Psychological Bulletin

1972, Vol. 77, No. 5, 361-372

ON THE AMBIVALENCE-INDIFFERENCE PROBLEM IN

ATTITUDE THEORY AND MEASUREMENT:
A SUGGESTED MODIFICATION OF THE SEMANTIC
DIFFERENTIAL TECHNIQUE 1
KALMAN J. KAPLAN 2
Wayne Stale University

This article explores the alternate meanings of attitudinal neutrality in the context
of the bipolarity-reciprocal antagonism issue. Specifically, it proposes a modification
of the semantic differential technique wherein the "liking" and "disliking" com-
ponents of attitude can be separately measured. A geometrical model is developed
in which three nondirectional attitude variables ("total affect," "ambivalence,"
and "polarization") are distinguished from the usual attitude variable. Reliability
and validity data are presented, and an application of the model is discussed.

In his 1935 review of the general area of
attitude theory and research, Gordon Allport
concluded that most investigators basically
agreed that "attitude is a learned predisposition
to respond to an object in a consistently favor-
able or unfavorable manner [p. 818J." Further-
more, he suggested that this bipolarity in the
direction of an attitude (i.e., the favorable
versus unfavorable) was viewed as its most
distinctive feature. Thus, he felt that attitude
had been conceptualized as a simple uni-
dimensional concept—the evaluative (or affec-
tive) dimension.
A number of attitude theorists and re-
searchers, including Allport himself, have been
unhappy with this unidimensional view and
attacked it as oversimplified. Basically, the
critics fall into two major camps: (a) multi-
component attitude theorists, who feel the
evaluative dimension or component is not a
sufficient definition of attitude; and (b) uni-
component attitude theorists, who feel that the
evaluative dimension, though a sufficient defi-
nition of attitude, is not itself unidimensional.
Much of the early controversy emanated
from the first camp, focusing on the question
of whether cognitive and conative aspects
1
This paper was adapted in part from the author's
master's thesis conducted at the University of Illinois,
1966, under the direction of Martin Fishbein and
Ledyard Tucker.
2
The author would like to thank Joel Ager, Alan Bass,
Reuben Baron, Ira Firestone, and Gary Lichtman for
reading subsequent drafts of this paper.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Kalman J.
Kaplan, Department of Psychology, Wayne State
University, Detroit, Michigan 48202.
361
must be considered in addition to evaluations
for a workable definition of attitude (cf.
Fishbein, 1963, 1965, 1967; Rosenberg, 1956,
1960). The preponderance of current research,
however, has emerged from the second camp
(e.g., Komorita & Bass, 1967; Smith, 1961;
Wiggins & Fishbein, 1969). Additionally, a
number of studies have specifically been inter-
ested in the implications of the bipolarity-
reciprocal antagonism issue for the interpre-
tation of attitudinal neutrality (e.g., Bass &
Rosen, 1969; Green & Goldfried, 1965;
Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). It
is the attempt to conceptually and methodo-
logically distinguish ambivalence from indif-
ference that represents the central concern of
the present study.
Some General Requirements for the Measurement
of Ambivalence
Despite its obvious theoretical importance,
there exists a dearth of measurement pro-
cedures specifically designed to tease out ambiv-
alence from other attitudinal variables. To a
large extent this has been due to the prevailing
view of attitudes as a directional bipolar evalu-
ative response representing, on the one hand,
positive feelings, appraisals, and tendencies;
and on the other hand, negative feelings,
appraisals, and tendencies (again, see the
review article of Allport, 1935). Yet despite
this view, researchers have often found the
need to postulate nondirectional attitude vari-
ables (e.g., intensity, affective involvement).
As Scott's recent review of attitude measure-
362 KALMAN J. KAPLAN

