This study uses a fresh approach to measure social welfare ambivalence, addressing the question of who is more ambivalent about such policies— liberals or conservatives. The findings presented here challenge previous assertions that liberals are typically more ambivalent. I argue that conservatives are now more ambivalent than liberals because a change in the tone of elite discourse altered the priming of the potential sources of such ambivalence. The models of ambivalence presented suggest that these primed sources are conflicting thoughts or beliefs (cognitive conflict), conflicting feelings (affective conflict), or beliefs in conflict with feelings (cognitive—affective conflict). The implications of these findings are discussed.
Alvarez, R.M., & Brehm, J. (1995). American ambivalence towards abortion policy: Development of a heteroskedastic probit model of competing values. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 1055-1082.
2.
Alvarez, R.M., & Brehm, J. (1997). Are Americans ambivalent towards racial policies ? American Journal of Political Science, 41, 345-374.
3.
Bargh, J.A., Chaiken, S., Govender, R., & Pratto, F. (1992). The generality of the automatic attitude activation effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 893-912.
4.
Bartels, L.M. (1993). Messages received: The political impact of media exposure. American Political Science Review, 87, 267-285.
5.
Bassili, J.N. (1996). Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: The case of measures of attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 637-653.
6.
Bobo, L., & Kluegel, J.R. (1993). Opposition to race targeting: Self-interest, stratification ideology, or racial attitudes. American Sociological Review , 58, 443-464.
7.
Breckler, S.J., & Wiggins, E.C. (1989). Affect versus evaluation in the structure of attitudes . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 253-271.
8.
Campbell, A., Converse, P.E., Miller, W.E., & Stokes, D.E. (1960). The American voter. New York : John Wiley.
9.
Cantril, A.H., & Cantril, S.D. (1999). Reading mixed signals: Ambivalence in American public opinion about government. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
10.
Cook, F.L., & Barrett, E.J. (1992). Support for the American welfare state: The views of Congress and the public. New York: Columbia University Press.
11.
Craig, S.C., Kane, J.G., & Martinez, M.D. (2002). Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't: Citizens' ambivalence about abortion. Political Psychology, 23, 285-301.
12.
Craig, S.C., Martinez, M.D., Kane, J.G., & Gainous, J. (2005). Core values, value conflict, and citizens' ambivalence about gay rights. Political Research Quarterly, 58, 5-17.
13.
Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
14.
Esses, V.M., Haddock, G., & Zanna, M.P. (1993). Values, stereotypes and emotions as determinants of intergroup attitudes. In D. L. Hamilton & D. M. Mackie (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 137-166). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
15.
Federico, C.M. (2005). Education, ideology, and racial ambivalence: Conflict amplification or conflict resolution? In S. C. Craig & M. D. Martinez (Eds.), Ambivalence, politics, and public policy (pp. 83-102). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
16.
Feldman, S. (1988). Structure and consistency in public opinion: The role of core beliefs and values. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 416-440.
17.
Feldman, S., & Steenbergen, M.R. (2001). The humanitarian foundation of public support for social welfare. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 658-677.
18.
Feldman, S., & Zaller, J. (1992). The political culture of ambivalence: Ideological responses to the welfare state. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 268-307.
19.
Fiske, S.T., & Taylor, S.E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
20.
Gainous, J., & Martinez, M.D. (2005). What happens when we simultaneously want opposite things? Ambivalence about social welfare. In S. C. Craig & M. D. Martinez (Eds.), Ambivalence, politics, and public policy (pp. 47-62). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
21.
Gilens, M. (1995). Racial attitudes and opposition to welfare. Journal of Politics, 57, 994-1014.
22.
Goren, P. (2001). Core principles and policy reasoning in mass publics: A test of two theories. British Journal of Political Science , 31, 159-177.
23.
Hill, J.L., & Kriesi, H. (2001). An extension and test of Converse's “black-and-white” model of response stability. American Political Science Review , 95, 397-413.
24.
Hodson, G., Maio, G.R., & Esses, V.M. (2001). The role of attitudinal ambivalence in susceptibility to consensus information. Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 23, 197-205.
25.
Horton, N.J., & Lipsitz, S.R. (2001). Multiple imputation in practice: Comparison of software packages for regression models with missing variables. American Statistician, 55, 244-254.
26.
Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D.R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28.
Iyengar, S., & McGuire, W.J. (1993). Explorations in political psychology. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
29.
