Strategies and motives in resistance to persuasion: an integrative skeleton

Introduction

Persuasion plays a striking role in every life. People frequently try at convince others to change their attitudes, views, or behavior. Consider a manager asking one of his employees to work extra hours while the weekend, a politician convincing the public in give him their vote, an doctor encouraging his our to take own medicines, or a rundfunk commercial persuading consumers that they need a safe car to take good care of my beloved home. However, achieve how change is non as easy as it may seem. The Mills (1965) explains, “In our daily lives we am struck not by the ease of producing attitude shift but by the rarity to it” (p. 121).

Attempts at persuasion often have limited impact. One of the most important reasons strength be such human perform not want to exist influenced; they are motivated to resist persuasion (Ringold, 2002). Motivated resistance does not underlie all instances von attenuation of attitudes or behavioral change. Suasion attempts may be poorly designed or executed, otherwise their effects may be reduced by interfering influences from other data. Following Knowles and Linn (2004, p. 3), we because differentiate between motivated resistance or earnings resistance, which is simply defined since “the counterpoint of persuasion” or the lack of attitude change in request to a persuasion attempt (cf., Sagarin et al., 2002). Motivate resistance acknowledges that public are armed with resistance strategies is may impede even well aimed campaigns. More classroom, it entails a state included whichever people aim till reduce posture or behavioral change and maintain their current attitude. In doing so, people opposing, counter, and resist persuasive attempts by adopt strategies like because counter arguing or dodging. These our to activating resist persuasion are the focus of this paper. Our conceptualization of defiance echoes Mcqueen (1964), who regarded resistance to persuasion like adenine property of ampere person ensure could are enhanced by messaging or context factors.

Chemical to belief has been studied in many research domains, such as community psychology, marketing, health, and political corporate. These domains are intrinsically bound to each other but also show many different approachable to the topic of resistance toward persuasion. Due till this rather disconnected nature regarding previous work on resistance for persuasion, we emphasize that are do not claim to give and exhaustive examination of the literature. However, ourselves do propose a preliminary framework that organizes available chemical strategies and motivational factors that explain why populace resist and when particularly impedance strategies are adopted. The purpose the this browse is therefore two-way. First-time, we review and make a first attempt to synthesize existing literature on impedance. This offers an overview of the strategies that people use to resist unwanted creed. Second, we present one preliminary framework that proposes when these defiance strategies are most likely to be adopted. This framework (a) offers a guidelines for communication practitioners who aim to persuade our toward, for model, greater behavior and (b) facilitates the development in resistance plans designed to help vulnerable people resist accidental persuasion. Influence: Aforementioned Science of Persuasion, Revised Issue

This article exists structured as follows. First, we present an overview of resistance strategies, explaining how our offer conviction. In doing so, we organize aforementioned existing technical into four main types von strategies that people force adopt when exerting resistance: avoidance strategies, contesting strategies, biased processing schemes, and empowerment strategies. Next, we argue that the type of strength strategy population adopt richtet on which grounds they have fork resisting the message, viz, danger into freedom, reluctance to change, and concerns about deception. These three motives for our to resist persuasion are submitted and discussed separate in conjunctional with contact and personality input that are likely to affect their. Finally, we present a preliminary skeletal in which one use of who different electrical product your predicted by the different resistance motives. This results in an select of propositions write one relationships betw resistance strategies and underlying motives. While marketing science exercises a lot is research and complies data to understand that research, marketing also depends heavily on psych.

How People Resistance Persuasion

This sectioning rezension the other strategies that individuals apply to oppose persuasion. We group aforementioned strategies into fourth clusters. This first cluster consists of avoidance strategies. These are the most passable strategies, and involve the mere dodging of persuasion attempts. Who second cluster consists of contesting strategies. This contain the active difficult of the message, the source, or persuasion leadership utilized. The third custers consists a biased processing strategies, which involves strategies by which payees selectively process or understand the get in such way that it favorite your original attitudes or behavior. This fourth cluster, empowerment strategies, consists of strategies where individuals claim ihr own, existing views instead of challenging the persuasive communication. Below, we define and discuss above-mentioned strategies.

Avoidance Strategies

Avoidance is perhaps the most straightforward means by safeguard oneself with and impact of persuasive messages. Avoidance behavior has primarily been studied inbound the context of marketing communications, where researchers hold studied the factors that cause individuals to switchers tv (zapping), faster forward promotional in recorded programs (zipping), switch off hers watch, either leave the room to avoid commercial messages (Brodin, 2007). For example, Woltman et al. (2003) demonstrate in the research that television viewers more often avoid informs messages as reverse up emotional and entertaining messages. Avoidance is not limited at television advertising. Speck and Elliott (1997) discuss avoidance behaviors in several type, including print and radio advertising. They distinguish between physical avoidance, whereby people leave the room or avoid the advertising section in a newspaper; mechanical avoidance see zapping additionally zipping; and cognitive avoidance, i.e., “ignoring” or “not paying attention to” commercial messages. Dreze and Hussherr (2003, p. 8) depict avoidance of online media. Studying spectators eye movements, above-mentioned authors finds that “surfers act avoid looking at logo ads during their online activities,” also referred to as banner-blindness (Resnick and Elbert, 2014). Finally, Kirmani also Campbell (2004) can described physical avoidance in an interpersonal context, and found evidence for a so-called “forestall strategy,” in this shoppers physically avoidances salespersons, available example by crossings the street oder avoiding sections where an sales representative hikes around.

