Effects of Message-Sidedness on Perceived Source Bias: When Presenting Two Sides Does Versus Does Not Alleviate Concerns About Bias.

Communicators commonly present two-sided messages to avoid being perceived as biased. This approach equates bias with one-sidedness rather than divergence from the position supported by available data. Messages often concern topics with mixed qualities: a product is exceptional but expensive; a politician is inexperienced but ethical. For these topics, providing a two-sided message should reduce perceived bias according to both views of bias as one-sidedness and divergence from available data. However, if perceived bias follows divergence from available data, for topics viewed as one-sided (univalent), a two-sided message should not reduce perceived bias. Across five studies, acknowledging two sides reduced perceived bias for novel topics. In two of the studies, two-sidedness no longer reduced perceived bias for topics viewed as univalent. This work clarifies that people conceptualize bias as a divergence from available data, not simply one-sidedness. It also clarifies when and how to leverage message-sidedness to reduce perceived bias.

Dampening affect via expectations: The case of ambivalence.

People often form attitudes based on a mixture of positive and negative information. This can result in mixed evaluative reactions that are associated with feeling conflicted and undecided (i.e., felt ambivalence). In the present research, we examined whether expectations of receiving mixed information could dampen felt ambivalence compared to situations where the mixed information was instead unexpected. In six experiments, expectancies of receiving mixed information-either explicitly provided or implied via patterns of behavior-led people to feel less ambivalent about a target person who had engaged in mixed social behaviors. Expectations of mixed information reduced felt ambivalence to receipt of such information in comparison to having no explicit expectancies (Studies 1-3, 5-6), negative expectancies (Study 2), positive expectancies (Study 3), and compared with expectancies formed merely on the basis of behavioral patterns (Study 4). The extent to which people felt that their expectancies of mixed information regarding the target were confirmed (vs. disconfirmed) significantly accounted for the reductions in felt ambivalence. Finally, lower felt ambivalence via manipulated expectations accounted for reduced decision time in a workplace simulation about recommending promotion or termination of an employee (Study 6). Overall, these findings bridge the extensive literatures in attitudes, social judgment, and expectations, showing that expecting mixed information can lead to reductions in felt ambivalence that have consequences for behavior. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).