February 20, 2026

Have you ever experienced mixed feelings? Objective ambivalence occurs when someone holds both positive and negative evaluations toward the same object. It is typically measured by averaging separate unipolar scales for positive (“P”) and negative (“N”) reactions. The degree of ambivalence is then calculated using the Thompson et al. (1995) formula: [(P+N)/2 – (P-N)], with higher values indicating greater ambivalence. Subjective ambivalence, on the other hand, pertains to the extent of feeling conflicted towards the same object. Contrary to popular belief, the correlation between objective and subjective ambivalence is weak. In ‘When Objective Ambivalence Predicts Subjective Ambivalence: An Affect–Cognition Matching Perspective’ (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2023), Reiner Ng, Associate Professor Michelle See Ya Hui  (both NUS Psychology), and Dr. Laura E. Wallace (George Mason University) examine how encountering affective versus cognitive messages influences the relationship between objective and subjective ambivalence, and how this, in turn, affects attitude strength properties.

The study investigates how the alignment between different message types and an individual’s dominant attitude basis affects the relationship between objective and subjective ambivalence. Affective messages, such as charity advertisements, utilise vivid imagery and storytelling to evoke emotional responses. In contrast, cognitive messages, like those found in public health campaigns, prioritise the delivery of information and factual content. These differing message types influence how individuals interpret them, leading to the experience of either emotional attitudes- rooted in feelings and affective responses toward an issue- or cognitive attitudes, which are based on beliefs, thoughts, and knowledge about a particular object or issue. Messages are considered matched when their type aligns with an individual’s attitude basis, which can influence the correlation between objective and subjective ambivalence.

The researchers found that participants from both Singapore and the United States demonstrated stronger relationships between objective and subjective ambivalence when exposed to matched messages compared to mismatched ones. These effects were particularly pronounced among individuals who received messages that opposed their existing attitudes. In a cross-cultural context, the study highlights significant differences between Singaporean and American respondents: those from Singapore, representing an Eastern culture, tend to favour emotional messages, while those from the U.S., reflecting Western culture, often prefer cognitive messages. Furthermore, East Asians generally exhibit greater comfort with holding conflicting thoughts and feelings compared to their Western counterparts.

To encourage recipients to take corrective actions, the researchers emphasise the importance of considering the strength of their attitudes in addition to the attitudes themselves. This is especially critical for counterattitudinal messages, which aim to challenge existing beliefs or behaviours. Even if individuals do not change their attitudes toward a negative behaviour, such as consuming sweetened drinks, these messages can weaken their emotional attachment to that behaviour, such as consuming sweetened drinks, thereby reducing the likelihood of engaging in their initial inclinations. Conversely, persuasive messages promoting flu vaccination can effectively decrease resistance and increase acceptance, even among those who are initially sceptical. By framing the message in a way that resonates with the audience’s values and beliefs, it can foster a more favourable attitude toward vaccination. These results should prove useful to policymakers and advertisers, informing their workplace strategies.

Read the article here.