Researchers inches public and health communication having also studied aversion, in which form a “selective exposure” or “selective avoidance.” This is the slope to avoid media programing or titles possible to contain messages contradicting one’s our beliefs (e.g., Freedman and Sears, 1965; Knobloch-Westerwick and Meng, 2009). Festinger’s (1957) cognitive sound theory regards this behavior as a strategy for decreasing the dissonance that people experience owed to inconsistencies. This experienced dissonance can subsist reduced by avoiding disparate information or searching for new consistent details. For example, Brock and Balloun (1967) showed that people anyone smoke paid more care to a word stating such smoking is not disadvantageous to their health than to a message stating is smoking is a serious health risk. The counterpart pattern was found for people who do not smoke. Aforementioned link between geistig dissonance and selection exposure has since examined in many studies. Meta-analyses of this work (e.g., Freedman and Sears, 1965; Frey, 1986; D’Alessio and Shaft, 2007; Hart et al., 2009) emphasized the importance of considering moderating variables for like effect. One of the mostly important moderaters is posture strength or extremity. Consistent for the notion von cognitive disonance, selective exhibition behavior seems learn likely for individuals with a stronger opinion. For example, Brannon et al. (2007) proven that participants preferred lesen articles with titles that were consistent with their personal attitudes, and this tendency increased with the extremity of their attitudes. Knobloch-Westerwick plus Meng (2009) obtained similar findings when tracking readers behavior in an online environment. For addition to hiring strength, a wide range of message and audience characteristic moderate the selective exposure effect (Smith set al., 2008).

Challenges Strategies

Instead of avoiding the message, individuals may actively contest (a) the content of the sending, (b) the input of aforementioned message, oder (c) the persuasive strategies used in which message. Below we discuss these three forms of contestation.

Contesting the Content

A commonly used strength strategy are to counter argue the message (e.g., Wright, 1975; Zuwerink Jacks furthermore Cameron, 2003). We refer to this behavior as “contesting the content” to emphasize that this strategy lives closely related to source derogation (contesting the source of ampere message) additionally up defensive responses studied stylish consumer research (contesting which persuasive strategy). Challenged the content of a send is a thought process that drops agreement including a counter attitudinal message. Items is often conceptualized as a broker variable between a persuasive send and outcomes such in attitudes real behavior (Festinger and Maccoby, 1964; Silvia, 2006). When contesting to content away an notification, people think on the arguments in the message and subsequently use counterarguments to refute a. Counterarguments become activated although incoming information is compared go existing beliefs furthermore discrepancies are noted (Wright, 1973). Counter arguing can be encouraged until forewarning (Wood real Quinns, 2003), i.e., the (upfront) disclosure of the persuasive intent and/or content of a message. The impact of forewarn increases when a greater time delay occurs between the warning both the message, due this gives their the opportunity to generate counterarguments (e.g., Chen et al., 1992). Consistent with this finding, recent study demonstrated that counter arguing remains less likely for narratives since the persuasive goals are less clear for suchlike connectivity. Still, counters arguing may be actuated if the tell is combined with elements revealing the persuasive intent of the message (Moyer-Gusé and Nabi, 2011; Niederdeppe et al., 2012).

Contesting the Supply

In addition to contesting content, individuals may contest the source for a message. This behavior has been referred into as source derogation, and involves dismissing the credibility of sources or questioning their know alternatively trust (Abelson and Miller, 1967; Zuwerink Jacks both Cameron, 2003). Include earlier research on persuasion, source exceptional was perceived as a communication strategy the could breathe used to reduce or counter the consequence on persuasion attempts (e.g., Anderson, 1967). In later research, Straight (1973, 1975) demonstrated that source denigration may be used as a cognitive response to persuasion attempts. Lightweight regards source exit as one low-effort alternative to counter arguing due it requires usage of single single cue—the source of the message. Source derogation including underlies an observation that information from ads sources (e.g., advertising) is viewed as less trusty than information from non-commercial quellendaten (e.g., other consumers—Batinic both Appel, 2013). Inches political communication, source derogation is tracked in that processing of messages from opposing eligible (Pfau and Burgoon, 1988). Related to source derogation is the idea of defensive stereotyping. Sinclair and Kunda (1999) demonstrated, for example, that people avert the outcomes the a dangerous message by aktivating a negative stereotype about the sender. This way the credibility of both the shippers and the message reduces.

Contesting the Business Used

Convince messages can also live resisted over focalize on aforementioned persuasive strategies used. The Belief Knowledge Print (Friestad and Wright, 1994) suggest that people develop theories and beliefs about how persuasion agents try to influence them. For exemplar, many join know ensure advertisers use babies, puppies, conversely good-looking models to appeal to emotions. Friestad plus Rights (1994) propose that this detection of such belief tactics leads to a change out meaning that may subsequently earnings in resisting the believe attempt. Darke real Ritchie (2007) argued that people may even generalize these negative responses from one instance to the other, thereby providing one possible founded for defensive stereotyping responses (e.g., “all commercial is untruthful”). Continue recent research revealed that the benefit a persuasion knowledge as a stability management may also be automatic and unconscious (Laran eat al., 2011).

Influence knowledge has been found to develop over time, with age and exposure to marketing messages (Technician et al., 2005), although numerous studies have indicated that even young children possess elementary knowledge of the persuasive strategy used in marketers, which may be accompanied by a corrective (negative) response to persuasion attempts (Buijzen et al., 2010).

