Resistance and persuasion
Articles
, The importance of resistance to persuasion.
Knowles & Linn (2004)
When resistance is reduced, persuasion can be achieved. New insights, influence strategies, and
facets of persuasion emerge from a focus on resistance.
Psychological resistance is broad and referred to:
- The noncompliance with a directive
- A desire to counteract someone else’s attempt to limit one’s choices
- Unwillingness to achieve insights about the real nature of one’s thoughts or feelings
- Avoidance of unpleasant or dangerous feelings
- The feeling of ambivalence about chance
Webster’s New World College dictionary’s four definitions of resistance:
1. The act of resisting, opposing, withstanding etc. – behavior outcome
2. Power or capacity to resist – motivational aspect
3. Opposition of same force; to another or others – motivational aspect
4. A force that retards, hinders, or opposes motion – motivational aspect
McGuire defined resistance to persuasion as the ability to withstand a persuasive attempt. It is a
property of the person; the potential to resist persuasion.
McGuire’s inoculation strategies increased resistance in two ways:
1. Increasing the motivation to resist
2. Arming them with weapons needed to accomplish the resistance
However, training people to resist persuasion has other consequences; train people to resist
illegitimate sources has the attendant effect of allowing them to be more easily persuaded by
legitimate sources. Trained participants could be more receptive to others, perhaps more
appropriate and useful persuasion.
Resistance has acquired a dual definition in psychology: outcome-motivational state. A motivation to
oppose, would promote the outcome. Resistance may not alter the outcome, but it may affect other
reactions to the influence attempt. The distinction between motivation and outcome is driven by
methodology: whether and how much the persuasive attempt was active.
The affective, cognitive and behavioral components of resistance are;
- I don’t like it - Affective
- I don’t believe it - Cognitive
- I won’t do it - Behavioral
Affective: studies of changes in preferences for alternatives or actions
Cognitive: studies of counterarguing or evaluating outcomes in the future
Behavior: studies of the failure to comply with a request
The source of resistance could be attributed to the person (internal) or situation (external).
Two sets of factors determine the amount of reactance:
1. The freedoms that are threatened
2. The nature of the threat
,Arbitrary, blatant, direct, and demanding requests will create more reactance than legitimate,
subtle, indirect, and delicate request.
Reactance, distrust, scrutiny, and inertia are the four faces of resistance. These are not different
kinds of resistance, but rather as different linked perceptual stances.
Reactance;
It recognizes the influence attempt as an integral element of resistance. It’s only initiated when the
influence is directly perceived and threatens a person’s choice alternatives – affective and behavior.
Distrust;
People become guarded and wary when faced with a proposal, offer, or message to change –
affective and cognitive.
Scrutiny;
People become more careful and thoughtful to every aspect of a situation when they are aware that
they are the target of an influence attempt. The emphasis is on the proposal itself. The strengths of
an argument are appreciated and accepted, but the weaknesses are exposed, evaluated, and
countered. Result = believed or rejected – cognitive.
Inertia;
A quality that focuses on staying put instead of resisting change. It’s a face of the equilibrium motive
that attempts to keep the attitude system in balance. To the extent that a request, offer, or
persuasive message asks for change in affect, behavior, or belief, the inertia of personality and
attitude frustrates that change. Inertia has more in common with the anchor than with the
antagonism of the provoked. – affective, cognitive and behavior.
Resistance and persuasion are opposing yet integral parts of a persuasive interaction. Interplay
between persuasive challenges and resistance influence as a dynamic process. If motivation is
increased, and counter arguments are available, influence is more likely to be/ could be resisted.
, Resistance to persuasion as self-regulation:
Ego-depletion and its effects on attitude change processes.
Wheeler, Briñol & Hermann (2007)
Abstract:
Counterarguing persuasive messages requires active control processes (e.g., generation and
application of contradictory information) similar to those involved in other forms of self-regulation.
Prior research has indicated that self-regulation ability is a finite resource subject to temporary
depletion with use, and engaging in self-regulatory tasks could impair individuals’ to counterargue.
