WHEN DO INDIVIDUALS FEEL AMBIVALENT ABOUT AND ADVOCATE FOR HEALTH BEHAVIOURS?

Abstract

Past theorising posits that (1) the relationship between objective attitudinal ambivalence (OAA) and subjective ambivalence (SA) is moderated by individual difference variables, and (2) that the downstream consequences of OAA are mediated by SA. Using a correlational design, the present study explores the role of meta-bases as a moderator, and advocacy as a downstream consequence, of the relationship between intra-component conflict and SA. Participants completed self-report questionnaires with scale measures of intra-component conflict, meta-bases, SA, and advocacy for three health behaviours which were averaged to form indices for each individual. The results were analysed with a moderated-mediation model (Model 7) using the PROCESS Macro. The moderation hypothesis was partially supported, and meta-bases moderated the relationship between intra-cognition conflict (ICC) and SA, but not intra-affect conflict (IAC) and SA. The moderated mediation analysis also found that ICC had a negative direct effect on advocacy, but a positive indirect effect on advocacy through SA for individuals with relatively more cognitive-meta-bases, suggesting that OAA and SA may influence advocacy through different underlying mechanisms. The findings contribute to the extant literature on the causes and consequences of OAA and SA, and may inform interventions designed to increase the adoption and advocacy of health behaviours.