ment pointed out: flexible, and easy to use of current measure-

The "directional" property raises, but does not auto- ment techniques. It offers to researchers a
matically answer, the question as to how neutral alti- do-it-yourself attitude-measurement kit, easily
tudes are to be conceived. Are they midway between transferable across situations. Second, the SD
positive and negative attitudes? Should they be sub- technique has been buttressed more than other
divided into indifferent and ambivalent attitudes? The
conception of favorable and unfavorable as "opposites" current measurement techniques by a fully
implies that persons will not be found with attitudes developed theoretical model—a mediational
simultaneously at both ends of the dimension. Yet an learning approach viewing semantic space as
alternative formulation might treat degree of favorable- bipolar and denning attitude as the bipolar
ness and degree of unfavorableness as conceptually evaluative dimension.
distinct (although no doubt empirically correlated)
components, on which persons may make, simultane- A concept is rated on the SD as follows:
ously, a variety of position combinations. In other
words, it is only by convention that the direction of an
attitude is conceptualized as a single bipolar attribute (0) (1) (2) (3)
[Scott, 1968, p. 206].
in which the scale positions have already been
In other words, the measurement of ambiv- defined for the subject in the instructions as:
alence seems to require a situation in which
( — 3) extremely X (3) extremely Y
an individual has the opportunity to simul- (-2) quite X (2) quite Y
taneously indicate both a favorable and an (-1) slightly X (1) slightly Y
unfavorable attitude toward a given stimulus (0) neither X nor Y; equally X and Y
object. Such a technique represents a marked
contrast to the typical measurement procedures When an individual is asked to rate a con-
discussed above which allow a respondent to cept on a SD scale, he is instructed to make
make one and only one evaluative response to only one check mark. He can respond with:
a given object. This overall response is then V
taken as an indication of either a favorable, X
"("-3) (-2) (-1) (0) (1) (2) (3)
a neutral, or an unfavorable attitude, and we or
are left with ambiguity in interpretation of neu-
trality (i.e., indifference versus ambivalence). V - Y
X
(-3) (-2) (-1) (0)' (1) (2) (3)
The argument might be raised that measures
of ambivalence are actually obtainable from He cannot, however, attempt to indicate
the usual directional procedure through the ambivalence toward a concept by checking
separate consideration of items eliciting re- both sides of the continuum:
sponses that indicate favorable and unfavor-
able attitudes (e.g., adjective checklist). This X V _y_
(-3) (-2) (-1) (0) (1) (2)
does not seem entirely satisfactory, however,
since it is possible that individuals may in fact For Osgood's major purposes this represents
be ambivalent to each item and still indicate a no problem. He bases his theoretical under-
favorable, neutral, or unfavorable response to pinnings for the SD technique on the assump-
it. Thus, the ambivalence problem is only re- tion of reciprocally antagonistic XY pairs (i.e.,
moved one level, but not dealt with directly. an object cannot be both X and Y), thus,
A solution seems to demand a basic modifica- making the question of ambivalence irrelevant.
tion in the measurement techniqvie itself. In Osgood's own terms:
First, since [italics added] the polar terms X and Y are
Ambivalence and the Semantic Differential meaningful opposites, we assume that the rm pattern
characteristic of X will be reciprocally antagonistic to
The technique to be offered in this article that characteristic of Y (i.e., wherever a component of
represents a modification of the semantic dif- X is rm, the same component of Y will be fm, and con-
ferential (SD) scale (Osgood, Suci, & Tannen- versely). Second, since [italics added] as will be seen
in subsequent chapters, scales are chosen which maxi-
baum, 1957). The SD scale is used as the point mize one factor or component and minimize all others,
of departure for several reasons. For one, the the rm pattern elicited by an X-Y set will tend to have
SD technique is probably the most popular, one dominant component [Osgood et al., 1957, p. 29],
 AMBIVALENCE
Obviously, the assumption of bipolarity is
critical to the question of ambivalence. Un-
fortunately, the restrictions of the single-
marking SD instructions have made it im-
possible for this assumption to be adequately
tested. Rather, because of the forced bipolar
structure of the SD scale, polar adjectives are
arbitrarily required to be reciprocally antagon-
istic leaving no room for disconfirmation.
Green and Goldfried (1965) have pointed to
this problem and advocated the use of scales
that do not force the reciprocal antagonism as a
means of determining whether or not semantic
space and individual semantic differential
scales actually are bipolar.
The technique Green and Goldfried have
used involves the intercorrelation of sets of
single-adjective unipolar scales each con-
structed from the same bipolar adjectival SD
scale. The specific assumptions and instructions
of this single-adjective technique are discussed
shortly as a way of contrast with the technique
proposed in the present article. Basically,
however, negative intercorrelations between
any two single-adjective scales are interpreted
as indicating the bipolarity of these adjectives.
Specifically, they calculated 9,750 correlation
coefficients and found that certain adjective
pairs (such as good-bad) tended to be highly
negatively correlated with each other for
certain concepts. However, as an overall pat-
tern, Green and Goldfried were forced to
conclude:
There were wide differences in occurrence of bipolar
factors on concepts. There were also wide differences
in the occurrence of semantic differential paired op-
posites across scales. Any tendency for reciprocally
antagonistic adjectives to form the two poles of a
single scale was clearly dependent on the concept or set
of concepts involved and therefore was not a generalized
phenomenon [Green & Goldfried, 1965, p. 30].
Green and Goldfried's technique has been
recently criticized by Heise (1969) on the
grounds that unipolar scale ratings are more
affected by the unintended denotative, periph-
eral, and fleeting aspects of adjectives and
thus have more sources of variance than the
double-anchored bipolar scale ratings. Never-
theless, Heise concluded that a number of SD
scales exist that do not meet the assumption
of true bipolarity. This conclusion has direct
implications for the present article: single-
VERSUS INDIFFERENCE 363
marking SD instructions often force the sub-
ject to perform a psychologically impossible
task—to directionally evaluate a concept in a
manner eliminating ambivalence when he is
faced with adjective pairs he does not judge to
be bipolar.
The matter, however, is more complicated
than has been suggested. Though Osgood et al.
proposed a semantic theory in which opposite
pairs are reciprocally antagonistic, they, in
practice, allowed the subject a response through
