Abstract
Recently, some attitude researchers have argued that the traditional bipolar model of attitudes should be replaced, claiming that a bivariate model is superior in several ways, foremost of which is its ability to account for ambivalent attitudes. This study argues that ambivalence is not at odds with bipolarity per se, but rather the conventional view of bipolarity, and that the psychometric evidence supporting a bivariate interpretation has been flawed. To demonstrate this, a scale developed out of the bivariate approach was examined using a unidimensional unfolding item response theory model: general hyperbolic cosine model for polytomous responses. The results were consistent with a bipolar interpretation, providing support for the argument that ambivalent evaluations are the correct middle-point of a bipolar evaluative dimension. Thus, it is argued that attitudinal ambivalence does not necessitate moving beyond bipolarity, but rather, moving beyond the conventional conceptualization and assessment of attitudes.