Participants completed an initial task designed to deplete or not deplete their regulatory resources.
Following the manipulation, participants read a message supporting a counter attitudinal policy.
Results indicated that prior self-regulation reduced subsequent resistance, primarily when the
message arguments were specious. Counterargument appears to be a self-regulatory process that
can be undermined when self-regulatory resources have previously been diminished.
Introduction:
People are motivated to resist persuasion in order to hold correct attitudes, restore freedom, or
maintain psychological consistency and sense of control.
Characteristics of the attitude under attack and the message recipient influence the resistance to
persuasion. Counterarguing is the most extensively, especially when processing motivation and
ability are high (personally relevant).
Ego-depletion happens when exertion in one situation is followed by a period of reduced ability in a
subsequent situation. Avoiding thinking about a forbidden topic also reduces subsequent self-
regulatory ability, whereas solving equally challenging multiplications does not.
Individuals engage in active control processes to defend the pre-existing attitude from attack.
Engaging in self-regulatory tasks that deplete such a resource should impair the ability of individuals
of subsequently resist counter attitudinal appeals.
Ego-depleted individuals’ attitude can be biased in an upward, acquiescent direction. Individuals
‘give in’ to easier courses of action when their self-regulatory resources are depleted, even when
they have the ability to guide their thoughts and actions in more effortful, contrary ways.
Acquiescence: passive and low-effect response strategy that could be increased by lack of self-
regulatory resources. Agreeing with positions forwarded by others is a type of acquiescence.
Ego-depleted participants could report acquiescent attitudes reflective of the types of agreements
and ‘going along’ shown in other self-regulation breakdowns. Depletion manipulation will inhibit the
generation of counter arguments, rather than the amount of thoughts.
If the depletion of self-regulatory resources interferes with the generation of unfavorable cognitive
responses, these effects on attitude should be most observable under conditions in which
counterarguments naturally occurs most. Hence, the effect of the depletion manipulation on
persuasion could be larger in the weak, rather than the strong, argument condition.
Articles
, The importance of resistance to persuasion.
Knowles & Linn (2004)
When resistance is reduced, persuasion can be achieved. New insights, influence strategies, and
facets of persuasion emerge from a focus on resistance.
Psychological resistance is broad and referred to:
- The noncompliance with a directive
- A desire to counteract someone else’s attempt to limit one’s choices
- Unwillingness to achieve insights about the real nature of one’s thoughts or feelings
- Avoidance of unpleasant or dangerous feelings
- The feeling of ambivalence about chance
Webster’s New World College dictionary’s four definitions of resistance:
1. The act of resisting, opposing, withstanding etc. – behavior outcome
2. Power or capacity to resist – motivational aspect
3. Opposition of same force; to another or others – motivational aspect
4. A force that retards, hinders, or opposes motion – motivational aspect
McGuire defined resistance to persuasion as the ability to withstand a persuasive attempt. It is a
property of the person; the potential to resist persuasion.
McGuire’s inoculation strategies increased resistance in two ways:
1. Increasing the motivation to resist
2. Arming them with weapons needed to accomplish the resistance
However, training people to resist persuasion has other consequences; train people to resist
illegitimate sources has the attendant effect of allowing them to be more easily persuaded by
legitimate sources. Trained participants could be more receptive to others, perhaps more
appropriate and useful persuasion.
Resistance has acquired a dual definition in psychology: outcome-motivational state. A motivation to
oppose, would promote the outcome. Resistance may not alter the outcome, but it may affect other
reactions to the influence attempt. The distinction between motivation and outcome is driven by
methodology: whether and how much the persuasive attempt was active.
The affective, cognitive and behavioral components of resistance are;
- I don’t like it - Affective
- I don’t believe it - Cognitive
- I won’t do it - Behavioral
Affective: studies of changes in preferences for alternatives or actions
Cognitive: studies of counterarguing or evaluating outcomes in the future
Behavior: studies of the failure to comply with a request
The source of resistance could be attributed to the person (internal) or situation (external).
