2. Ambivalence as Internal Conflict

Political scientists and psychologists recognize the presence of ambivalence in our attitudes, but conceptions of ambivalence are widely varied. Is ambivalence common or rare? Is it a subjective feeling that can only be measured by asking the individual, or is it an objective property of an attitude that can be measured without the respondent’s knowledge? Answers to this question may depend on the way ambivalence is defined. In the discussion that follows, we compare some of the various definitions of ambivalence that have been offered by scholars in the past. We argue that the concept has been employed too loosely in earlier research, and suggest a number of ways in which it can be defined in a more precise and productive manner. Specifically, we argue that “ambivalence” should be restricted to instances of strong internalized conflict which lead to increased response variability that cannot be reconciled as a function of additional information. In political science, the term ambivalence is often used to imply value conflict. Using in-depth interviews, Hochschild (1981: 238) found that “given the opportunity, people do not make simple statements; they shade, modulate, deny, retract, or just grind to a halt in frustration.” Yet Hochschild was clear that not all value conflicts result in ambivalence. An individual might, for example, sort the importance of different norms among different domains. In Hochschild’s work, individuals experienced ambivalence when they weren’t able to resolve the conflict; however, she did not separate out similarly conflictual states. Ambivalence was manifested in helplessness, anger, inconsistency, or confusion. Feldman and Zaller (1992) also viewed ambivalence as a manifestation of value conflict. In their study, respondents’ answers to open-ended survey questions indicated that liberals Atsp_02.qxd 7/10/04 7:36 PM Page 15