The present research examined whether consideration of individuals' certainty in their holism can enhance the ability of this individual difference to predict how they respond to contradiction‐relevant outcomes. Across four studies, participants first completed a standardized measure of holistic‐analytic thinking. Then, they rated how certain they were in their responses to the holism scale or were experimentally induced to feel high or low certainty. Next, participants were exposed to dialectical proverbs (Study 1a and 1b), to a counter‐attitudinal change induction (Study 2), or to a paradigm of attitudinal ambivalence (Study 3). Results revealed that participants with higher certainty in their holistic thinking exhibited higher preference for dialectical proverbs (Study 1a and 1b), changed their attitude less following a counter‐attitudinal task (Study 2) and showed weaker correspondence between objective and subjective ambivalence (Study 3). Beyond examining new domains and discovering novel findings, the present work was designed to be the first to show moderation of previously identified effects in the domain of holistic thinking and responses to contradiction.

中文翻译：

---

整体思维的确定性和矛盾反应：辩证谚语、反态度变化和矛盾心理


本研究探讨了考虑个体整体论的确定性是否可以增强这种个体差异预测他们如何应对矛盾相关结果的能力。在四项研究中，参与者首先完成了整体分析思维的标准化测量。然后，他们评估自己对整体论量表的反应的确定性，或者通过实验诱导感觉高确定性或低确定性。接下来，参与者接触辩证谚语（研究 1a 和 1b）、反态度变化诱导（研究 2）或矛盾态度范式（研究 3）。结果显示，整体思维确定性较高的参与者对辩证谚语表现出更高的偏好（研究 1a 和 1b），在完成反态度任务后态度变化较小（研究 2），并且客观和主观矛盾心理之间的对应性较弱（研究 3） ）。除了研究新领域和发现新发现之外，本研究还旨在首次展示对整体思维和矛盾反应领域先前确定的影响的调节。