Two sets of factors determine the amount of reactance:
1. The freedoms that are threatened
2. The nature of the threat
,Arbitrary, blatant, direct, and demanding requests will create more reactance than legitimate,
subtle, indirect, and delicate request.
Reactance, distrust, scrutiny, and inertia are the four faces of resistance. These are not different
kinds of resistance, but rather as different linked perceptual stances.
Reactance;
It recognizes the influence attempt as an integral element of resistance. It’s only initiated when the
influence is directly perceived and threatens a person’s choice alternatives – affective and behavior.
Distrust;
People become guarded and wary when faced with a proposal, offer, or message to change –
affective and cognitive.
Scrutiny;
People become more careful and thoughtful to every aspect of a situation when they are aware that
they are the target of an influence attempt. The emphasis is on the proposal itself. The strengths of
an argument are appreciated and accepted, but the weaknesses are exposed, evaluated, and
countered. Result = believed or rejected – cognitive.
Inertia;
A quality that focuses on staying put instead of resisting change. It’s a face of the equilibrium motive
that attempts to keep the attitude system in balance. To the extent that a request, offer, or
persuasive message asks for change in affect, behavior, or belief, the inertia of personality and
attitude frustrates that change. Inertia has more in common with the anchor than with the
antagonism of the provoked. – affective, cognitive and behavior.
Resistance and persuasion are opposing yet integral parts of a persuasive interaction. Interplay
between persuasive challenges and resistance influence as a dynamic process. If motivation is
increased, and counter arguments are available, influence is more likely to be/ could be resisted.
, Resistance to persuasion as self-regulation:
Ego-depletion and its effects on attitude change processes.
Wheeler, Briñol & Hermann (2007)
Abstract:
Counterarguing persuasive messages requires active control processes (e.g., generation and
application of contradictory information) similar to those involved in other forms of self-regulation.
Prior research has indicated that self-regulation ability is a finite resource subject to temporary
depletion with use, and engaging in self-regulatory tasks could impair individuals’ to counterargue.
Participants completed an initial task designed to deplete or not deplete their regulatory resources.
Following the manipulation, participants read a message supporting a counter attitudinal policy.
Results indicated that prior self-regulation reduced subsequent resistance, primarily when the
message arguments were specious. Counterargument appears to be a self-regulatory process that
can be undermined when self-regulatory resources have previously been diminished.
Introduction:
People are motivated to resist persuasion in order to hold correct attitudes, restore freedom, or
maintain psychological consistency and sense of control.
Characteristics of the attitude under attack and the message recipient influence the resistance to
persuasion. Counterarguing is the most extensively, especially when processing motivation and
ability are high (personally relevant).
Ego-depletion happens when exertion in one situation is followed by a period of reduced ability in a
subsequent situation. Avoiding thinking about a forbidden topic also reduces subsequent self-
regulatory ability, whereas solving equally challenging multiplications does not.
Individuals engage in active control processes to defend the pre-existing attitude from attack.
Engaging in self-regulatory tasks that deplete such a resource should impair the ability of individuals
of subsequently resist counter attitudinal appeals.
Ego-depleted individuals’ attitude can be biased in an upward, acquiescent direction. Individuals
‘give in’ to easier courses of action when their self-regulatory resources are depleted, even when
they have the ability to guide their thoughts and actions in more effortful, contrary ways.
Acquiescence: passive and low-effect response strategy that could be increased by lack of self-
regulatory resources. Agreeing with positions forwarded by others is a type of acquiescence.
Ego-depleted participants could report acquiescent attitudes reflective of the types of agreements
and ‘going along’ shown in other self-regulation breakdowns. Depletion manipulation will inhibit the
generation of counter arguments, rather than the amount of thoughts.
If the depletion of self-regulatory resources interferes with the generation of unfavorable cognitive
responses, these effects on attitude should be most observable under conditions in which
counterarguments naturally occurs most. Hence, the effect of the depletion manipulation on
persuasion could be larger in the weak, rather than the strong, argument condition.
