Resistance and persuasion
Readings blok 3
The nature of psychological reactance revisited: A
meta-analytic review. Human Communication Research:
https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.tilburguniversity.idm.oclc.org/doi/epdf/10.1111/
j.1468-2958.2012.01443.x
, Week 1
Monday, January 27
Diminishing =
Afnemen
Contradiction =
Tegenstrijdig
- “To understand and be successful at persuasion, you need to understand
resistance”
- “Resistance is the most important element in the persuasion process”
Resistance =
- A reaction against change: “I don’t like it”, “I don’t believe it”, “I won’t do
it”
- The ability to withstand a persuasive attack
- An outcome: not being moved by pressures to change
- A motivational state: motivation to oppose and counter pressures to
change
*Resistance is often defined as “a reaction to change” and as “the opposite of
persuasion”.
Health communication messages often have the goal to persuade recipients to
change their:
- Attitudes
- Intentions
- Behavior
Motivation for resisting health messages:
1. Reactance theory (Brehm & Brehm, 1981) suggests that a counter
attitudinal/behavioral health message -a message advocating an attitude
or behavior not in line with recipients’ attitudes of behavior- may elicit a
threat to freedom in message recipients. For example, when a teenager is
confronted with a health message that stresses the importance of not
smoking s/he is likely to experience a threat to freedom.
When people feel threatened in their freedom to choose, they are
motivated to regain their freedom. They can do this by showing the
opposite behavior resulting in a boomerang effect (i.e., direct
restoration), dismissing the message or the source (i.e., indirect
restoration), demonstrating other unhealthy behavior as an alternative
for the threatened unhealthy behavior (i.e., vicarious restoration).
2. Second, the need for accuracy can make people skeptical towards
persuasive health communication. People strive for correct and valid
attitudes; they want to be right and may therefore question the provided
health information or the source of the information. This may happen
when people have encountered conflicting health information in the past
or when they have negative experiences with the source that provides the
information.
, Mensen streven naar correcte en geldige houdingen; ze willen gelijk
hebben en kunnen daarom de verstrekte gezondheidsinformatie of de
bron van de informatie in twijfel trekken.
3. Third, when people are confronted with a counter attitudinal health
message and see no effective way of changing their behavior, they might
experience resistance and show defensive reactions to diminish the
perceived threat.
For example, when a smoker is confronted with a message on the
dangerous risks of smoking, s/he might experience threat but when s/he
does not know how to stop smoking, is it beneficial to reduce the threat by
responding defensive.
4. Fourth, resistance can be induced (ontstaan) when people’s self-esteem is
threatened by a health message that disapproves their behavior. For
example, a heavy drinker is likely to experience cognitive dissonance
when exposed to a persuasive health message on the harms of alcohol
abuse. Resisting the message is then a way to maintain a positive self-
concept.
Direct Restoration =
Doing the exact opposite of what is advised (boomerang effect).
Example: A campaign warns against smoking, so a person smokes even
more to assert their freedom.
Indirect Restoration =
Dismissing the message or source instead of changing behavior.
Example: "This anti-smoking campaign is exaggerated; I don’t believe it!"
Instead of changing behavior, they reject the advice to feel in control.
Vicarious Restoration =
Engaging in another unhealthy behavior to compensate.
Example: Someone stops smoking due to a campaign but starts eating
more junk food instead.
Counter attitudinal =
Tegen iemands bestaande houding of mening in.
Cognitive dissonance =
Cognitive dissonance happens when someone has conflicting thoughts, beliefs,
or behaviors, which makes them feel uncomfortable. To reduce this discomfort,
they try to change their thoughts or actions.
Example:
You know smoking is bad for your health, but you still smoke.
This creates dissonance (mental discomfort).