which he can try to indicate that he believes
both sides of the scale are appropriate for his
response to the concept. Consider the middle
(neutral) category: it is alternatively defined
as "neither X nor Y" or "equally X and Y."
In other words, a check in this "neutral" cate-
gory can indicate either (a) neither X nor Y
is an appropriate response to the concept (i.e.,
feelings of indifference exist toward the con-
cept) ; or (b) both X and Y are equally appro-
priate responses to the concept (i.e., feelings
of ambivalence exist toward the concept).
Through their dual definition of the neutral
category, Osgood et al. have built a safeguard
into their instructions to allow their usage
whether or not XY pairs are perceived as
reciprocally antagonistic. Their safeguard, how-
ever, has been exacted at the price of clarity of
interpretation of results not only at the neutral
category but at every category on a SD scale.
Allowing an ambivalent "neutral" response in
the context of single-marking instructions
produces a fundamental change on the inter-
pretation of the SD instructions. Specifically,
it serves to transfer the quality of reciprocal
antagonism from the XY pairs to the instruc-
tions themselves.3 In effect, subjects are not
rating the concept on the XY scale but are
instead rating the "net" (Y minus X) qualities
of the concept. If the Y qualities are dominant,
the Y half of the scale is checked. If the X
qualities are dominant, the X half of the scale
is checked.
The implications of this analysis for attitude
measurement are critical. That a subject can
indicate ambivalence through a single mark
allows him to rate concepts on scales whether
or not the defining XY adjective pairs are
judged as evaluatively bipolar. Consider, for
3
The author would especially like to thank Ledyard
Tucker for his patience in clarifying this problem.
364 KALMAN J. KAPLAN
example, the adjectives "kind" and "wise," a
pair evaluatively similar (both positive) and
not reciprocally antagonistic (i.e., many wise
people are also kind). Allowing ambivalent
"neutral" responses, however, makes the
scale usable by forcing subjects to transfer
their rating from people to the net "kind minus
wise" qualities of people. On these "net"
qualities, of course, it is true but trivial to say
that "kind" and "wise" are reciprocally antag-
onistic pairs (i.e., the Y minus X characteristics
of a concept cannot be both Y and X directed,
though the concept itself can be). Specifically,
the consideration of single-marking instructions
and the denning of the neutral category as
"equally X and Y" allow (force?) an individual
to cognitively redefine each of the scale
positions as follows:
(—3) extremely more X (3) extremely more Y
thanY than X
(—2) quite more X (2) quite more Y
thanY than X
(—1) slightly more X (1) slightly more Y
thanY than X
(0) equally X and Y (of which "neither X nor Y"
is a special case)
Thus, the SD instructions, while intended to
sidestep the concept of ambivalence, seem in
actuality to have allowed it to creep in, un-
measured, at every scale point and perhaps
affect directional attitudinal markings as well.
What is needed is a modification of the SD
technique that will allow the isolation of the
ambivalence factor in attitude.
As a rough definition, Roger Brown's (1965)
view of ambivalence as "mixed feelings,"
positive and negative sentiments concentrated
on the same object will suffice. Qualification of
ambivalence, however, requires a more precise
working definition. A lead to this effect is pro-
vided by J. Brown and Farber (1951) in their
discussion of conflict theory. Basically, they
suggested that both the absolute and relative
strengths of the competing tendencies (i.e.,
approach and avoidance tendencies) are im-
portant. Applying their reasoning to the area of
attitudes, Scott (1966) argued that the greater
and the more equal the opposite tendencies
(i.e., the favorable and unfavorable com-
ponents) the higher is the degree of ambiv-
alence. This working definition demands a
technique that allows the separate measure-
ment of the Y and X components. Such a pro-
cedure has markedly different demands than
that required to simply test for the bipolarity or
reciprocal antagonism of XY pairs. The latter
procedure is exemplified by the previously cited
single-adjective technique (Green & Goldfried,
1965) and involves only the gross test for the
presence or absence of ambivalence without
any attempt at its quantification.
Single-Adjective Scale Technique
Instead of using the standard SD scale that
is comprised of adjectival opposites (e.g.,
good-bad), Green and Goldfried measured the
conative meaning of concepts by means of
single-adjective scales (e.g., good and bad).
They did this by having individuals rate a
concept according to whether the scale was
positively or negatively related to it. However,
for the usual SD scale, only one check mark was
allowed. Specifically, the instructions have
been described in detail:
If you feel that the descriptive adjective (e.g., good) is
very positively related to the word at the top of the
page, you should place your check mark as follows:
: : : : : :V
Or, if it is very negatively related, then:
V : : : : :
If the descriptive adjective is quite positively (but not
extremely) related to the word, then:
: : : : : V :
Or, if it is quite negatively related, then:
: V : : : :
If the descriptive adjective seems only slightly posi-
tively related (but is not really neutral) to the word,
then:
: : : : V : :
Or, if it is only slightly negatively related, then:
: : V : : : :
If you consider the word to be neutral on the adjective
scale, or not at all related to the word, then you should
place your check mark in the middle space [Green &
Goldfried, 1965, p. 5].
As reported earlier, the criteria Green and
Goldfried used for bipolarity of XY adjectival
 AMBIVALENCE VERSUS
pairs are predicated on high negativity in corre-
lation between the X and Y single-adjective
responses. Green and Goldfried couch their
criteria in more factor-analytic language:
If the semantic differential scales, and therefore also
semantic space, are actually bipolar, several correla-
tional and factorial results should follow. For example,
factor analyses of sets of single-adjective scales, each
constructed from the same bipolar adjectival scale,
should have equal but opposite loadings on the same
factor. To illustrate, consider the good-bad scale,
which has been found to have a .88 loading on the
evaluative factor (Osgood et al., 1957). If the bipolarity
assumption is valid, one would expect the good scale
to have a loading of approximately .88 on the evalu-
ative dimension and the bad scale to have a mirror-
image loading—that is, —.88 [Green & Goldfried,
1965, p. 4].
The rationale behind these criteria seems to
be as follows: to the extent that XY adjectival
pairs are perceived as bipolar, individuals will
tend to implicitly insert Y at the open end of
the X single-adjective scale and X at the open
end of the Y scale. For example, if an individual
perceives good and bad as reciprocally antago-
nistic adjectives vis-a-vis a concept, he would
tend to treat as a bipolar good-bad scale both
