Naïve theories about persuasion: implications for information processing and
consumer attitude change
Brinol et al (2015)
Given the pervasiveness of persuasion, we content people may hold naïve theories about the meaning of
persuasion as something both good (information, democracy) and bad (deception, propaganda). The present
research examines the impact of the different meanings associated with persuasion for advertising
effectiveness.
A naïve theory is an association with persuasion (or advertising in general) that consumers have, that can
either be positive or negative. It is an general attitude, it's not about a specific advertisement. Personal
attitudes toward advertising likely play a crucial role in influencing consumers' exposure and attention to
advertisement, political and regulatory activities. However, only little empirical evidence exists on the influence
of such beliefs regarding how people respond to persuasion or advertising.
We speculate that people hold general views of persuasion as good or bad. We believe that just as persuasion
knowledge can influence how consumers behave in response to information, so too might the meaning of
persuasion. Prior work suggests that people who have similar persuasive experiences, identical persuasive
knowledge and equivalent scepticism, may still have different evaluations of persuasion as a function of their
lay theories of linking these experiences with meaning. How we think about persuasion can be a individual
difference, but it also can be a situational difference (malleable, can be manipulated in the situation).
Message scrunity is about how are you processing the message/advertisement. In reviewing literature,
evidence seems to favour the possibility that people are likely to pay more attention to persuasion when they
harbour negative as opposed to positive naïve theories about it. Thus counterattitudinal arguments suggest
greater information processing. These finding suggest the possibility that associating persuasion with
something negative might yield greater processing than associating persuasion with something
Hypotheses
The hypotheses below are not specifically pointed out, but are derived from the article:
• Hypothesis 1: strong arguments lead to more processing
• Hypothesis 2: negative naïve theory leads to more processing (when I don't want to be persuaded, I
process more > counter-attitudinal information leads to more recall, longer processing time. Sources in
doubt lead to more carefull processing)
• Hypothesis 3: interaction effect > negative naïve theory leads to more processing of strong arguments
(not of weaker arguments)
Research overview
We want to examine the influence of peoples' naïve theories towards persuasion on information processing
and attitude change. Therefore, two experiments are used:
• Experiment 1: directly tests the malleability notion by manipulating whether persuasion is seen as
something good or bad and examining het consequences for persuasion > naïve theory is manipulated
(situational characteristic)
• Experiment 2: takes a measurement approach and assesses the relationship between peoples' chronic
naïve theories of persuasion and actual persuasion > naïve theory is measured (individual characteristic)
Experiment 1
What?
Was designed to study the influence of naïve theories about persuasion on actual persuasion. We manipulated
participant's views of persuasion. We expected individuals induced to view persuasion negatively would be
more inclined to scrutinize (process) the message more carefully, and thus show a greater differentiation
between weak and strong arguments, than individuals induced to view persuasion positively.
1
,Method
67 psychology undergraduates / Ohio University
Steps:
1. Semantic test to manipulate participants' naïve theories about persuasion
a. All participants were presented with one target word at a time and asked to pick three words
from a list that best captured the meaning of each word. All participants were given the same
target words, but the list of synonyms was experimentally varied (good vs bad)
2. Expose to radio transcript for new state fostercare programme (some got weak, some strong arguments)
3. Reporting attitudes towards program
Variables
Independent variables:
• Naïve theories about the meaning of persuasion
• Argument cogency = the difference between weak and strong arguments (quality)
Dependent variables: outcomes:
• Attitude: positivity of the attitude > nine-point semantic scale on which participants had to rate this new
social policy
• Attitude accessibility: how much time do participants need to respond to attitude items
• Thoughts: participants were instructed to list the thoughts that went through their minds as they read
the message > judges classified responses as favourable, unfavourable and neutral.