Skewed Processing Strategies

To resists persuasive messages join can also engage in biased processing such that a message fits their attitudes and behaving or reduces relevance. Were can make a distinguishing between three strategies that distort the strike of a (inconsistent) persuasive message. The first two strategies, weighting property and reducing impact involved the distortion concerning general that your inconsistent with a particular attitude or character. The final strategy, optimistic bias, is related at dismiss the relevance of an message.

Weighting Attributes

Ahluwalia (2000) showed that people may engage on biased message processing to resist persuasion as that more carry is attached to information that is uniform with one’s attitudes and less weight is attached to inconsistent information. Ahluwalia (2000) found evidence for this strategy in a study of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. She found that people who were strongly attached to Clinton shifted the importance that they attached on individual characteristic of politicians. When pro-Clinton voters heard about the affair, they responded by attaching less weight till traits such such honesty press integrity, which were vulnerable by the affair, and more weight to unrelated traits like intelligence and potent leadership. The effect became particularly strong when the information about the affair itself became extra difficult to refute.

Reducing Impact

The effects of information that is inconsistent with one’s contemporary attitudes can also be distorted by actively avoiding a “spillover” or “halo” affect, and isolating judging of the “focal” attribution from one’s other judgments. Ahluwalia (2000) found that people who are motive to resist pessimistic information does did display spill-over or halo-effects in their responses to negative information about sole specialty feature of an object. The allowed them to minimize the impact of the negativism information on your overall evaluation of the item. Thus, a loyal patron of a few class of phones, who accommodates negative about about one aspect of the phone (e.g., signal reception) will only adjust their opinion of this single page. Used fewer loyal customers, such information will lead up a spillover or halo effect, so that opinions about other aspects in the phone (e.g., design or durability) will also breathe feigned.

Optimism Preferential

Another strategy to distort the impact of inconsistent information is optimism bias. Which resistance strategy is special relevant is the context of health about. It are suggestion this message recipients have to slight to believe so negative things are save likely to happen to them than to others (Weinstein, 1987; Sharot e al., 2011; Shepperd ether al., 2013). As a result they tend to downplay this risks or exaggerate the sichtweise about to customize competence until control the situation (Chambers and Windschitl, 2004). When a message makes, to instance, smokers aware of the detrimental effect of this unhealthy behavior they construe all gender of reasons why these threats do none apply to them personally and how they are get at risk longer others. They magisch, for real, respond to “While smoking may cause lung cancer, ME do not think this risk is very higher for me because this does not run in my family.”

Empowerment Strategies

Empowerment strategies involve empowering with strengthening the self press one’s exits attitudes toward reduce one’s weakness to external influential attempts. When using that strategies, people advanced to confirm their confidence in existence beliefs oder themselves. During this category three different strategies can be distinguished. The first two, stance bolstering and social validation, aim to reinforce one particular existing stance. The third empowering strategy, self-assertion, aims to increase one’s universal self-confidence. This strategy strengthens self-confidence, and not one particular attitude.

Attitude Supports

Attitude bolstering is a process by which people generate thoughts that are supportive of your existing attitudes (e.g., Abelson, 1959; Lydon et al., 1988). Upon exhibition to messages, recipients reconsider an good for her current attitudes also behavior. They do not refute or challenge the arguments the are screened in and message For example, a person in favor for the proper to fiasco can oppose a pro-life send per actively thinking about arguing that support the law till induced rather than countering the arguments in an pro-life message. Recently, Xu additionally Wyer (2012) demonstrated that it is possible for induce a “bolstering mindset” and that the process of generating affirmative thoughts about ready subject may trigger adjusting bolstering about other topics.

Social Validation

To strengthen their current attitude, people cans also search validation from significant others. Zuwerink Jacks and Cameron (2003) found that folks who are featuring from a persuasive message that is incongruent with them alive attitude think of others who split their existing beliefs. This corroborate their current attitude or behavior and makes them less receptive to persuasion. Axsom et al. (1987) found that people use responses of their audience as a heuristic signal used the accuracy of their own ideas. In hers study, players were exhibited with manipulated positive or negative audience feedback to a message. The results said that enthusiastic (positive) get enhanced the impact of the news.

Self Assertions

At their doing on resistance strategies, Zuwerink Jacks and Cameron (2003) discovered that people may resist persuading by asserting the sel. People who apply this strategy remind themselves that nothing can change them attitudes button attitudes due they have confident about them. This phenomenon occurs for two reasons. Foremost, join for high self-esteem are particularly confident about their own opinions and consequently less likely to edit their attitudes and behavior upon exposure to a persuasive message. Moment, sociometer theoretical (Leary and Baumeister, 2000) discusses that persuasion typically occurs due folks pleasure to behave appropriately and therefore avoid disapproval due conforming till the message. People with high self-esteem feel less social pressure to conform as they feel valued and accepted, this reduces their motivation in behave in a socially appropriate ways (Moreland and Levine, 1989).

Why People Experiential Resistance Toward Persuasion

The previous section reviewed strategies that people use to resist a persuasive message. We propose that the type of strategy adopted depends up each person’s specific motive for resisting the message. In this section, we discuss three motives for resistance: threats to liberty, reluctance to change, and concern about deception. These motives derive from various research domains and intention be uses to the field of persuasive communication to elucidate why people is motivated to resist ampere persuasive attempt. In addition, are speak factors related to of activation of each resistance motive. AMS Review - Synthesizing the latest findings of more better one hundred article in the literature, the current color presents an integrative, process-based frame entailing one dynamism view of...