To reduce this discomfort, you might:
1. Change behavior → Quit smoking.
2. Change belief → "Smoking helps me relax, so it's worth the risk."
3. Justify → "Lots of people smoke and live long lives!"
Derogation =
Afwijking
Defensive responses to health messages:
, 1. Contesting: Actively rejecting the issue (Counterarguing, source
derogation, message derogation, denial) Actief de kwestie of het pleidooi van de
boodschap afwijzen (tegenargumenteren, bronverwerping, berichtverwerping)
2. Bolstering
3. Cognitive reappraisal
4. Suppression
5. Avoidance
Counterarguing =
Het proces waarbij argumenten of reacties worden ontwikkeld die een bepaalde
bewering, overtuiging of standpunt tegenspreken of weerleggen.
Source derogation =
Bronafwijking
Claiming that a source is untrustworthy or unknowledgeable.
Message derogation =
Stating, for example, that the message is exaggerated.
Bolstering =
Ondersteunen, versterken door middel van bevestiging
Includes strategies that empower and strengthen the existing attitude or
behavior such as:
- Attitude bolstering:
Je benadrukt waarom je mening of gedrag goed en juist is.
Voorbeeld: "Gezond eten is belangrijk, want het geeft me energie en
houdt me fit!"
- Social validation:
Je ziet dat anderen hetzelfde doen, dus het voelt als de juiste keuze.
Voorbeeld: "Mijn vrienden sporten ook, dus het is een goede
gewoonte!"
Kort gezegd: Je maakt mensen zekerder over hun houding of gedrag door het te
bevestigen
Attitude bolstering: Reinforcing your own view
Counterarguing: Attacking the opposing view
Cognitive reappraisal =
A way people respond to health messages about risks. It means they accept
that the risk is real, but they use certain beliefs to feel less threatened or
worried about it. Here's how they do it:
1. Downplaying the relevance to themselves:
o They think, "This risk doesn't really apply to me."
2. Fatalism:
o They believe, "Nothing I do can change the outcome, so why worry?"
3. Risk normalization:
o They accept, "Risks are just a part of life; everyone faces them."
4. Religiosity:
o They trust, "God decides what happens to me, so it’s not in my
control."
5. Downward social comparison:
o They compare themselves to others and think, "At least I’m
healthier than many other people."
Readings blok 3
The nature of psychological reactance revisited: A
meta-analytic review. Human Communication Research:
https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.tilburguniversity.idm.oclc.org/doi/epdf/10.1111/
j.1468-2958.2012.01443.x
, Week 1
Monday, January 27
Diminishing =
Afnemen
Contradiction =
Tegenstrijdig
- “To understand and be successful at persuasion, you need to understand
resistance”
- “Resistance is the most important element in the persuasion process”
Resistance =
- A reaction against change: “I don’t like it”, “I don’t believe it”, “I won’t do
it”
- The ability to withstand a persuasive attack
- An outcome: not being moved by pressures to change
- A motivational state: motivation to oppose and counter pressures to
change
*Resistance is often defined as “a reaction to change” and as “the opposite of
persuasion”.
Health communication messages often have the goal to persuade recipients to
change their:
- Attitudes
- Intentions
- Behavior
Motivation for resisting health messages:
1. Reactance theory (Brehm & Brehm, 1981) suggests that a counter
attitudinal/behavioral health message -a message advocating an attitude
or behavior not in line with recipients’ attitudes of behavior- may elicit a
threat to freedom in message recipients. For example, when a teenager is
confronted with a health message that stresses the importance of not
smoking s/he is likely to experience a threat to freedom.
When people feel threatened in their freedom to choose, they are
motivated to regain their freedom. They can do this by showing the
opposite behavior resulting in a boomerang effect (i.e., direct
restoration), dismissing the message or the source (i.e., indirect
restoration), demonstrating other unhealthy behavior as an alternative
for the threatened unhealthy behavior (i.e., vicarious restoration).
2. Second, the need for accuracy can make people skeptical towards
persuasive health communication. People strive for correct and valid
attitudes; they want to be right and may therefore question the provided
health information or the source of the information. This may happen
when people have encountered conflicting health information in the past
or when they have negative experiences with the source that provides the
information.