Results
• Main effect: Strong arguments have more positive effect than weak arguments on attitudes and
thoughts (not on accessibility)
• Main effect: Naive theory on accessibility (not on attitude and thoughts); more negative view on
persuasion, faster accessibility
• Interaction effect: If naive theory is negative significant difference between weak and strong argument
on attitudes and thoughs (not on accessibility); if naive theory is positive no difference between weak
and strong arguments
Experiment 1 provides initial evidence that naïve theories
about the meaning of persuasion can play an important role in
the persuasion process. Those who were induced to have
negative associations with persuasion scrutinized the
information presented more carefully. In fact, those induced to
have more positive associations with persuasion appeared to
show no reliable differentiation of strong and weak arguments.
Furthermore, this experiment provides additional evidence
supporting the idea of an elaboration mechanism. Both the
thought listing and the accessibility of participants’ attitudes
provide evidence consistent with the idea that the attitude
results were due to underlying differences in message
elaboration.
2
,Experiment 2
What?
Experiment 2 tested the influence of natural variations in individuals' naïve theories about persuasion on
message processing and attitude change. The extent to which people process the message was assessed by
examining the degree to which strong versus weak arguments affect post-message attitudes. The critical
difference is that we measured natural variations in the meaning people attached to persuasion. We expect
that individuals who naturally held more negative views of persuasion would be more inclined to scrutinize the
message carefully, and thus show a greater differentiation between weak and strong arguments, than
individuals who naturally held less negative views of persuasion.
Method
78 psychology undergraduates - Ohio University
Steps:
1. Perception of a transcript for a radio advertisement for a state foster care program
2. Receiving either strong or weak argument
3. Reporting attitudes towards foster care program
Variables
Independent variables:
• Naïve theories about persuasion (asked to express whether they agreed/disagreed with four items
regarding persuasion)
• Argument cogency
Dependent variables: outcomes (same as in experiment 1)
• Attitude: positivity of the attitude > nine-point semantic scale on which participants had to rate this new
social policy
• Attitude accessibility: how much time do participants need to respond to attitude items
• Thoughts: participants were instructed to list the thoughts that went through their minds as they read
the message > judges classified responses as favourable, unfavourable and neutral.
Results
• Main effect: Strong arguments have a more positive effect than weak arguments on attitudes
• Main effect: Naive theory on attitudes: more negative view on persuasion, more negative attitude
• Interaction effect: If naive theory is negative significant difference between weak and strong argument
on attitudes
Using a more naturalistic individual differences approach to
assess the extent to which naïve theories about persuasion
were more or less negative, we conceptually replicated the
results from experiment 1. Participants showed greater
discrimination of weak and strong arguments when naïve
theories were spontaneously reported to be relatively
positive as opposed to negative. This provides additional
support for the hypothesis that what consumers believe
about persuasion has implications for actual persuasion.
3
, As found in Experiment 1, consumers’ naive theories appear capable of determining message elaboration, such
that those who were most negative towards persuasion were most likely to scrutinize the persuasive
information presented. Our attitude results are consistent with prior research on scepticism overall, but
importantly the interaction with argument quality clearly shows that the negative impact of negative views of
persuasion only hold for the weak arguments condition. The opposite was true when the argu-
ments were strong.
General discussion
In particular, consumers who have negative, as opposed to positive, views of persuasion are more likely to
attend to and scrutinize the arguments presented to them. In many ways, this should come as a relief to
marketers, as consumers’ dislike of advertising or a negative view of persuasion does not automatically equate
to a reduction in advertising effectiveness. Indeed, a negative view of advertising can lead to more positive
views of products if the arguments presented are very cogent (strong).
Overall conclusion: even a negative view of advertising (persuasion) can lead to positive views of products if
the arguments presented are very strong. However if arguments are weak it is hard to change attitudes if
advertising is perceived negatively.
A typology of consumer strategies for resisting advertising and a review of
mechanisms for countering them
Franssen et al (2015)
Advertising is designed to persuade consumers - by creating brand an product awareness or by communicating
social, emotional or functional product benefits. But consumers are not always open to advertising and often
resist its attempts at persuasion. Literature does not provide a clear overview of the different ways in which
consumers may resist advertising, and the tactics that can be used to counter or avoid such resistance. This
article fills this gap by providing an overview of the different types of resistance that consumers may show, and
by discussing the ways in which resistance may be countered.
