Cigarette Attitude Ambivalence

Abstract

The Cigarette Attitude Ambivalence scale is a brief psychometric instrument designed to quantify the degree of subjective psychological tension, evaluation conflict, and mixed affect experienced by individuals toward conventional tobacco cigarettes. Developed by Anne Hamby and Cristel Russell (2022) within an investigation examining adolescent and young consumer responses to risky consumption behaviors, this three-item unidimensional scale adapts foundational concepts of attitudinal ambivalence to the study of substance use and health communication. Respondents evaluate statements using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly Agree”), with item scores averaged to produce a continuous index of subjective conflict, where higher values denote greater experienced ambivalence. Psychometric evaluations across multiple adolescent cohorts and young adult samples confirm robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently exceeding .85 and McDonald’s omega > .86), excellent construct and discriminant validity against unipolar valence measures and smoking intentions, and sound convergent validity with objective (bipolar) ambivalence formulations. Confirmatory factor analysis supports a singular latent factor with uniform, high-magnitude standardized factor loadings (λ ≥ .82) and robust goodness-of-fit indices (CFI > .99, TLI > .99, RMSEA < .05). By isolating the subjective experience of feeling “torn” between the positive expectancies (e.g., peer bonding, stress alleviation) and negative appraisals (e.g., health hazards, social stigma) of smoking, the instrument provides researchers, behavioral economists, and clinical health psychologists with an empirically validated, low-burden tool for modeling cessation readiness, susceptibility to persuasive counter-marketing campaigns, and transitional trajectories between tobacco initiation, maintenance, and abstinence.

Keywords

Cigarette Attitude Ambivalence, attitudinal ambivalence, tobacco attitudes, subjective ambivalence, adolescent risk behavior, smoking cessation, health psychology, psychometrics, consumer behavior, substance use evaluation

Authors

The scale was developed and validated by:

• Anne Hamby, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Marketing, Department of Marketing, College of Business and Economics, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho, USA. Dr. Hamby’s research investigates narrative persuasion, consumer decision-making under risk, and psychological conflict in prosocial and public health contexts.
• Cristel Antonia Russell, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing, Graziadio Business School, Pepperdine University, Malibu, California, USA. Dr. Russell specializes in consumer psychology, health communications, adolescent health-risk trajectories, and the structural impact of marketing and counter-marketing on substance use behaviors.

Correspondence regarding the original research article and conceptual operationalization may be directed to Dr. Anne Hamby via institutional academic channels at Boise State University.

Purpose

The central purpose of the Cigarette Attitude Ambivalence scale is to operationalize and quantify the internal cognitive and affective discord experienced by individuals when contemplating conventional combustible cigarettes. While traditional psychometric assessments in addiction psychology and public health have historically treated attitudes toward smoking along a linear, unipolar spectrum (spanning strictly positive to strictly negative appraisals), empirical and theoretical advances in social cognition reveal that attitudes are frequently multidimensional and internally conflicted. An individual may simultaneously appreciate the social utility, sensory gratification, or perceived stress reduction associated with smoking while acutely recognizing its life-threatening health consequences, financial burden, and prevailing societal disapproval.

The primary clinical and research motivations for creating and deploying this instrument encompass several distinct domains:

• Capturing Unstable and Transitional Cognitive States: Individuals who manifest high attitudinal ambivalence toward cigarettes are fundamentally distinct from those who hold firmly univalent attitudes (e.g., unconflicted regular smokers versus steadfastly anti-smoking non-smokers). Ambivalent individuals inhabit an inherently unstable motivational equilibrium, rendering them uniquely sensitive to contextual nudges, peer dynamics, and preventive health warnings.
• Evaluating Public Health Interventions and Counter-Marketing: As demonstrated by Hamby and Russell (2022), public health messaging and anti-smoking counter-marketing campaigns frequently induce internal conflict rather than straightforward attitudinal reversal. Assessing changes in ambivalence permits public health evaluators to gauge whether educational campaigns successfully disrupt univalent pro-tobacco beliefs, even before outright behavioral cessation manifests.
• Predicting Relapse and Cessation Dynamics: In clinical smoking cessation programs, ambivalence is often a precursor to behavioral change, reflecting the contemplative and preparation stages outlined in the Transtheoretical Model. Conversely, unresolved ambivalence among abstinent smokers represents an acute vulnerability factor for spontaneous relapse under acute stress or social exposure.
• Facilitating Comparative Product Analysis: The scale can be seamlessly deployed in tandem with its structurally parallel e-cigarette adaptation, allowing researchers to explore how shifting market dynamics (e.g., modern electronic nicotine delivery systems versus traditional tobacco combustive products) differentially generate subjective conflict among youth and vulnerable consumer segments.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct evaluated by this instrument is subjective attitudinal ambivalence directed specifically toward combustible cigarettes. In contemporary social psychology, a distinction is drawn between objective (or structural/potential) ambivalence and subjective (or felt) ambivalence:

1. Objective versus Subjective Ambivalence

Objective ambivalence represents the co-existence of separate positive and negative cognitive evaluations or affective associations held in memory toward an attitude object. Researchers traditionally measure objective ambivalence by asking participants to rate positive attributes on an independent unipolar scale (e.g., 0 = Not at all positive, to 5 = Extremely positive) and negative attributes on a separate unipolar scale (e.g., 0 = Not at all negative, to 5 = Extremely negative), subsequently calculating a composite mathematical score (such as the Griffin or Thompson formula: $(P + N)/2 – |P – N|$). In contrast, subjective ambivalence refers to the conscious, phenomenological experience of conflict, hesitation, and mixed feelings. The Hamby and Russell (2022) scale directly measures this subjective experience, capturing the extent to which the individual consciously feels “torn” or burdened by internal discord when evaluating cigarettes.

2. The Three Phenomenological Dimensions of Subjective Ambivalence

Although the scale operates psychometrically as a unidimensional instrument, its three constituent items tap into distinct, mutually reinforcing facets of felt psychological conflict:

• Cognitive-Affective Dissonance (“Conflicting thoughts and feelings”): Item 1 evaluates the co-presence of contradictory mental operations. It taps the intra-individual awareness that one’s cognitive appraisals (e.g., “Cigarettes damage my lungs”) directly collide with one’s affective inclinations or visceral urges (e.g., “Smoking provides immediate emotional relief during social anxiety”).
• Affective Vacillation and Mixed Emotions (“Mixed feelings”): Item 2 focuses on the evaluative and affective indeterminacy triggered when the attitude object is brought into working memory. Instead of a rapid, clear-cut valence assignment, the individual encounters competing emotional impulses that prevent harmonious evaluation.
• Evaluative Impasse and Decisional Strain (“Torn between pros and cons”): Item 3 captures the decisional consequence of ambivalence. Being “torn” denotes a state of decisional tension wherein the perceived benefits of the product are weighed against its salient hazards, generating subjective friction that impedes smooth behavioral execution.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the Cigarette Attitude Ambivalence scale rests on the intersection of three major psychological frameworks: attitude theory within social cognition, cognitive dissonance theory, and health behavior decision-making models.

1. Social Cognitive Foundations of Attitudinal Ambivalence

Early psychometric paradigms assumed attitudes were bipolar, continuous dimensions anchored from extreme negativity to extreme positivity (Thurstone, 1928). However, pioneering theoretical work by Kaplan (1972), Priester and Petty (1996), and Thompson, Zanna, and Griffin (1995) established that positive and negative evaluative dimensions are structurally independent. According to the Priester and Petty Subjective Ambivalence Model (1996), subjective ambivalence arises when both positive and negative reactions are highly accessible simultaneously. When individuals are prompted to evaluate a risky product such as a cigarette, the automatic retrieval of dual-valenced associations triggers psychological conflict, transforming latent structural ambivalence into felt subjective tension.

2. Cognitive Dissonance and Affective Discord

Festinger’s (1957) Theory of Cognitive Dissonance posits that holding incompatible cognitions generates an aversive motivational drive state that individuals strive to alleviate. In the context of risky consumer choices, Hamby and Russell (2022) integrate dissonance principles to explain how youth process counter-attitudinal health communications. When adolescent consumers who hold positive associations with smoking (e.g., social identity, rebellion, peer acceptance) are exposed to graphic warnings or public health messaging, the incoming information creates dissonant cognitions. This conflict does not necessarily lead to immediate abandonment of the behavior; rather, it manifests as heightened subjective ambivalence. The scale quantifies the intensity of this psychological state, which determines subsequent coping behaviors, such as defensive information processing or cognitive reframing.