the good and bad single-adjective scales (the
good and bad responses should be negatively
correlated). To the extent that good and bad
are not perceived as reciprocally antagonistic,
an individual's single-adjective good and bad
responses should tend to be relatively inde-
pendent of one another (i.e., they should be
uncorrelated). Two explanations seem reason-
able. Either the individual might treat both
single-adjective scales as unipolar or implicitly
define their open ends with other adjectives he
might view as reciprocally antagonistic (e.g.,
denning evil as the opposite of good).
In no sense, however, can this above tech-
nique be viewed as capable of separately
diagnosing the individual's X and Y com-
ponents making up any overall (net) XY rating
and thus the amount of this ambivalence. This
is true because the single adjectival X and Y
ratings are hopelessly confounded with the
question of XY reciprocal antagonism. What is
needed is a technique that allows separate
diagnosis of the X and Y components in-
herent in any overall XY rating independent 4
To give face meaning to the notion of positive and
of the relation of the members of the XY pairs negative components, the bipolar scales always run
to one another. from —3 to +3 treating 0 as the neutral point.
INDIFFERENCE 365
Attitudinal Component Technique: A Modifica-
tion of the Semantic Differential
To briefly summarize up to this point, we
have argued that the combination of single-
marking instructions and double definition of
the neutral category allow (force?) an indi-
vidual to cognitively redefine each of the
single SD scale positions into net (Y minus X)
judgments. We have further argued that the
measurement of ambivalence requires a tech-
nique that will separate the X and Y compo-
nents inherent in any overall (net) attitudinal
response. Green and Goldfried's single-adjec-
tive scale technique for testing bipolarity has
been rejected as an ambivalence measurement
on the grounds that it fails to clearly isolate
X and Y components. Allowing double mark-
ing on the traditional semantic differential, an
alternative not previously discussed, can be
rejected on these same grounds. However, it
does suggest a modification of the SD tech-
nique designed specifically to separate out the
positive (Y) and negative (X) components
inherent in any bipolar attitudinal response.
The usual bipolar evaluative SD scales are
presented with typical instructions (i.e., single-
marking limitations plus dual definition of the
neutral category).4 In conjunction with these
scales, however, subjects can be independently
presented with unipolar positive and negative
component scales.
That the component technique is not simply
intended to generate single-adjective scales in
a slightly different guise (i.e., is devoted to
actually measuring X and Y components) is
evidenced in the instructions that emphasize
the ignoring of opposing characteristics in
each unipolar response. Specifically, the com-
ponent instructions are as follows: on the
positive component (Y) scale (i.e., the "liking"
scale), subjects are asked to make the following
judgment. Considering only the positive (Y)
qualities of a concept and ignoring its nega-
tive (X) ones, evaluate how positive (Y) its
positive (Y) qualities are on a 4-point unipolar
positive (Y) scale:
: : : Y
0 1
366 KALMAN J. KAPLAN
where the categories are defined as follows:
(0) not at all Y (zero Y)
(1) slightly Y
(2) quite Y
(3) extremely Y
On the negative component (X) scale (i.e., the
"disliking" scale), subjects are asked to make
the following judgment. Considering only a
concept's negative (X) qualities and ignoring
its positive (Y) ones, evaluate how negative
(X) its negative (X) qualities are on a 4-point
unipolar negative (X) scale:
X : : :
-3 -2 -1 0
where the categories are defined as follows:
(0) not at all X (zero X)
(-1) slightly X
( — 2) quite X
(—3) extremely X
Three independent measures are thus gener-
ated by this technique: first, the usual bipolar
attitude (.4), second, its positive or "liking"
component (Ap), and third, its negative or
"disliking" component (An). Before we turn
to the question of estimating ambivalence, it is
necessary to examine the stability of these
measures and their interrelationships. Let us
turn to the first consideration. Reliability
coefficients for A, A,,, and An have been
obtained over a variety of "real attitude
objects" (i.e., objects with naturally existent
cognitive supports) for six independent samples
ranging in size from 67 to 236. For each sample,
correlations are calculated across subjects and
objects. Test-retest reliabilities range from .81
to .93 for each of the three scores (regardless of
the exact nature of the underlying evaluative
scale)6 significant at well beyond the .001 level
and indicative of a high degree of stability.
6
While this technique seems applicable to any seman-
tic dimension, it is the evaluative dimension, of course,
which is relevant to the question of attitudinal ambiv-
alence. Various evaluative scales generated all the
data presented in this article—for example, Fishbein
and Raven's A scales (containing the scales good-bad,
clean-dirty, harmful-beneficial, healthy-sick, and wise-
foolish), the good-bad scale alone, and the like-dislike
scale. As the intercorrelations between each pair of
scales consistently exceeded .80, data deriving from
any or all of these scales will be treated equivalently—
that is, simply labeled as A, A p, or A „.
The question of the interrelationships be-
tween A, Ap, and An is more complex. Let us
examine the Ap~An relationship first. Though
these two component scores are independently
measured, it is by no means certain that sub-
jects are capable of making component rather
than single-adjective judgments (i.e., are
capable of ignoring negative qualities while
making positive judgments, and vice versa).
In their single-adjective technique, Green and
Goldfried (1965) offered a negative inter-
correlation as the test for reciprocal antagonism
between XY pairs (i.e., for no ambivalence in
the case of evaluatively loaded pairs). To the
extent that subjects treat A p and A n as single-
adjective scores, they too should be negatively
intercorrelated. Zero correlations, on the other
hand, would indicate that A p and A n are truly
independent component scores (i.e., that the
potential exists for ambivalence).
The results (see Table 3) are quite gratifying
in this regard. For the same samples and atti-
tude objects used in the calculations of reli-
abilities (again objects with naturally exist-
ing cognitive structures), the correlations
between Ap and An ranged from —.13 to .28
(f — .05).6 In other words, subjects seem to be
capable of treating their component judgments
independently even when the component
scales are presented in close physical proximity
to each other. Informal self-reports from sub-
jects also indicate that they are, with little
difficulty, able to concentrate on one pole while
ignoring the other. That zero correlations are
obtained through the components technique
while negative correlations are obtained by the
single-adjective technique suggests the former
may represent a more appropriate test for even