ACE - a typology of resistance strategies >
4
consumer attitude change
Brinol et al (2015)
Given the pervasiveness of persuasion, we content people may hold naïve theories about the meaning of
persuasion as something both good (information, democracy) and bad (deception, propaganda). The present
research examines the impact of the different meanings associated with persuasion for advertising
effectiveness.
A naïve theory is an association with persuasion (or advertising in general) that consumers have, that can
either be positive or negative. It is an general attitude, it's not about a specific advertisement. Personal
attitudes toward advertising likely play a crucial role in influencing consumers' exposure and attention to
advertisement, political and regulatory activities. However, only little empirical evidence exists on the influence
of such beliefs regarding how people respond to persuasion or advertising.
We speculate that people hold general views of persuasion as good or bad. We believe that just as persuasion
knowledge can influence how consumers behave in response to information, so too might the meaning of
persuasion. Prior work suggests that people who have similar persuasive experiences, identical persuasive
knowledge and equivalent scepticism, may still have different evaluations of persuasion as a function of their
lay theories of linking these experiences with meaning. How we think about persuasion can be a individual
difference, but it also can be a situational difference (malleable, can be manipulated in the situation).
Message scrunity is about how are you processing the message/advertisement. In reviewing literature,
evidence seems to favour the possibility that people are likely to pay more attention to persuasion when they
harbour negative as opposed to positive naïve theories about it. Thus counterattitudinal arguments suggest
greater information processing. These finding suggest the possibility that associating persuasion with
something negative might yield greater processing than associating persuasion with something
Hypotheses
The hypotheses below are not specifically pointed out, but are derived from the article:
• Hypothesis 1: strong arguments lead to more processing
• Hypothesis 2: negative naïve theory leads to more processing (when I don't want to be persuaded, I
process more > counter-attitudinal information leads to more recall, longer processing time. Sources in
doubt lead to more carefull processing)
• Hypothesis 3: interaction effect > negative naïve theory leads to more processing of strong arguments
(not of weaker arguments)
Research overview
We want to examine the influence of peoples' naïve theories towards persuasion on information processing
and attitude change. Therefore, two experiments are used:
• Experiment 1: directly tests the malleability notion by manipulating whether persuasion is seen as
something good or bad and examining het consequences for persuasion > naïve theory is manipulated
(situational characteristic)
• Experiment 2: takes a measurement approach and assesses the relationship between peoples' chronic
naïve theories of persuasion and actual persuasion > naïve theory is measured (individual characteristic)
Experiment 1
What?
Was designed to study the influence of naïve theories about persuasion on actual persuasion. We manipulated
participant's views of persuasion. We expected individuals induced to view persuasion negatively would be
more inclined to scrutinize (process) the message more carefully, and thus show a greater differentiation
between weak and strong arguments, than individuals induced to view persuasion positively.
1
,Method
67 psychology undergraduates / Ohio University
Steps:
1. Semantic test to manipulate participants' naïve theories about persuasion
a. All participants were presented with one target word at a time and asked to pick three words
from a list that best captured the meaning of each word. All participants were given the same
target words, but the list of synonyms was experimentally varied (good vs bad)
2. Expose to radio transcript for new state fostercare programme (some got weak, some strong arguments)
3. Reporting attitudes towards program
Variables
Independent variables:
• Naïve theories about the meaning of persuasion
• Argument cogency = the difference between weak and strong arguments (quality)
Dependent variables: outcomes:
• Attitude: positivity of the attitude > nine-point semantic scale on which participants had to rate this new
social policy
• Attitude accessibility: how much time do participants need to respond to attitude items
• Thoughts: participants were instructed to list the thoughts that went through their minds as they read
the message > judges classified responses as favourable, unfavourable and neutral.