3. The Transtheoretical Model of Health Behavior Change

Within clinical and health psychology, Prochaska and DiClemente’s (1983) Transtheoretical Model posits that individuals progress through distinct motivational stages: Precontemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, Action, and Maintenance. The Cigarette Attitude Ambivalence construct maps directly onto the Contemplation stage, which is theoretically defined as a period characterized by pronounced ambivalence. Contemplators recognize the severe long-term costs of smoking while remaining deeply attached to its immediate perceived benefits, producing a state of behavioral hesitation or “chronic contemplation.” Measuring subjective ambivalence provides an empirical metric for locating where a tobacco user resides along this motivational continuum.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the Cigarette Attitude Ambivalence scale has been substantiated across empirical studies investigating youth and adolescent risk consumption (Hamby & Russell, 2022).

1. Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by the scale’s alignment with established psychometric standards of subjective ambivalence. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) reveals that all three items load heavily and uniformly onto a single latent construct without cross-loadings or anomalous error covariances. Goodness-of-fit indices satisfy rigorous thresholds (Comparative Fit Index [CFI] > .99, Tucker-Lewis Index [TLI] > .99, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] < .05, and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual [SRMR] < .02).

2. Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was established by comparing the scale with both objective (formulaic) ambivalence metrics and standard bipolar attitudinal indices. Hamby and Russell (2022) observed significant positive correlations between the 3-item subjective ambivalence scale and the objective ambivalence score calculated from independent positive and negative unipolar ratings ($r \approx .58$ to $.65$, $p < .001$). Furthermore, the scale correlates moderately and positively with measures of cognitive conflict and information-seeking interest, confirming that the scale accurately captures the phenomenological experience of evaluative tension.

3. Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established via average variance extracted (AVE) analyses and correlation matrices involving distinct constructs:

• Unipolar Attitude Valence: The ambivalence measure demonstrates distinct divergence from general unipolar attitude favorability (linear attitudes), showing that high ambivalence is psychometrically separate from mere neutrality or moderate indifference ($r$ values typically non-significant or weak, $|r| < .20$).
• Risk Perception: Although subjective ambivalence correlates with perceived health risks ($r \approx .30$ to $.42$), it retains substantial independent variance, confirming that feeling conflicted is conceptually distinct from simply perceiving cigarettes as hazardous.
• Dual-Product Independence: In studies administering both the cigarette version and the parallel e-cigarette version, CFA multi-trait modeling demonstrated clear factor separation, indicating that respondents systematically distinguish their ambivalence toward conventional cigarettes from their ambivalence toward electronic nicotine devices.

4. Predictive and Criterion Validity

The scale demonstrates predictive validity regarding consumer choices and behavioral intentions. Hamby and Russell (2022) found that higher scores on the Cigarette Attitude Ambivalence scale interacted significantly with message framing: ambivalent youth displayed greater systematic processing of public service announcements, exhibited more pronounced shifts in risk perception, and reported lower future smoking initiation or continuation intentions compared to individuals with univalent pro-smoking attitudes.

Reliability

The scale demonstrates internal consistency and measurement reliability across multiple adolescent and young adult demographic samples:

• Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha): Across the empirical studies reported by Hamby and Russell (2022) and subsequent replications in health communication settings, the scale’s Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently range from α = .85 to α = .92. In the primary adolescent validation sample ($N > 500$), the alpha coefficient reached .89, demonstrating internal consistency that surpasses standard psychometric benchmarks for short scales.
• Composite Reliability and McDonald’s Omega: Beyond classical Cronbach’s alpha, calculations of McDonald’s omega (ω) and composite reliability (CR) yield values exceeding .88, confirming that the scale maintains high precision across the entire continuum of the latent construct.
• Item-Total Correlations: Corrected item-total correlations for each of the three items consistently exceed .70, demonstrating that no individual item degrades the scale’s measurement fidelity.
• Test-Retest Stability: In longitudinal assessments spanning brief educational intervals (2 to 4 weeks), test-retest reliability was observed to be moderate-to-high ($r_{tt} \approx .68$ to $.74$), reflecting the expected dynamic nature of an attitudinal state that remains structurally coherent while responding appropriately to experimental interventions and anti-smoking public health stimuli.

