Skip Navigation

International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2009 21(1):47-64; doi:10.1093/ijpor/edn053
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lee, F. L. F.
Right arrow Articles by Chan, J. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The World Association for Public Opinion Research. All rights reserved.

The Political Consequences of Ambivalence: The Case of Democratic Reform in Hong Kong

Francis L. F. Lee and Joseph Man Chan

Address correspondence to Francis Lee, School of Journalism and Communication, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sha Tin, N. T., Hong Kong, francis_lee{at}cuhk.edu.hk

Recent research has shown that attitudinal ambivalence has important implications on political attitudes and behavior. The concept holds one of the keys to understanding complicated and seemingly contradictory opinions of the public. This article examines ambivalence in public opinion regarding democratic reform in Hong Kong. Analysis of a representative survey (N = 600) shows that common citizens indeed have a significant degree of ambivalence toward the government's political reform bill proposed in 2005. Regarding consequences, objective ambivalence is shown to have greater predictive power than subjective ambivalence. The former relates negatively to attitude extremity and weakens the attitude–behavior linkage. However, contrary to the usual finding in the literature, objective ambivalence also relates positively to protest participation intention. The theoretical and social implications of the findings are discussed.

Received for publication June 29, 2007. Accepted for publication October 8, 2008.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.