the gross question as to the existence of ambiv-
alence independent of its quantitative
properties.
The contention that Ap and An actually
measure independent components is further
supported through examination of the under-
lying cognitive structure each of the measures
reflects. Table 1 presents correlations between
the directly obtained liking (Ap) and disliking
(An) components toward the attitude object
and the estimates of these components based,
respectively, on the simple number of positively
0
The average correlations are estimated through r to
z transformation.
 AMBIVALENCE VERSUS
and negatively loaded beliefs (i.e., amount of
positive and negative information) elicited by
subjects about the object. The results indicate
that while the number of positive (negative)
beliefs provides a moderately good average
estimate (f = .44, p < .01, in both cases) of
absolute liking (disliking), it provides only a
very weak average inverse estimate (f = — .16
and —.18, respectively) of absolute disliking
(liking).
A second question of concern involves the
relative influence of A p and A „ in the determi-
nation of A and the extent of the correspon-
dence between A and its best component
prediction. A noted attitude theorist, Jordan
(1965), has criticized an oversimplified "push-
pull" model of attitudes and suggested that
positivity and negativity may work in different
ways. In like manner, several generations of
linguists (e.g., Bierwisch, 1967; Greenberg,
1966; Lyons, 1963, 1968; Sapir, 1944) have
observed that word pairs like good and bad are
not symmetrical because of differential lexical
markings. They argue that good, the unmarked
member of the pair, can be neutralized in some
contexts as in "How good was the movie?"
whereas bad, the marked term, cannot (see
Clark, 1969). The implication for the present
problem, of course, is differential weighting
for the A p and A n components in the determi-
nation of A. The evidence collected up to this
point on a variety of attitude objects for each
of the six samples described above, however,
suggests a large range in the influence of both
Ap (r = - .15 to .59) and An (r = - .04 to
.56) on A. Thus, either component seems
capable of being either the dominant determi-
nant of overall attitude or, at times, even a mild
suppressant variable. In line with these results,
a multiple regression analysis suggests both
equal weighting of Av and An and a high
correspondence between their unweighted sum
(A' = Ap + An) and A (r = .89 to .97,
p < .001).
Thus, the independently derived A score
can be tentatively interpreted as the simple
unweighted net summary of the Ap and An
components (A «* ^4')' A positive A indicates
that, overall, the concept is more liked than it
is disliked, a negative A indicates the opposite,
while a zero A indicates that the liking and
disliking components are equal. The presen-
INDIFFERENCE 367
TABLE 1
AVERAGE CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ABSOLUTE
ATTITUDE COMPONENTS AND NUMBER OF
SUPPORTING BELIEFS
Number of
beliefs AP An
.44** -.18**
Positive (.31* to .52**) (-.11 to -.23)
-.16** .44**
Negative (-.02 to -.37**) (.32*^.51**)
Note.—Ranges are in parentheses. These correlations were
calculated across subjects and objects for each of three inde-
pendently measured samples ranging in size from 67 to 172
(total N = 320). A significance test for each of these correla-
tions is based on the respective sample size it is calculated on.
The average correlations, in contrast, are calculated through
r to z transformations and based on 311 degrees of freedom
(see McNemar, 1962, p. 140).
* p < .05.
**p <.01.
tation of the bipolar SD scale, of course,
becomes superfluous as it is possible to diagnose
it from the component scores. In the remainder
of this article, in any case, no distinction is
made between A and A' = Ap + An.
Attitude Component Model: The Development of
N ondirectional Attitude Indexes
The foundation of our component technique
laid, let us turn to the problem of developing
an index of ambivalence and a model wherein
such an index can be directly interpreted. To
begin with, the demonstration of the relative
independence of the Ap and An components
and the high correspondence between their
unweighted sum and A, the overall attitude,
allow us to draw Ap and An as orthogonal
dimensions. Thus, in Figure 1, Ap is repre-
sented by the ordinate and Anby the abscissa
allowing the representation of every attitude
object by a point in the 2-space (An,Ap). If
the two components are scaled with equal
units, the 45-degree line corresponds to a zero
marking on the bipolar SD scale and can be
labeled the line of ambivalence (A = Ap
+ An = 0). Three nondirectional attitude
measures become directly interpretable around
this line: total affect (TA), polarization (POL),
and ambivalence (AMB).
Of these three indexes, TA is the most
inclusive, referring simply to the total amount
of affect directed toward the object regardless
of sign. It is calculated through summing the
absolute values of the liking and disliking
368 KALMAN J. KAPLAN
1-3,0) 1-2,01
\n (Disliking Component)
p
b
TA=Ap+|Anl
I* '
POL=|A|
AMB-TA-POL
FIG. 1. A geometrical representation of the attitude component model.
components (TA = Ap + \An ) 7 and is easily
interpretable via the components model pre-
sented in Figure 1. The origin (0,0) is the only
point on the line of ambivalence wherein an
interpretation of "no affect" or indifference is
justified (TA=Ap+\An = 0 ) . All other
points on this line, in contrast, indicate that
an individual does possess both positive and
negative affect—the farther out along the line
the greater the affect—which happen to cancel
out in net terms (A =0).
For points on the line of ambivalence (i.e.,
whenever ^ 4 = 0 ) , TA serves as a good indi-
cator of ambivalence (i.e., the total amounts of
liking and disliking completely cancel out).
Clearly, however, the component model is not
limited to the line of ambivalence. It is in-
tended to describe all points in the 2-space, the
projection of every attitude object falling on
' As A p > 0 and A „ < 0, placing an absolute value
around A? is superfluous.
10,11
10,21 £.
in
•10,01
/ 'V
some line (A = a) parallel to the line of ambiv-
alence—a equals zero for the line of ambiv-
alence. When the positive component of an
attitude is greater than its negative component,
A is positive and the point representing that
attitude will fall above the line of ambivalence
(the 45-degree line). When the opposite is
true, A is negative and the point will fall below
the line of ambivalence. Perpendicular to the
family of A lines (A = a) lies the family of TA
lines (TA = f). Every attitude score can be
described as lying on the intersection of a line
from the TA family with a line from the A
family. TA does not itself provide a good
index of ambivalence for points not falling on
the line of ambivalence. Though the individual
may possess both positive and negative affect,
the nonzero net attitude indicates that the two
components do not completely cancel out.
Thus, TA contains two distinct segments—
AMB or the amount of exactly counterbalanc-
 AMBIVALENCE VERSUS INDIFFERENCE 369