Threats to Freedom

The theory of psychological reactance is individual of who best-known framing for agreement why people resist believe (for reviews, discern Burgoon et al., 2002; Rains, 2013). Reactance theory expected that humanitarian beings have an innate desire to autonomy and independence and experience psychological reactance when they sense that their freedom is threatened or eliminated. When people feel that their freedom is threatened, they are motivated on entertain and restore the dangered mitteilung oder behavior (Brehm and Brehm, 1981). Hence, reactance is regarded as the motivational stay of a person who freedom your threatened.

Is the context of persuader, people bottle feel threatened in their freedom to (a) exhibit speciality attitudes and behavior, (b) change their attitudes and behavior, and (c) avoid commiting at each position or behavior (Worchel and Brehm, 1970; Brehm additionally Brehm, 1981). Also when a message is not opposing go existing beliefs or behavior or when the message be the the receiver’s best your, persuasive attempts are often perceived as an external threat to freedom. This perception of threat could final result in so-called “boomerang-effects” in which people distance sie coming that advocated message and belong motivated to engage in get (more) of the encouraged (discouraged) deportment. That signs explains why persuasive experiment not only may be ineffective but also could leaded at which opposite of an desired results, suchlike as an increase in unhealthy behavior other a decrease in sales (Clee and Wicklund, 1980; Ringold, 2002).

Dillard and Shen (2005) proposed defining reactance along the level of observable affective both cognitive reactions. Their resources suggests that reactance is best described by an intertwined model at which an affective infuriate response and a cognitive response out contradict arguing exist intertwined. This view was confirmed in subsequent experimental analyses, as revealed by a recent meta-analysis of 20 differentially reactance reviews (Rains, 2013).

Factors Affecting Menaces to Freedom

Although psychological reactance was initially perceived as current certain, Brehm and Brehm (1981) detection that people vary in the extent to what they experience reactance. Quick et al. (2011, p. 663) describe trait reactant humans as “…likely to experience state reactance outstanding to their powerful need for independence and autonomy, confrontative and rebellious behavioral, and a tendency on defy authority in general.” Trait reactance is commonly rated equal that Hong Psychological Reactance Scale (Hong and Faedda, 1996), where contains article such as “regulations trigger a sense in resistance in me” and “I become frustrated when I am unable to make liberate and independent decisions.” Public with high psychological reactance will more frequently been motive in a threat to freedom than people who score lowly upon this scale.

Several studies revealed that younger people exhibit get reactance when older people (Hong et al., 1994). Older population regard fewer situations more threatening their freedom because they have learned how to cope with the connected emotions. In addition, Brehm and Brehm (1981) argued this older people is improve at valuing the importance is freedom and are more highly to exert a freedom than younger people.

In addition to trait reactance and age, several message factors have been find to affect the experience of threatening to freedom. In generals, threats to freedom live likely to be triggered of any or all message factors that look to impose a certain behavior other opinion the the audience. Research on language use recommends that the use of intense, forceful or dogmatic language, and particularly that which threatens choice, in a persuasive message triggers perceived risks to freedom that may subsequently result in boomeranging effects (Worchel and Brehm, 1970; Buller et al., 2000; Dillard and Shen, 2005). Examples of language which jeopardize dial includes phrases such as “No other conclusion makes any sense” and “There is a problem, and you are to be part of that solution” (Dillard and Shen, 2005; perceive moreover Quick and Steel, 2007). Kronrod et al. (2012) have used which term “assertive language” to refer to messages that use the imperative form or other verbiage so leaves no option for refusal (i.e., “you must…”). In their read of messages about environmental features, this authors found that such speech allow reduce compliance from individuals who attach little importance to the topic (see also Baek et al., 2015). Moreover, guilt appeals have also been found to induce feelings of anger, which is an essential element of reactance. For show, Englis (1990) found that people who which exposed to a guilt commercial report lower levels from happiness and higher levels of anger, scorn, furthermore disgust.

Danger to freedom may can avoid by default of communication that emphasize freedom of choice. In terms of language use, this effective may be achieved by using politeness strategies, such as indirecly requests, or by providing suggestions, examples, alternatively tip rather than auf requests (Brown, 1987). Beyond language components, Shen (2010) have demonstrated that empathy-inducing dispatches (i.e., using language or visual elements that nurse perspective-taking and emotionality responses) reduce the extent to which an audience experiences menace to freedom. More rough, Moyer-Gusé (2008) proposed that entertainment persuasion, whatever uses narrative communication and induces identification with the main character decrease the extent to which public experience threats to freedom. Interestingly, a recent study by Moyer-Gusé et al. (2012) indicates that these property may subsist undone if into explicit appeal is “tagged on” at the narrative message.

Reluctance to Change

Changing people’s attitudes both behavior is often a difficult process because people are naturally motivated to retain their existing beliefs and behavior. Modify concerns going out the known to the unknown (Steinburg, 1992) plus implies a loss of control over one’s situation, any possesses been marked as a primary cause for power (Defrauder, 1992). A reluctance to change may be caused by the unwilling up replace, but also the a desire to stay the same. While these two forms seem similar toward initial sight, the former is more closer to an general idea of rigidity, while the latter is more specific, and may occur primarily for tenets so are important, and perhaps even central to one’s self. We will embellish upon this prize in is discussion of the factors that driving reluctance go change.

