The political consequences of ambivalence: The case of democratic reform in Hong Kong

International Journal of Public Opinion Research

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 47-64

  Lee, Francis L F ^a   Chan, Joseph Man ^b  

^a CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67650783695     PISSN: 09542892     EISSN: 14716909     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ijpor/edn053     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2. Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27-58.
3. Alvarez, R. M. (1997). Are Americans ambivalent toward racial policies? American Journal of Political Science, 41, 345-374.
4. Alvarez, R. M., & Brehm, J. (2002). Hard choices, easy answers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5. Barker, D. C., & Hansen, S. B. (2005). All things considered: Systematic cognitive processing and electoral decision-making. Journal of Politics, 67, 319-344.
6. Basinger, S. J., & Lavine, H. (2005). Ambivalence, information, and electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 99, 169-184.
7. Cacioppo, J. T., & Bernston, G. G. (1994). Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 401-423.
8. Chan, J. M., Chau, K., & Lee, F. L. F. (2002). Abstract principle versus concrete interest: A study of education and political opinion in Hong Kong. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14, 54-72.
9. Craig, S. C., Martinez, M. D., & Kane, J. G. (2005). Ambivalence and response instability: A panel study. In S. C. Craig & M. D. Martinez (Eds.), Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion (pp. 55-72). New York: McMillan.
10. Feldman, S., & Zaller, J. (1992). The political culture of ambivalence: Ideological responses to the welfare state. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 268-307.
11. 51% support the call for a time table. (2005, December 4). Apple Daily, p. A06.
12. 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.
13. Holbert, R. L., & Hansen, G. J. (2006). Fahrenheit 9-11, need for closure and the priming of affective ambivalence: An assessment of intra-affective structures by party identification. Human Communication Research, 32, 109-129.
14. Holbrook, A. L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2005). Meta-psychological versus operative measures of ambivalence: Differentiating the consequences of perceived intra-psychic conflict and real intra-psychic conflict. In S. C. Craig & M. D. Martinez (Eds.), Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion (pp. 73-104). New York: McMillan.
15. Huckfeldt, R., Johnson, P. E., & Sprague, J. (2004). Political disagreement. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16. Jackman, M. R. (1978). General and applied tolerance: Does education increase commitment to racial integration? American Journal of Political Science, 22, 302-324.
17. Jonas, K., Diehl, M., & Bromer, P. (1997). Effects of attitudinal ambivalence on information processing and attitude-intention consistency. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 190-210.
18. 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.
19. Kuan, H. C., & Lau, S. K. (1995). The partial vision of democracy in Hong Kong: A survey of popular opinion. The China Journal, 34, 239-263.
20. Lavine, H. (2001). The electoral consequences of ambivalence toward presidential candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 915-929.
21. Lavine, H, Borgida, E., & Sullivan, J. L. (2000). On the relationship between attitude involvement and attitude accessibility: Toward a cognitive-motivational model of political information processing. Political Psychology, 21, 81-106.
22. Linville, P. W. (1982). The complexity-extremity effect and age-based stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 203-216.
23. Lui, T. L. (2003). Rearguard politics: Hong Kong's middle class. Development Economy, 41, 161-183.
24. Maio, G. R., Bell, D. W., & Esses, V. M. (1996). Ambivalence and persuasion: The processing of messages about immigrant groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 513-536.
25. Martinez, M. D., Craig, S. C., & Kane, J. G. (2005). Pros and cons: Ambivalence and public opinion. In S. C. Craig & M. D. Martinez (Eds.), Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion (pp. 1-14). New York: McMillan.
26. McGraw, K. M., & Bartels, B. (2005). Ambivalence toward American political institutions: Sources and consequences. In S. C. Craig & M. D. Martinez (Eds.), Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion (pp. 105-126). New York: McMillan.
27. McGraw, K. M., Hasecke, E., & Conger, K. (2003). Ambivalence, uncertainty, and processes of candidate evaluation. Political Psychology, 24, 421-448.
28. Meffert, M. F., Guge, M., & Lodge, M. (2004). Good, bad, and ambivalent: The consequences of multidimensional political attitudes. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in public opinion (pp. 63-92). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29. Miller, J. M., & Peterson, D. A. M. (2004). Theoretical and empirical implications of attitude strength. Journal of Politics, 66, 847-867.
30. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side. New York: Cambridge University Press.
31. Mutz, D. C., & Mondak, J. J. (2006). The workplace as a context for cross-cutting political discourse. Journal of Politics, 68, 140-155.
32. Nir, L. (2005). Ambivalent social networks and their consequences for participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 422-442.
33. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Attitudes and persuasion. Colorado, BO: Westview.
34. Price, V., Nir, L., & Cappella, J. N. (2005). Framing public discussion of gay civil unions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69, 179-212.
35. Priester, J. R. (2002). Sex, drugs, and attitudinal ambivalence: How feelings of evaluative tension influence alcohol use and safe sex behaviors. In M. Burgoon & W. D. Crano (Eds.), Mass media and drug prevention (pp. 145-162). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36. Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: Relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 431-449.
37. Priester, J. R., Petty, R. E., & Park, K. (2007). Whence univalent ambivalence? From the anticipation of conflicting reactions. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(1), 11-21.
38. Scott, W. A. (1969). Structure of natural cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 261-278.
39. Sparks, P., Harris, P. R., & Lockwood, N. (2004). Predictors and predictive effects of ambivalence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 371-383.
40. Thompson, M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let's not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. E. Petty & J. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361-386). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41. Visser, P. S., & Mirabile, R. R. (2004). Attitudes in the social context: The impact of social network composition on individual-level attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 779-795.
42. Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 579-616.