ing positive and negative affect, and POL or TABLE 2

the absolute value of the directional residual. HYPOTHETICAL Af-An COMBINATIONS AND THEIK
For the line of ambivalence, POL is zero and EFFECTS ON OTHER ATTITUDINAL INDEXES
AMB = TA. For other points, however,
A MB = TA - POL. An (Disliking) A, (Liking)
0 i 2 3
In other words, for a neutral SD response,
AMB represents the total underlying affect 0 A" 0 1 2 3
(TA). For nonneutral responses, however, TAh 0 1 2 3
POL" 0 1 2 3
AMB represents only one segment of TA; an AMB* 0 0 0 0
independent contribution is provided by the
absolute value of the directional score itself -1 A -1 0 1 2
(POL). TA 1 2 3 4
Further examination of Figure 1 provides a POL 1 0 1 2
AMB 0 2 2 2
geometrical interpretation of each of these
indexes. A perpendicular may be dropped from _2 A -2 -1 0 1
any attitude point in the 2-space to the axis TA 2 3 4 5
(ordinate or abscissa) on the opposite side of POL 2 1 0 1
AMB 0 2 4 4
the line of ambivalence. The length of this
perpendicular from the attitude point to its -3 A -3 -2 -1 0
intersection with the line of ambivalence TA 3 4 5 6
represents an index of the POL of this point POL 3 2 1 0
AMB 0 2 4 6
while the length of the line of ambivalence
itself from the intersection to the origin repre- -A ~A'
sents a rough index of its AMB derivative. TA, >>TA ~A, + \A,\.
"POL = \A\.
of course, is denned as the sum of the direct line o- AMB = TA - POL.
between the attitude point and the origin.8
The relationships between these indexes may and AMB (its two contributors), while they
be formally summarized as follows : themselves must be negatively related. Under
A~A' = Ap + An [1] high POL, little AMB can occur. Under high
AMB, little POL can occur. Under moderate
TA=Av+\An\ [2] ranges, however, both AMB and POL can
occur. The empirical question, of course, is the
POL= \A\ [3] relative occurrence of A -A combinations as
p n
AMB = TA - POL [4] naturally existing states and their effects on the
interrelationships of the other indexes (e.g.,
It can be seen that POL = A f + A „ and whether POL or AMB is the more important
An\ - A An. Thus, if contributor to TA).
A j , = - An, A and POL = 0 and TA = AMB. As previously reported, Table 3 indicates
If either Ap or An = 0, AMB = 0 and the relative independence of the A,, and An
TA = POL. A more complete delineation of components. As expected, TA, POL, and AMB
the effects of hypothetical Ap-An combina- are all relatively independent of directional
tions on TA, POL, and AMB is presented in attitude (A) (f = - .12, -.07, and -.10,
Table 2. Theoretically, at least, A can vary respectively; df — 737 in all cases), yet mod-
somewhat independently of TA, POL, and erately related to the absolute values of both
AMB. The latter three indexes, because of the liking (Ap) (f = .71, .45, and .54, respectively;
dependent nature of their derivations, must be 'p < .01 in all cases) and disliking (An)
somewhat interrelated— specifically, TA must (f = .60, 54, and .35, respectively; df = 737,
be somewhat positively related to both POL p < .01 in all cases). It should be noted,
8 however, that a considerable range in each of
The length of these latter two lines, as any student
of geometry is already aware, represents underestimates these correlations obtains across the six
of A MB and TA . These estimates are used for simplicity samples. The variability seems primarily a
in presentation. function of the relative strengths of the Ap and
370 KALMAN J. KAPLAN

