Principle of congruity and reduction of persuasion

Persuading the Implicit Mind: Changing Negative Implicit Evaluations With an 8-Minute Podcast

Implicit evaluations can be malleable via reinterpretation of previously encountered evidence. Here, we report three studies ( N = 1,007) investigating the robustness of this updating modality using ecologically realistic materials. Participants were first introduced to a target who killed an endangered black rhino in Namibia. They then listened to a real podcast providing counterattitudinal information on the benefits of trophy hunting. The podcast resulted in considerable revisions of initially negative implicit evaluations toward positivity, consistently across implicit measures (affect misattribution procedures vs. implicit association test), samples (American students vs. nonstudents from various countries), study settings (lab vs. online), and the presence versus absence of a memory retrieval manipulation prompting reflection on participants’ views on trophy hunting. Taken together, these findings suggest that reinterpretation can shift implicit evaluations of even highly negative targets, including under conditions of external validity.

Resistance to Persuasion and Attitude Certainty: The Moderating Role of Elaboration

Recent research (Tormala & Petty, 2002) has demonstrated that when people resist persuasive attacks, they can under specifiable conditions become more certain of their initial attitudes. The present research explores the role of elaboration in determining when this effect will occur. Using both self-reported differences in situational elaboration (Study 1) and chronic individual differences in the need for cognition (Study 2), it is demonstrated that resisting persuasion increases attitude certainty primarily when elaboration is high. When elaboration is low, resisting persuasion does not appear to impact attitude certainty. These findings shed light on the role of metacognitive factors in resistance to persuasion, pinpointing the conditions under which these factors come into play.

Inoculation theory: a framework for the reduction of skin cancer

This paper analyzes skin cancer in detail and explains how inoculation theory, which demonstrates how attitudes can be strengthened and made resistant to counter-attitudinal persuasive messages, is a unique method for specifically targeting and conferring resistance to unprotected and excessive ultraviolet exposure to people of all ages. As many previous efforts to reduce exposure to ultraviolet rays have had minimal impact, inoculation theory is appropriate in this context because the theory has been successful in other health campaigns and may increase the efficacy of skin cancer interventions. In justifying the need for this analysis, we illustrate the prevalence and detrimental impact of skin cancer to clarify the seriousness of the disease and how people oftentimes fail to adequately shield themselves. This conceptual analysis not only has the potential to be applied in rendering subjects resistant to engaging in unprotected (and/or excessive) sunbathing and artificial tanning, but it also represents an addition to the disciplinary domains of health communication and social policy and offers clues for further exploration in this area.

The Role of Self-Control in Resistance to Persuasion

Four studies investigated a self-control theory of resistance to persuasion. This theory asserts that resistance to persuasion requires and consumes self-control resources. Study 1 showed that resistance to a persuasive message reduced the ability to engage in a subsequent self-control task. Studies 2 and 3 showed that self-control depletion leads to increased persuasion. Study 4 showed that self-control depletion increased persuasion, particularly under effortful resistance (i.e., strong arguments). Together, these findings suggest that self-control plays a vital role in the process of resistance to persuasion. People must have self-control resources to fend off persuasive appeals; without them, they become susceptible to influence.

Resisting persuasion by the skin of one's teeth: The hidden success of resisted persuasive messages

Recent research has suggested that when people resist persuasion they can perceive this resistance and, under specifiable conditions, become more certain of their initial attitudes (e.g., Z. L. Tormala & R. E. Petty, 2002). Within the same metacognitive framework, the present research provides evidence for the opposite phenomenon--that is, when people resist persuasion, they sometimes become less certain of their initial attitudes. Four experiments demonstrate that when people perceive that they have done a poor job resisting persuasion (e.g., they believe they generated weak arguments against a persuasive message), they lose attitude certainty, show reduced attitude-behavioral intention correspondence, and become more vulnerable to subsequent persuasive attacks. These findings suggest that resisted persuasive attacks can sometimes have a hidden yet important success by reducing the strength of the target attitude.

The vulnerability of values to attack: inoculation of values and value-relevant attitudes

Based on the values-as-truisms hypothesis and inoculation theory, two experiments tested whether providing cognitive defenses for the value of equality induces resistance against a message attacking this value. Experiment 1 found that participants who generated cognitive support in an active-supportive or an active-refutational defense were less persuaded by a subsequent message attacking equality than were participants who engaged in no prior defense. Experiment 2 examined the effects of an active-refutational defense and a passive-refutational defense, which simply asked participants to read reasons supporting or opposing equality. Results indicated additive effects of the active and passive defenses, such that participants were most resistant to the anti-equality message when they were given both defenses. Mediational analysis across both experiments revealed that the defenses increased counterargumentation of the anti-equality message, which led to increased post-attack importance of equality and predicted more favorable equality-relevant attitudes and values.

SAY PLEASE: THE EFFECT OF THE WORD “PLEASE” IN COMPLIANCE-SEEKING REQUESTS

This study reports the results of an experiment examining whether presenting a request that included the word “please” would facilitate greater compliance than would a request that did not include the word please. We hypothesized that the plead request (incorporating the word please) would elicit higher rates of compliance than would a nonplead request. Participants consisted of 165 male and 139 female undergraduates, aged 18-24, from a private, comprehensive university in the Midwest of the USA. Participants were surveyed by 8 callers, trained to uniformly verbalize the requests for compliance. Results showed that a greater proportion of participants in the nonplead condition complied than did in the plead condition (χ2 = 6.432, df = 1, p < 0.05). The implications of this analysis are discussed.

Source Derogation and Persuasion on Controverted Issues

The present study attempted to extend knowledge of persuasion reduction via source derogation in the context of congruity theory by using controverted issues rather than non-controverted truisms. Source derogation reduced persuasion on controverted issues only when the source was unfavorably evaluated. Controverted issues are more varied in favorableness than truisms, and this difference may explain the conditional acceptance of the hypothesis. Time of source derogation was important; source derogation before issue support reduced persuasiveness while derogation after support did not. A further prediction, that persuasion would be reduced more if there were only one derogated source rather than several sources and only one derogated, was not supported. Some caution in the application of congruity theory was noted.