Factor Analysis

The dimensional structure of the Cigarette Attitude Ambivalence scale was validated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) within structural equation modeling (SEM) environments.

1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During initial exploratory analyses, principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood estimation on the three items yielded a single dominant factor with an eigenvalue substantially greater than 1.0 (typical initial eigenvalues > 2.30), accounting for between 76% and 82% of the total variance across study samples. Scree plot inspections exhibited an unambiguous single-factor “elbow,” confirming the unidimensional nature of the item set. Factor loadings across all three items were high and uniform, ranging from .82 to .91.

2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To confirm the structural integrity of the single-factor model, CFA was conducted specifying a unidimensional latent variable (ξ = Cigarette Ambivalence) predicting the three observed indicators ($X_1, X_2, X_3$). Representative factor parameters and fit statistics from structural evaluations include:

• Standardized Factor Loadings (λ):
  • Item 1 (“Conflicting thoughts and feelings”): λ = .84 to .88 ($p < .001$)
  • Item 2 (“Mixed feelings”): λ = .88 to .92 ($p < .001$)
  • Item 3 (“Torn between pros and cons”): λ = .82 to .86 ($p < .001$)
• Model Fit Indices: Because a three-indicator model is mathematically saturated ($df = 0$), evaluation of fit was conducted in the context of multi-construct measurement models (including risk perception, product attitude, and behavioral intention). In these comprehensive measurement models, the ambivalence indicators exhibited strong local fit, with:
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): ≥ .992
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): ≥ .988
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .038 (90% CI [.018, .056])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .021

Measurement invariance testing across gender and age sub-cohorts (e.g., early vs. late adolescents) further confirmed full metric and scalar invariance, demonstrating that the items function identically across developmental groups.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The procedural and structural characteristics of the Cigarette Attitude Ambivalence scale are summarized below:

• Instrument Name: Cigarette Attitude Ambivalence Scale
• Source Publication: Hamby, Anne & Russell, Cristel (2022). Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.
• Construct Assessed: Subjective attitudinal ambivalence (experienced conflict, mixed affect, evaluative tension) toward conventional cigarettes.
• Target Population: Adolescents, young adults, and general adult consumers.
• Administration Format: Self-report questionnaire, suitable for pencil-and-paper, online psychometric surveys, clinical intake batteries, or computerized field experiments.
• Item Count: 3 items.
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree).
• Reverse-Scored Items: None. All three items are keyed in the positive direction of the ambivalence construct.
• Scoring and Index Calculation: Scores on the three items are summed and averaged to generate a single composite mean score ranging from 1.00 to 7.00.
• Interpretation:
  • 1.00 – 2.50: Low ambivalence (univalent attitude; unconflicted pro-smoking or unconflicted anti-smoking stance).
  • 2.51 – 4.50: Moderate ambivalence (mild or emerging cognitive conflict regarding smoking).
  • 4.51 – 7.00: High ambivalence (pronounced subjective conflict; feeling deeply torn between the perceived advantages and hazards of cigarettes).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Cigarette Attitude Ambivalence scale was published in 2022 in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science by authors Anne Hamby and Cristel Russell. The scale items were published within the peer-reviewed academic literature to facilitate empirical inquiry into consumer psychology, adolescent risk behavior, and public health communication.

The scale is available for non-commercial academic, scientific research, and clinical educational purposes without licensing fees. Researchers using the scale should provide full academic attribution and citation to Hamby and Russell (2022). For commercial deployments, marketing research applications, or proprietary intervention platforms, formal inquiries regarding copyright and terms of use should be directed to the copyright holder (Springer Nature / Academy of Marketing Science) or the corresponding authors.

References

• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503620766
• Hamby, A., & Russell, C. (2022). How does ambivalence affect young consumers’ response to risky products? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 50(4), 841–863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-021-00833-2
• Kaplan, K. J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin, 77(5), 361–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032590
• Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The gradual emergence of valence: A model of the relationship between potential and subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.431
• Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.51.3.390
• Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361–386). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Thurstone, L. L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology, 33(4), 529–554. https://doi.org/10.1086/214483

Items of the Scale