TABLE 3
AVERAGE INTEKCORRELATIONS OF ATTITUDE COMPONENT INDEXES

Measure At An TA AMB POL

A .28** -.32** -.12** -.07 -.10*

(-.15, .71**) (-.67**, .04) (-.47**, .22) (-.36**, .18) (-.48**, .24)
A, -.05 .71** .45** .54**
(-.28*, .13) (.60**, .90**) (.29*, .62**) (.44**, .70**)
An .60** .54** .35**
(.41**, .80**) (.38**, .71**) (.08, .42**)
TA .55** .54**
(.35, .75**) (.38, .64**)
AMB -.40**
(.32*, -.49**)
POL
Note. — Ranges are in parentheses. These correlations were calculated across subjects and objects for each of six independently
measured samples ranging in size from 67 to 236 (total N = 755). A significance test for each of these correlations is based on the
respective sample size it is calculated on. The average correlations, in contrast, are calculated through r to a transformations and
, 140).
* p < .05.
** p < .01.

An components across objects. The objects
themselves consist of ethnic categories, insti-
tutions, current events, and specific persons.
Internal analysis suggests some general though
by no means exceptionless tendencies. For
specific people and ethnic categories, "warm is
the norm" (little An); for institutions, in
contrast, the opposite pattern seems to hold
(little Ap)—this is hardly surprising as our
subjects are predominantly students in their
late teens or early twenties. The remaining
category, current events, seems to be treated
more evenhandedly (eliciting both A p and A „).
Though no one sample contains a monopoly
on any one type of attitude object, the rela-
tive occurrence of the various types (specifically
ethnic categories versus institutions) does
TABLE 4
AVERAGE CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ATTITUDINAL
INDEXES AND NUMBER OF SUPPORTING BELIEFS
Measure Total number of beliefs Range
A .06 .04-.07
TA .35* .12-51*
POL .07 .01-.14
AMB .30* .02 -.45*
differ markedly across categories in a manner
consistent with this pattern. In line with
these results are the relative contributions of
POL and AMB to TA (ranging from .35 to
.75 for AMB and from .38 to .64 for POL). It is
true but trivial to point out that with objects
eliciting high polarization and low ambivalence,
POL becomes the more important contributor
to TA. For highly ambivalence-producing
objects, AMB becomes the more important
contributor.
As the reader will no doubt recall, the
validity of the A p and A „ scores as components
was buttressed by examination of their re-
spective cognitive supports (i.e., number of
positive and negative beliefs). In like manner,
such analyses were performed on A, TA, POL,
and AMB. The theoretical point of departure
derives from an observation by Brehm and
Cohen (1962).
It is generally assumed that as a person's attitude varies
from neutral in either direction, he is likely to have
increasing amounts of relevant information [greater
number of beliefs] about the issue. We hasten to point
out, however, that this correlation does not necessarily
hold, since it is perfectly possible for a person to have a
"neutral" position because he possesses conflicting
information. [Brehm & Cohen, 1962, p. 14].