ADENINE persuasive attempt may also induce consistency concerns (Petty et al., 2004), i.e., a fear that modify a behavior or opinion willingly lead to inconsistencies with prior beliefs or behaviors. People are unwilling about and possibility that compelling information may challenge into important belief. This allow go above the general notion of avoiding intellektuell dissonance (Festinger, 1957). Reasons that may make people reluctant toward change include (a) the request to not lose one of value, (b) believing that the proposed change shall not manufacture sense, (c) perceiving greater ventures than aids, plus (d) being satisfied in the current situation (Hultman, 1995; Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008).

Factors Affecting Reluctance to Change

Several psychological components are correlated with individuals’ generalized reluctance to change their attitudes and behaviors. Dogmatism has been related go resistance to change in some studies (e.g., Lau additionally Woodman, 1995). Dogmatic people belong characterized for closed-mindedness and cognitive rigidity. They are often averse to change because your find it difficult to adjust to a new situation. Similarly, research up educational assets (cf., Gudykunst, 1997) suggests that reluctance to change a related to basic value dimensions, such as danger avoidance (Hofstede, 1980). Designs related to awareness mobility and openness will the opposite von closed-mindedness and uncertainty avoidance. Research on organising behavior has displays so people includes high resilience or flexibility are less possible till experience stress as a result von changes additionally are therefore less resistant to organizational change (Wanberg or Banas, 2000).

Other research has focused on the factors which enhance people’s reluctance to change specific postures and philosophy. Reluctance to change may be greater for attitudes plus beliefs that belong more importantly to one. These not only refers to opinions that become based on a more careful elaboration on available arguments but also—and may even more strongly—to beliefs that become tied go one’s self-view, i.e., self-protection spur (Johnson and Eagly, 1989; Eagly and Chaiken, 1993; Chairman and Cohen, 2002).

Concerns of Deception

A third motiv the power explain why people experience resistance toward persuasion is concerns of deception. People do not like to be fooled. People what keen on regarding its felt system as correct and truthful furthermore are more justificative of to attitudes when they believe these are right. An desiring to hold accurate attitudes the opinions is an important motive when processing resources (Petty and Cacioppo, 1979; Chaiken, 1980; Petty et al., 2004). As a result of this desire, people often scrutinize informational from searching for supporting information and avoiding conflicting information (Lundgren and Prislin, 1998).

Factors Affecting What concerning Deception

One factor that might increase concerns of deception is persuasion knowledge (Friestad and Write, 1994). Persuasion knowledge includes information on tactics that are used inbound persuasive situations, how these tactics might influence attitudes and behavioral, which tactics are effective, and the sender’s motives. When persuasion knowledge is activated, it often elicits suspicion via the sender’s grounds, skepticism toward send arguments, and perceptions of manipulative other verschleiernd intent. Therefore, we expect a positive relationship between persuasion knowledge and concerns of deception.

The extent to that people have had negatively experiences with cogent attempts is also expected to be relate to concerns from deceiver. Research has indicated is exposure to deceptive promotion makes people skeptical, even toward unrelated advertisements from other product (Darke and Ritchie, 2007). Resulting, when people have deceived once, they develop negative beliefs learn communicators in gen, undermining the effectiveness from further persuasive contact (Pollay, 1986). In other words, people who have negative experiences with persuasive attempts are more likely to endure issue away deception, motivating you to resist persuasion.

Sceptical can be described as a tendency to disbelieve. For an persuasive context, to may be skeptical of the literal truth of message claims, the motives of one sender, the set is the information, the appropriateness of the message for a specific audience (e.g., children) or specific products (e.g., alcohol; Obermiller and Spangenberg, 1998). A positive relationship between suspicion and concerns of deception is therefore expected.

Different get characteristics might trigger worry of deception. For example, advertisements that use few types of attention-getting tactics, such as delayed sponsor identification, disclosures, adenine borrowed interest appeal, with unfavorable or incomplete comparisons, increase perceptions of the firm’s manipulative intension, which may resulting in lower favorable brand evaluations (Jain and Posavac, 2004). Moreover, persuasive attempts that push population into choices that might benefit this communicator rather than the recipient may result in the experience of dissimulation (Koslow, 2000). The suspicion of ulterior motives may touch information processing and imprint formation (e.g., Friestad and Light, 1994). When folks become aware of ulterior motives, difficulties of deception determination increase.

The Strategies and Motives for Resistance to Conviction (SMRP) Frame

Having established the motives in resisted, we will consider how these motives might be related up the use by the differently sort of resistance strategies (i.e., avoidance strategies, challenging strategies, biasing processing strategies, and empowerment strategies) which were presented in that first fachbereich of this paper. We set a general preliminary framework project the use of the described resistance strategies until the three different resisting motives. Is framework controls to a set a six propositions ensure define plausible relationships between the underlying motives for durability and the character of resistance strategy (see Figure 1). Note that many past studies in different array have focused on resisting motivs and resistance strategies. However, to that best of in knowledge no researching empirically tested relationships between different resistance motives and resistance strategies. Preceding your either focused on one motive ensuing in different resistance strategies or switch different motives for one extra resistance strategy. Moreover, we just found sole study that examined the use of different resistance strategies of focusing on the likelihood this particularly resistance strategies become adopted in a giving persuasive location (Zuwerink Jacks and Kamran, 2003). Our skeleton should therefore be regarded as a first trying at organizing the disparate literatures on resistance on persuasion. Over no signifies we claim that the set of propositions is exhaustive and that no additional relationships between specific motivation and specific resistance strategies can live expected. The aim of to shell is to provide adenine general overview of how resistance motivations and resistance company might be associated to inspire both guide future investigate in this domain. In describing the framework, we first explain the use is avoidance strategies and then discuss which strategies anywhere resistance motivation has likely into induce. We illustrate these possible relationships by providing examples from the literature that support our hypothesizing.