Jacoby, W.G. (1991). Ideological identification and issue attitudes . American Journal of Political Science, 35, 178-205.
30.
Jacoby, W.G. (1994). Public attitudes toward government spending. American Journal of Political Science, 38, 336-361.
31.
Jacoby, W.G. (2002). Core values and political attitudes. In B. Norrander & C. Wilcox (Eds.), Understanding public opinion (2nd ed., pp. 177-202). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
32.
Jacoby, W.G. (2005). Is it really ambivalence? Public opinion toward government spending. In S. C. Craig & M. D. Martinez (Eds.), Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion (pp. 149-172). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
33.
Kaplan, K.J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 361-372.
34.
Katz, I., & Hass, G. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893-905.
35.
Katz, I., Wackenhut, J., & Hass, R.G. (1986). Racial ambivalence, value duality, and behavior . In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 35-59). New York: Academic Press.
36.
Kinder, D.R., & Sanders, L.M. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37.
Kinder, D.R., & Winter, N. (2001). Exploring the racial divide: Blacks, Whites, and opinion on national policy. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 439-456.
38.
Krosnick, J.A., & Kinder, D.R. (1990). Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming. American Political Science Review, 84, 497-512.
39.
Marcus, G.E. (2003). The psychology of emotions. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy , & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 182-22). New York: Oxford University Press.
40.
Marcus, G.E., Neuman, W.R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
41.
Martinez, M.D., Craig, S.C., Kane, J.G., & Gainous, J. (2005). Ambivalence and value conflict: A test of two issues. In S. C. Craig & M. D. Martinez (Eds.), Ambivalence, politics, and public policy (pp. 63-82). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
42.
McCann, J.A. (1997). Electoral choices and core value change: The 1992 presidential campaign. American Journal of Political Science , 41, 564-583.
43.
Millar, M.G., & Tesser, A. (1986). Effects of affective and cognitive focus on the attitude-behavior relation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 270-276.
44.
Miller, J.M., & Krosnick, J.A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 301-315.
Nelson, T.E. (1999). Group affect and attribution in social policy opinion. Journal of Politics, 61, 331-362.
47.
Nelson, T.E., & Kinder, D.R. (1996). Issue frames and group-centrism in American public opinion. Journal of Politics, 58, 1055-1078.
48.
Newby-Clark, I.R., McGregor, I., & Zanna, M.P. (2005). Ambivalence and accessibility: The consequences of accessible ambivalence. In S. C. Craig & M. D. Martinez (Eds.), Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion (pp. 33-53). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
49.
Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., & Tannenbaum, P.H. (1957). The measurement of meaning . Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
50.
Popkin, S.L. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
51.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
52.
Schneider, S.K., & Jacoby, W.G. (2005). Elite discourse and American public opinion: The case of welfare spending. Political Research Quarterly, 58, 367-379.
53.
Schnell, F. (1993). The foundations of abortion attitudes: The role of values and value conflict. In M. L. Goggin (Ed.), Understanding the new politics of abortion (pp. 23-43). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
54.
Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content of structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
55.
Sears, D.O. (2000). The role of affect in symbolic politics. In J. H. Kuklinski (Ed.), Citizens and politics: Perspective from political psychology (pp. 14-40). New York: Cambridge University Press.
56.
Sniderman, P.M., Brody, R.A., & Tetlock, P.E. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
57.
Steenbergen, M.R., & Brewer, P.R. (2000). The not-so-ambivalent public: Policy attitudes in the political culture of ambivalence. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.), The issue of belief: Essays in the intersection of non-attitudes and attitude change (pp. 101-142). Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam, AmsterdamSchool of Communication Research.
58.
Stoker, L. (1993). Judging presidential character: The demise of Gary Hart. Political Behavior, 15, 193-223.
59.
Thompson, M., Zanna, M.P., & Griffin, D.W. (1995). Let's not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence . In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361-386). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
60.
Valentino, N.A., Hutchings, V.L., & White, I.K. (2002). Cues that matter: How political ads prime racial attitudes during campaigns. American Political Science Review , 96, 75-90.
61.
Wilcox, C., & Norrander, B. (2002). Of moods and morals: The dynamics of opinion on abortion and gay rights. In B. Norrander & C. Wilcox (Eds.), Understanding public opinion (2nd ed., pp. 121-147). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
62.
Zaller, J.R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
63.
Zaller, J.R., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 579-616.