, Mensen streven naar correcte en geldige houdingen; ze willen gelijk
hebben en kunnen daarom de verstrekte gezondheidsinformatie of de
bron van de informatie in twijfel trekken.
3. Third, when people are confronted with a counter attitudinal health
message and see no effective way of changing their behavior, they might
experience resistance and show defensive reactions to diminish the
perceived threat.
For example, when a smoker is confronted with a message on the
dangerous risks of smoking, s/he might experience threat but when s/he
does not know how to stop smoking, is it beneficial to reduce the threat by
responding defensive.
4. Fourth, resistance can be induced (ontstaan) when people’s self-esteem is
threatened by a health message that disapproves their behavior. For
example, a heavy drinker is likely to experience cognitive dissonance
when exposed to a persuasive health message on the harms of alcohol
abuse. Resisting the message is then a way to maintain a positive self-
concept.
Direct Restoration =
Doing the exact opposite of what is advised (boomerang effect).
Example: A campaign warns against smoking, so a person smokes even
more to assert their freedom.
Indirect Restoration =
Dismissing the message or source instead of changing behavior.
Example: "This anti-smoking campaign is exaggerated; I don’t believe it!"
Instead of changing behavior, they reject the advice to feel in control.
Vicarious Restoration =
Engaging in another unhealthy behavior to compensate.
Example: Someone stops smoking due to a campaign but starts eating
more junk food instead.
Counter attitudinal =
Tegen iemands bestaande houding of mening in.
Cognitive dissonance =
Cognitive dissonance happens when someone has conflicting thoughts, beliefs,
or behaviors, which makes them feel uncomfortable. To reduce this discomfort,
they try to change their thoughts or actions.
Example:
You know smoking is bad for your health, but you still smoke.
This creates dissonance (mental discomfort).
To reduce this discomfort, you might:
1. Change behavior → Quit smoking.
2. Change belief → "Smoking helps me relax, so it's worth the risk."
3. Justify → "Lots of people smoke and live long lives!"
Derogation =
Afwijking
Defensive responses to health messages:
, 1. Contesting: Actively rejecting the issue (Counterarguing, source
derogation, message derogation, denial) Actief de kwestie of het pleidooi van de
boodschap afwijzen (tegenargumenteren, bronverwerping, berichtverwerping)
2. Bolstering
3. Cognitive reappraisal
4. Suppression
5. Avoidance
Counterarguing =
Het proces waarbij argumenten of reacties worden ontwikkeld die een bepaalde
bewering, overtuiging of standpunt tegenspreken of weerleggen.
Source derogation =
Bronafwijking
Claiming that a source is untrustworthy or unknowledgeable.
Message derogation =
Stating, for example, that the message is exaggerated.
Bolstering =
Ondersteunen, versterken door middel van bevestiging
Includes strategies that empower and strengthen the existing attitude or
behavior such as:
- Attitude bolstering:
Je benadrukt waarom je mening of gedrag goed en juist is.
Voorbeeld: "Gezond eten is belangrijk, want het geeft me energie en
houdt me fit!"
- Social validation:
Je ziet dat anderen hetzelfde doen, dus het voelt als de juiste keuze.
Voorbeeld: "Mijn vrienden sporten ook, dus het is een goede
gewoonte!"
Kort gezegd: Je maakt mensen zekerder over hun houding of gedrag door het te
bevestigen
Attitude bolstering: Reinforcing your own view
Counterarguing: Attacking the opposing view
Cognitive reappraisal =
A way people respond to health messages about risks. It means they accept
that the risk is real, but they use certain beliefs to feel less threatened or
worried about it. Here's how they do it:
1. Downplaying the relevance to themselves:
o They think, "This risk doesn't really apply to me."
2. Fatalism:
o They believe, "Nothing I do can change the outcome, so why worry?"
3. Risk normalization:
o They accept, "Risks are just a part of life; everyone faces them."
4. Religiosity:
o They trust, "God decides what happens to me, so it’s not in my
control."
5. Downward social comparison:
o They compare themselves to others and think, "At least I’m
healthier than many other people."