Note.—These correlations were calculated across subjects
and objects for each of three independently measured samples
ranging in size from 67 to 172 (total N = 320). A significance
test for each of these correlations is based on the respective
sample size it is calculated on. The average correlations, in
contrast, are calculated through Y to z transformations and
based on 311 degrees of freedom (see McNemar, 1962, p. 140).
* <.01.
The implication of this suggestion for the
components model is straightforward. While
number of beliefs should be directly related to
TA and AMB indexes, which do not cancel out
conflicting attribute evaluations, it should be
 AMBIVALENCE
relatively unrelated to A and POL. The re-
sults in Table 4 indicate that this indeed seems
to be the case for naturally existing objects,
though the results again are variable across
samples, highly polarized objects tending to
raise the correlations of A and POL with
number of beliefs and lower its correlation
with TA and A MB. This trend is even more
pronounced when the number of beliefs and the
extremity of their evaluative loadings are
under experimental control, initial results
suggesting that the presentation of sets of
highly polarized but directionally balanced
attributes (varying in size from 6 to 12) gener-
ates greater TA and AMB toward an abstract
cipher than equally sized, directionally balanced
attribute sets of lesser polarization (p < .01
in both cases). Both sets of attributes, however,
tend to produce near neutral directional atti-
tudes (^4) and polarizations (POL}.
One application of the component technique
should be mentioned in closing. In an investi-
gation of the contact hypothesis (see Amir,
1969; Heider, 1958; Newcomb, 1961), the
author, along with several colleagues9 ob-
tained A p and A „ as well as A measures. Their
results supported a predicted interaction on
overall attitude (A) between the formality-
informality of an attitude object and the degree
of expected contact with it. Specifically,
subjects' attitudes became less favorable over-
all toward the formal object and more favorable
overall toward the informal object with in-
creasing potential for contact (decreasing
distance) (F = 29.39, df = 3/627, p < .001).
Analysis of the liking (Ap) and disliking (An)
gradients enabled us to pinpoint the locus of
these effects. Subjects' liking remained rela-
tively constant with decreasing distance to the
formal object but tended to increase with
nearness to the informal object (/*' = 12.68,
df = 2/627, p < .001). On the other hand,
subjects' disliking increased with nearness to
the formal object, while remaining relatively
constant with decreasing distance from the
9
The study originally reporting these results, "Atti-
tude Object Formality-Informality and Resultant
Attitude Gradient Slopes," was prepared by the author
in conjunction with Ira Firestone, Melvin Kimmel, and
Richard Segan for presentation at the 1970 meeting of
the Eastern Psychological Association.
VERSUS INDIFFERENCE 371
informal object (F = 12.95, df = 2/627,
p < .001).
In the context of this particular study, the
results tend to support a little-noted suggestion
that neither positive nor negative feeling is
likely to decrease with increased contact (Park
& Burgess, 1927, p. 283). Of more general
importance, however, is the evidence that the
component technique allows us to distinguish
between increasing liking (disliking) and de-
creasing disliking (liking) as the source of
positive (negative) attitude change.
REFERENCES
ALLPORT, G. Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Hand-
book of social psychology, Worcester, Mass.: Clark
University Press, 1935.
AMIR, Y. Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 1969, 71, 319-342.
BASS, A. R., & ROSEN, H. Some potential moderator
variables in attitude research. l<Aucational and
Psychological Measurement, 1969, 29, 331-348.
BIERWISCH, M. Some semantic universals of German
adjectivals. Foundations of Language, 1967, 3, 1-36.
BREHM, J. W., & COHEN, A. R. Explorations in cogni-
tive dissonance. New York: Wiley, 1962.
BROWN, J., & FARBER, I. Emotions conceptualized as
intervening variables with suggestions toward a
theory of frustration. Psychological Bulletin, 1951,
48, 465-495.
BROWN, R. Social psychology. New York: The Free
Press, 1965.
CLARK, H. H. Influence of language on solving three-
term series problems. Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology, 1969, 82, 205-215.
FISHBEIN, M. An investigation of the relations between
beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that
object. Human Relations, 1963, 16, 233-279.
FISHBEIN, M. A consideration of beliefs, attitudes, and
their relationships. In I. D. Steiner & M. Fishbein
(Eds.), Current studies in social psychology. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965.
FISHBEIN, M. A consideration of beliefs and their role
in attitude measurement. In M. Fishbein (Ed.),
Readings in attitude theory and measurement. New
York: Wiley, 1967.
GREEN, R. F., & GOUMRIED, M. R. On the bipolarity
of semantic space. Psychological Monographs, 1965,
79 (6, Whole No. 599).
GREENBERG, J. H. Language universals. The Hague:
Mouton, 1966.
HEIDER, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations,
New York: Wiley, 1958.
HEISE, D. R. Some methodological issues in semantic
differential research. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 72,
406-422.
HERZBERG, F., MAUSNER, B., & SNYDERMAN, B. B. The
motivation to work. New York: Wiley, 1959.
372 KALMAN J. KAPLAN

JORDAN, N. The "asymmetry" of "liking" and "dis-
liking" : A phenomenon meriting further reflection
and research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1965, 29,
315-322.
K.OMORITA, S. S., & BASS, R. R. Attitudes differenti-
ation and evaluative scales of the semantic differ-
ential. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1967, 6, 241-244.
LYONS, J. Structural semantics. Oxford: Blackwell, 1963.
LYONS, J. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968.
McNEMAR, Q. Psychological statistics. New York: Wiley,
1962.
NEWCOMB, T. M. The acquaintance process. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1961.
OSGOOD, C. E., Sucr, G. J., & TANNENBAUM, P. 11.
The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press, 1957.
PARK, R. E., & BURGESS, E. W. Introduction to the
science of sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1927.
ROSENBERG, M. J. Cognitive structure and attitudinal
affect. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1956, 53, 367-372.
ROSENBERG, M. J. A structural theory of altitude dy-
namics. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1960, 24, 319-340.
SAPIR, E. Grading: A study in semantics. Philosophy of
Science, 1944, 11, 93-116.
SCOTT, W. A. Brief report: Measures of cognitive
structure. Multivariale Behavior Research, 1, 1966,
391-395. (Abstract)
SCOTT, W. A. Attitude measurement. Tn G. Lindzey &
E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology.
Vol. 2. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley, 1968.
SMITH, R. G. A semantic differential for theatre con-
cepts. Speech Monographs, 1961, 28, 1-8.
WIGGINS, N., & FISHBEIN, M. Dimensions of semantic
space'. A problem of individual difference. In J. G.
Snider & C. E. Osgood (Eds.), Semantic differential
technique: A sourcebook. Chicago: Aldine, 1969.
(Received August 11, 1970)

NOTICE TO AUTHORS
In response to a request from the APA Publications Board, the selected reviewers
of Psychological Bulletin have agreed to participate in a blind reviewing system.
An effort will be made to insure that the individuals who review manuscripts will
have no information regarding the identity of the author or of the institution with
which the author is affiliated.
Authors submitting manuscripts to Psychological Bulletin are requested to include
with each copy of the manuscript a cover sheet, which contains the title of the manu-
script, the name of the author or authors, and the author's institutional affiliation.
The date the manuscript is submitted also should appear on the cover sheet. The
first page of the manuscript should not contain the author's name or institutional
affiliation and should contain the title of the manuscript and the date it is submitted.
Footnotes containing information pertaining to the identity of the author or his
institutional affiliation should be on separate pages. Every effort should be made by
the author to see that the manuscript itself contains no clues as to his identity.
The selected reviewers are not aware that knowledge of the author's identity pre-
viously has influenced their judgments, but they recognize this as a possibility, and
the blind review system therefore is being initiated.
Authors are requested to use the proposed format immediately, and manuscripts
received after July 1, 1972, that do not conform to these suggestions will be returned
to the author.