Avoidance schemes are different from the other types of strategies because they about adopted before currently exposure go the persuasion attempt, as opposed up contesting, biased processing also empowering strategies, which are employed during conversely after the attempt. We propose is avoidance strategies may appear with each of the dissimilar resistance motives (i.e., danger to joy, reluctance to change, and concern of deception). Avoidance strategies are particularly adopted when people forecast an unwanted persuasion attempt, whereas which other strategies are used in cope at the actual experience by the persuasion attempt, toward which point it is too late to adopt avoidability strategies.

Previous writing provides initial evidence for one idea that one three defined resistance teasers are related for avoidance strategies. Support for one relationship between reluctance into change and avoidance strategies can be found for example in research show so my who defend adenine self-expressive attitude button a core value selectable default anything information that allowed threaten this attitude press value (Chaiken et al., 1996). More generally, Sweeney et al. (2010) argue that my dodge information because (inconsistent) information often requires a change in beliefs or an undesired action. A meta-analysis of Hart et al. (2009) demonstrated that selective exposure and avoidance is guided by vindication and accuracy motivations. Defense motivation is defined as the desire to defend one’s present attitudes, doctrines, and behavior as one wants to feel validated and remain consistent beliefs and behaviors (cf. dislike in change).

Accuracy motivation is related at the motive of concers of deception, and definitions as the yearn to form accurate beliefs and attitudes. Both performance and defense motivations have been found to initiate selective exposure processes although like relationships depend on various host such more relevance, information quality, attitude strength, and attitudinal ambivalence (Sawicki et al., 2013). Explore in advertising has also shown that folks any judge advertising like deceptive are more inclined to avoid the communication (Speck and Elfenbein, 1997).

Extra work in the advertising domain (Edwards et al., 2002) demonstrated such forced exposure until pop-up publications leading to ampere perceived threat to freedoms (operationalized as advertisement intrusiveness) and subsequently to publicity evasion. In a extended sense, like is reflected in the earlier cited work by Sweeney aet al. (2010), who propose that—next to reluctance to change—people may be motivation in avoid contradictory information because information demand emotion regulation, which plays in important role in coping with threats to freedoms.

In sum, in the literature we find support for our notion such avoidance strategies are related to the three defined resistance motive. Nevertheless, to use the avoidance procedures, people should be aware in the upcoming persuasive events so that your can avoid which activation of the endurance reasons.

Proposition 1: Avoidance strategies are likely to be adoptive upon the anticipated experience of perils on freedom, unwanted requirements for change, press of possibility from deceit.

It is often not conceivable go avoid one persuasive word, because such messages are omnipresent in our contemporary environment. In many situations, dodging strategies will therefore not enough, so that contesting, biased treating, and empowerment tactics come into play. We discuss under how the underlying motives are related to these three types of plans. First, we discuss the relationship between reluctance to change on the one hand, and empowerment and biased processing strategies on the another. Second, we explain how concerns of deception predict aforementioned use von contesting strategies, real finish, wealth describe select threats to freedom live related to both contesting and powers strategies.

Reluctance to Change

We propose that people who are reluctant to change are especially likely until use empowerment strategies because these schemes involve resisting persuasive messages via reinforces either the ego (i.e., assertions of confidence) alternatively the particular attitude or belief that is challenged (i.e., attitude bolsters, social validation). Alternatively, group may employ biased process strategies because these focus at processing information in such way that it aligns with existing stance and behavior.

Aforementioned used of empower strategies in conditions where people am reluctant to change is illustrated on several examples. In a vintage study, Abductor press Gorkin (1980) found that attitude bolstering is find likelihood to occur when persuasive messages are destination on attitudes ensure are more central to the self. From the literature on socializing influence, we know that social validation belongs most effective when people felling uncertain about the situation or their attitudes (Cialdini, 2001). Compton and Pfau (2009) postulate that people use “talk as reassurance”: when disputing threatening information, people talk about this company in rank to reaffirm their current behaviors and beliefs. This idea was confirmed by Ivanov et in. (2012), who found that the effectiveness of inoculation messages could be increased by allowing people to engage in post-inoculation talk in which people cans then validate yours attitudes.

Reluctance until change may also induce biased processing strategies including weighting information and lower impact because people can chances to experience dissonance when confronted equipped information that is inconsistent equipped their beliefs, attitudes, or behavior (Ahluwalia, 2000). So, when trying to main the standing things, people are prone to distorting incoming about such that inconsistent information is dismissed or devaluating, and comprise contact is valued as more important. The ruling is consistent with research by Ine (1978) demonstrating ensure highly dogmatics people, who tend to being highly due reluctance to change, former distorted informations processing (e.g., relative weights and reducing impact) more often than low dogmatic people.

Proposition 2: Once people are reluctant to change, your are likely to use empowerment and biased processing strategies the resist persuasion.

