Too much information? A systematic investigation of the antecedents and consequences of ambivalence-induced information seeking behavior

IF 3.1 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Benjamin Buttlar , Anna Lambrich , Linda McCaughey , Iris K. Schneider
{"title":"Too much information? A systematic investigation of the antecedents and consequences of ambivalence-induced information seeking behavior","authors":"Benjamin Buttlar ,&nbsp;Anna Lambrich ,&nbsp;Linda McCaughey ,&nbsp;Iris K. Schneider","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104783","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>People regularly have to navigate decisions about which they feel ambivalent, for instance, regarding unhealthy food, recycling, or financial investments. It is assumed that people cope with such felt ambivalence by seeking information that sways their ambivalent attitudes (potential ambivalence) about these topics. However, empirical evidence for this proposition is scarce because most studies measure information seeking intentions instead of behavior. As such, it remains doubtful whether information seeking indeed helps people to reduce felt ambivalence while making decisions. To test this proposition, we adapted a sample-based information seeking paradigm that enabled us to measure actual information seeking behavior in financial decisions. In four preregistered studies (total <em>N</em> = 542 participants; <em>k</em> = 16.538 decisions), we demonstrated that when people feel ambivalent about an initial set of information about a stock, they seek more information about its development to decide whether it develops positively or negatively; this information seeking, in turn, helps them to reduce felt ambivalence when making the decision. However, this is only the case when the initial information is ambivalent and the sought information is univalent; otherwise, information seeking increases felt ambivalence. This supports a central proposition in ambivalence research, indicating that people can indeed solve their felt ambivalence through information seeking. However, our data also showed that the effect of information seeking on felt ambivalence cannot be fully explained by changes in potential ambivalence and a resolution of the attitudinal basis of the conflict. Future research should, therefore, examine whether and how information seeking can also serve as an emotion-focused coping strategy that helps people reduce felt ambivalence by coping with conflict-induced discomfort.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"121 ","pages":"Article 104783"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103125000642","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

People regularly have to navigate decisions about which they feel ambivalent, for instance, regarding unhealthy food, recycling, or financial investments. It is assumed that people cope with such felt ambivalence by seeking information that sways their ambivalent attitudes (potential ambivalence) about these topics. However, empirical evidence for this proposition is scarce because most studies measure information seeking intentions instead of behavior. As such, it remains doubtful whether information seeking indeed helps people to reduce felt ambivalence while making decisions. To test this proposition, we adapted a sample-based information seeking paradigm that enabled us to measure actual information seeking behavior in financial decisions. In four preregistered studies (total N = 542 participants; k = 16.538 decisions), we demonstrated that when people feel ambivalent about an initial set of information about a stock, they seek more information about its development to decide whether it develops positively or negatively; this information seeking, in turn, helps them to reduce felt ambivalence when making the decision. However, this is only the case when the initial information is ambivalent and the sought information is univalent; otherwise, information seeking increases felt ambivalence. This supports a central proposition in ambivalence research, indicating that people can indeed solve their felt ambivalence through information seeking. However, our data also showed that the effect of information seeking on felt ambivalence cannot be fully explained by changes in potential ambivalence and a resolution of the attitudinal basis of the conflict. Future research should, therefore, examine whether and how information seeking can also serve as an emotion-focused coping strategy that helps people reduce felt ambivalence by coping with conflict-induced discomfort.
信息太多?对矛盾心理诱导的信息寻求行为的前因和后果的系统研究
人们经常不得不在他们感到矛盾的事情上做出决定,例如,关于不健康食品、回收或金融投资。假设人们通过寻找信息来改变他们对这些话题的矛盾态度(潜在的矛盾态度)来应对这种矛盾心理。然而,这一命题的经验证据很少,因为大多数研究衡量的是信息寻求意图而不是行为。因此,信息搜寻是否真的能帮助人们在做决定时减少矛盾心理仍然值得怀疑。为了验证这一命题,我们采用了一种基于样本的信息寻求范式,使我们能够衡量财务决策中实际的信息寻求行为。在四项预注册研究中(共N = 542名受试者;K = 16.538个决定),我们证明了当人们对一组关于股票的初始信息感到矛盾时,他们会寻求更多关于股票发展的信息,以决定它是积极的还是消极的;这种信息搜寻反过来又能帮助他们减少做决定时的矛盾心理。然而,这只是在初始信息是矛盾的,而所寻求的信息是一元的情况下才会发生;否则,信息寻求会增加矛盾心理。这支持了矛盾心理研究中的一个中心命题,即人们确实可以通过信息寻找来解决自己的矛盾心理。然而,我们的数据也表明,信息寻求对感觉矛盾心理的影响不能完全用潜在矛盾心理的变化和冲突的态度基础的解决来解释。因此,未来的研究应该检查信息寻求是否以及如何也可以作为一种以情绪为中心的应对策略,帮助人们通过应对冲突引起的不适来减少矛盾心理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
2.90%
发文量
134
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology publishes original research and theory on human social behavior and related phenomena. The journal emphasizes empirical, conceptually based research that advances an understanding of important social psychological processes. The journal also publishes literature reviews, theoretical analyses, and methodological comments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信