Results
• Main effect: Strong arguments have more positive effect than weak arguments on attitudes and
thoughts (not on accessibility)
• Main effect: Naive theory on accessibility (not on attitude and thoughts); more negative view on
persuasion, faster accessibility
• Interaction effect: If naive theory is negative significant difference between weak and strong argument
on attitudes and thoughs (not on accessibility); if naive theory is positive no difference between weak
and strong arguments
Experiment 1 provides initial evidence that naïve theories
about the meaning of persuasion can play an important role in
the persuasion process. Those who were induced to have
negative associations with persuasion scrutinized the
information presented more carefully. In fact, those induced to
have more positive associations with persuasion appeared to
show no reliable differentiation of strong and weak arguments.
Furthermore, this experiment provides additional evidence
supporting the idea of an elaboration mechanism. Both the
thought listing and the accessibility of participants’ attitudes
provide evidence consistent with the idea that the attitude
results were due to underlying differences in message
elaboration.
2
,Experiment 2
What?
Experiment 2 tested the influence of natural variations in individuals' naïve theories about persuasion on
message processing and attitude change. The extent to which people process the message was assessed by
examining the degree to which strong versus weak arguments affect post-message attitudes. The critical
difference is that we measured natural variations in the meaning people attached to persuasion. We expect
that individuals who naturally held more negative views of persuasion would be more inclined to scrutinize the
message carefully, and thus show a greater differentiation between weak and strong arguments, than
individuals who naturally held less negative views of persuasion.
Method
78 psychology undergraduates - Ohio University
Steps:
1. Perception of a transcript for a radio advertisement for a state foster care program
2. Receiving either strong or weak argument
3. Reporting attitudes towards foster care program
Variables
Independent variables:
• Naïve theories about persuasion (asked to express whether they agreed/disagreed with four items
regarding persuasion)
• Argument cogency
Dependent variables: outcomes (same as in experiment 1)
• Attitude: positivity of the attitude > nine-point semantic scale on which participants had to rate this new
social policy
• Attitude accessibility: how much time do participants need to respond to attitude items
• Thoughts: participants were instructed to list the thoughts that went through their minds as they read
the message > judges classified responses as favourable, unfavourable and neutral.
Results
• Main effect: Strong arguments have a more positive effect than weak arguments on attitudes
• Main effect: Naive theory on attitudes: more negative view on persuasion, more negative attitude
• Interaction effect: If naive theory is negative significant difference between weak and strong argument
on attitudes
Using a more naturalistic individual differences approach to
assess the extent to which naïve theories about persuasion
were more or less negative, we conceptually replicated the
results from experiment 1. Participants showed greater
discrimination of weak and strong arguments when naïve
theories were spontaneously reported to be relatively
positive as opposed to negative. This provides additional
support for the hypothesis that what consumers believe
about persuasion has implications for actual persuasion.
3
, As found in Experiment 1, consumers’ naive theories appear capable of determining message elaboration, such
that those who were most negative towards persuasion were most likely to scrutinize the persuasive
information presented. Our attitude results are consistent with prior research on scepticism overall, but
importantly the interaction with argument quality clearly shows that the negative impact of negative views of
persuasion only hold for the weak arguments condition. The opposite was true when the argu-
ments were strong.
General discussion
In particular, consumers who have negative, as opposed to positive, views of persuasion are more likely to
attend to and scrutinize the arguments presented to them. In many ways, this should come as a relief to
marketers, as consumers’ dislike of advertising or a negative view of persuasion does not automatically equate
to a reduction in advertising effectiveness. Indeed, a negative view of advertising can lead to more positive
views of products if the arguments presented are very cogent (strong).
Overall conclusion: even a negative view of advertising (persuasion) can lead to positive views of products if
the arguments presented are very strong. However if arguments are weak it is hard to change attitudes if
advertising is perceived negatively.
A typology of consumer strategies for resisting advertising and a review of
mechanisms for countering them
Franssen et al (2015)
Advertising is designed to persuade consumers - by creating brand an product awareness or by communicating
social, emotional or functional product benefits. But consumers are not always open to advertising and often
resist its attempts at persuasion. Literature does not provide a clear overview of the different ways in which
consumers may resist advertising, and the tactics that can be used to counter or avoid such resistance. This
article fills this gap by providing an overview of the different types of resistance that consumers may show, and
by discussing the ways in which resistance may be countered.
ACE - a typology of resistance strategies >
4
