examine the role of ambivalence toward both the specific recommendations (micro-ambivalence) and the pandemic as a whole (macro-ambivalence) about compliance. We predict that micro ambivalence relates negatively, whereas macro ambivalence relates positively to self-reported adherence to recommendations. We present two studies ( N = 691) supporting our hypotheses: the more ambivalent people are toward the behavioral recommendations (micro-level), the less they report following them. Conversely, the more ambivalent people are about the pandemic as a whole (macro-level), the more they report following recommendations. Our findings were replicated in a US sample and a representative German sample.