ArticleScientific reports2026
The experience of recurring ambivalence and its relation to effortful problem-focused coping.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Disentangling the meat paradox: A comparative review of meat-related conflicts across dietary behaviours.The British journal of social psychology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ambivalent attitudes are a pervasive part of people’s lives, yet research has primarily examined isolated instances of ambivalence without considering its persistence across time. The present research addresses this temporal dimension of ambivalence and how it shapes coping efforts. We propose that frequently recurring ambivalence motivates individuals to engage in more effortful coping because they (a) appraise the recurrence as aversive and (b) seek to prevent future reexperiences of ambivalence-induced discomfort. Study 1 revealed variability in how frequently people experience ambivalence across various personal topics, attributable to attitude importance and individual differences. As hypothesized, perceptions of recurrence amplified the correlation between felt ambivalence and effortful problem-focused coping, but without a role of dispositional future-oriented thinking. Study 2 further substantiated this interaction by employing a quasi-experimental design that varied felt ambivalence and recurrence across personal topics, suggesting a role of negative appraisals of recurring ambivalence in its motivational effect on coping. Study 3 employed a decision-making task and manipulated ambivalence and expectations of its future recurrence, yielding no significant interaction effect on effortful information seeking. Taken together, recurring ambivalence is a widespread and often unpleasant experience, and our studies (N = 1,672) provide tentative support for the notion that the discomfort of reexperiencing ambivalence (but not heightened expectations of future recurrence) increases the motivation to engage in more effortful resolution attempts. A temporal perspective offers novel implications for understanding the nature of ambivalence and its consequences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.