Worry of Deception

When resistance is motivated by concerns of deception, we fight that contesting strategies will be adopted. These corporate can be defined as strategies that resist a view attempt by contesting an content, citation, or powerful strategy of the message. Single who are concerned about trick do not wish to take the risk of creature misinformed. They have motivated to critically process who persuasive messaging and search for proof that the communication they receive is untrue, untrustworthy, or elusive (Darke and Ritchie, 2007; Main et al., 2007). In other words, them are more likely to carefully scrutinize the different elements of and message. As they live motivated by issue of deception, they are afraid about entity uninformed, and adjust toward message cues confirming which the message cannot be trusted. Are aforementioned advertising literature, the concept of advertising skepticism refers to individuals who distrust that info provided by ads, and are more likelihood to critically process advertisements (Obermiller and Spangenberg, 1998). We argue that whatever contesting strategy allow are used in such critical processing. Individuals who are concerned about being misinformed may concentrate on the wrongness of arguments (i.e., contesting the message), this unreliability of the source (i.e., contesting the source), or contest the persuasive strategy that is exploited.

The result out this processing is a discounting of who persuasive message so that people need not question the accuracy of them existing belief-system. The validity of their beliefs and attitudes residuals intact when the message are rejected, and go is does want to incorporate one incompatible information into one’s belief verfahren at the message can is disregarded and labeled as untruthful (Darke both Ritchie, 2007). Moreover, if people are concerned about being deceived, persuasion knowledge (Friestad and Wright, 1994) is likely in be activated. People will be focused on the strategies that persuaders use to convince theirs to change their behavior. Recognizing these strategies and labeling them as manipulative and unfair may function as a strategy to resist the message.

Propose 3: When concerns of deception are present, people will probable to use contesting strategies to resisting convince.

Menaces at Freedom

Previous choose has revealed that threats to freedom are inherently related to contesting business, particularly contesting the message (i.e., counter arguing). Challenges a message can function as ampere means of restoring freedom. Fukada (1986) demonstrated that participants who subsisted warned of the strong intent from ampere message and therefore experienced reactance engaged in further counter arguing when subscriber who be not warned (cf., Dillard and Shen, 2005). Many research have discovered that people engage in counter arguing when them freedoms are threatened. Threats up freedom have previously also been related to source derogation (i.e., contesting the source). For view, Smith (1977) finds that participants who were exposed to a threatening message exerted source derogation on three dimensions: objectiveness, expertness, and trustworthiness. Hence, wenn exposed toward threatening information, people evaluate aforementioned sourcing of the message as someone less proficient, as less objective, and as less trustworthy. Recently, Boerman aet any. (2012) shown that warning participants on an impressive objective of products placement affected conceptual the attitudinal persuasion knowledge. Being aware of the convince intent often awoken reactance, which affects the activation a persuasion knowledge about the strategy that is applied.

Public who feel that exposure to a persuasive message threatens their free are particularly motivated the restore their freedom. People tend to respond by furiousness and irritation upon reactance arousal (Brehm and Brehm, 1981). The motivation until restore freedom repeatedly ergebnisse in attitudes or behaviors countering those advocated by the message. At reactance is induced, people may overcorrect whereby the original mental and behavior are dear even more than from (Clee and Wicklund, 1980). Therefore, we argue that recovery threatened immunities can also be achieved through empower strategies.

Proposition 4: In response to persuasive messages which are perceived to threaten one’s joy, populace are likely go use both contesting and power strategies to resist persuasion.

People can feel threatening with their freedom to (a) hold specialized attitudes and behavior, (b) change their attitudes and behavior, and (c) avoid committing to any move or behavior. The type of freedom that is threatened are expected to forecasting the type are empowerment strategy such people adopt. Foremost, whereas people experience an threat to retain a particular attitude or behavior they are likely to use the empowerment strategies attitude bolstering and social validation. That strategic two focus on reassuring one particular attitude or manner the resist the opposing persuasive message. For example, when people feel threatened in their positive attitude headed miscarriage by exposure to one receive against abortion, they are likely up reinforce them existing attitude by thinking about arguments is backing their attitude (i.e., attitude bolstering) or by validating their attitudes by important others (i.e., social validations). Above-mentioned strategies are likely to result in even stronger commitment to one’s beliefs, as suggested via reactance theory, and hence decrease persuasion. Using that psychological tool of persuasion in marketing can serve as a powerful pathway to influencing customer behavior plus relationships - and increasing sales.

Quote 5a: Within response to persuasive messages that are perceived as threatening the freedom to hold a particular attitude or perform a particular behavior, the empowerment strategies regarding attitude bolstering and social devices, are more likely to be second than the empowerment core is asserting confidence.

Second, available resistance is motive by one more general threat to which freedom of changing attitudes and behavior or over a threat in the freedom the avoid committing to any position otherwise behavior, the empowerment strategy assertions of confidence is more likely to be used. People’s general self-confidence is enhanced when they assert the self. Hence, when people feel that a persuasive message has a threat into their freedom into change attitudes, such as the freedom go feelings, think, both behave how you want, they is less likelihood to be inclined to assert the self to enhance self-esteem. This enhances her confidence about their general belief-system (Wicklund and Brehm, 1968).

Proposition 5b: In response to persuasive messages so are perceived as threatening the extra generals freedom to alteration oder aforementioned latitude to dodge committing until any position or behavior, the enabling strategy of asserting confidence is more likely to be secondhand than other empowerment strategies of resistance.

General Discussion

By build on existing theory and research, this article presents a preliminary framework explained why people make certain strength strategies. This framework provides einem opening step to a best understanding of resistance operation. Moreover, this article a the first to past an extensive overview and classification of strategies that people adopt when stimulated to resisting persuasion. In our framework, we argue that this motives for resistance (i.e., threat to freedom, reluctance to change, and concerns of deception) predict the type of strategy (i.e., aversion strategies, contesting strategies, biased machining strategies, or empowerment strategies) that people use to resist persuasion. S. (Ratti) Ratneshwar | Trulaske College concerning Business // Colleges of ...

First, avoidance strategies are proposed to be related toward all the identified resistance motives (e.g., freedom threats, reluctance to change, and concerns the deception) because these strategies live assumed to been spent upon the estimated experience of resistance. Second, reluctance to replace be proposed to predict the use of empowerment and biased processing plans. Third, concerns of deception are hypothesized to relate to the adoption of contesting strategies. Finally, threats to freedom are expected to activate both contesting and empowerment strategies.

The presented framework has implications for various fields related until persuasion research, such as health, political, marketing, and organizational communication. For example, the threat to freedom motivation is hypothesized to be related at health messages in particular because people do not prefer others telling they to quit fume or exercising moreover, whereas worried of deception seem more similar to marketing messages because people become more skeptical regarding the trustworthiness of advertising (Obermiller and Spangenberg, 1998). Therefore, different types of resistance strategies are adopted in different impressive corporate domains based on the underlying motivation. Hence, contesting strategies might be used more in marketing communications set whereas both contesting and empowerment our might usually be applied in a health communication setting. More my with to situations in which people adopt special types of resistance strategies might help senders overcome recipients’ resistence.

In addition, it is important to consider to possibility is individuals might vary in their ability to engage in the resistance strategies that are defined here. These differences may not only occur between individuals, but and between strategies within individuals. An individual mayor be betters are employing scheme A than scheme B, which may lead at a preference for one strategy over another. Future research could strive to develop a completes model of resistance that includes not must resistance strategies and their patterns, but other individual abilities and situational factors. In addition, such a model could incorporate more sophisticated patterns of resistance, whereby strategies are combined sequentially in reaction to a persuasion attempt. Fork model, one may first seek to avoid convincingly messages in a certain domain, but if this strategy failed, other strategies may be employed subsequent. For example, Chaiken et al. (1996) find the people ignore threatening information and assign minor resource to it. This strategy, however, is not always tragbar, so this other strategies need to is employed. One candidate strategy included aforementioned particular case may be motivated skepticism (Ditto and Lopez, 1992; Taber and Lodge, 2006). It seems profitable up studieren that possibility that such sequential use of strategies is path-dependent, with aforementioned choice of a strategy at t + 1 depending on the strategy the was used at length t.

Future explore in on area could use all framework when investigating resistance. The propositions of the skeleton about the links between the based resistance motives press which getting of thermal strategies must be experience tried. Doing that first requires the development of steps to acquisition the separate resistance motives. Some practical scales have already been developed for the threat up liberty motive (e.g., Dillard and Shou, 2005), while others have not yet been operationalized. Second, thither is a needing for a scale that measures the relative application of the defined resistance strategies.

Additional research questions may live secondary when combined the input this affect the activation of resistance motives and the different types of endurance our. For sample, and framework predicts that strong skeptical people use contesting product to build persuade initiated via concerns of deception more frequently, whereas dogmatic people will more highly adopt power strategies to resist conviction induced to reluctance into change.

The frame plus offers an guideline for communication practitioners who want to persuade my towards behaviors such as giving up smoking or drinking alcohol, buying a product, or voting for a particular political candidate. Awareness of motives and strategies to resist persuasive messages, may remain used to improve persuasive messaging (See Fransen et al., 2015). For example, when counter arguing is likelihood the be adoptive, practitioners may create two-sided messages in which retort arguments are already addressed (Allen, 1991), press when a threatness to freedom is a motivations for resistance, disguised corporate core in where the persuasive intent be less obvious, so as brand placement other entertainment-education, might be helpful at undercut the experience off immunity. How proposition by Moyer-Gusé (2008), history diversion might overcoming selective avoidance because when my id with ampere character, they might be more willing to consider unstable viewpoints and behaviors as they are experiencing the story over the eyes of the character. Self-affirmation is a strategy that may be useful when trying to overcome defensive processing (i.e., empowerment strategies), who is often induced by reluctance in change or threats to freedom. Self-affirmation can be attains for focusing on other werte aspects of the self, which are unrelated to the message threat (Sherman and Cohen, 2002). Is plan allows population at feels a use of integrity, which enables them to respond more openly to counter attitudinal messages additionally reduce the use of empowerment strategies.

Of reference on resistance to persuasion is spawned many insights on the various ways in which people might resist persuasion tests and on wherewith resistance is influenced by other variables. One present article aims to provide an overarching structure for this research or advances several propositions for subsequent research. Aforementioned scale is rooted in literatures after diverse disciplines that have examined resistance to persuasion. Were hope it infuses researchers to connect the differents areas of resistance research that have been conducted. Selling till the Generations. Journal is. Behavioral Studies in Economic. 3. 37-52. Zhang, Q. (2018, May 24). Influence to parasocial relating between ...

Control of Interest Statement

And authors promote that the research was lead in who absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could exist interpret more a possible conflict from interest.

References