...............................................................................................................................................................1
L1. Introduction (Fransen, 2023; Knowles & Linn, 2004).......................................................................2
L2. Psychological Reactance & Politeness theory (Rains, 2013; Jenkins, 2013).....................................7
L3. Persuasion knowledge and advertising literacy (Eisend, 2022; Hudders, 2017).............................13
L4. Self-threat and cognitive dissonance (Van 't Riet, 2013; Zuwerink Jacks & Cameron, 2003; Valli &
Nai, 2022)............................................................................................................................................20
L5. Receivers’ resistance strategies & Sender strategies to overcome resistance (Knowles, 2004;
Fransen, 2015).....................................................................................................................................28
L6. Narrative persuasion and self-persuasion......................................................................................39
L7. Emotional appeals (Cummins et al., 2020; Strick et al., 2012).......................................................43
L8. Influencer endorsement and native advertising (Breves et al., 2021; Youn, 2019)........................49
L9. (Beckert et al., 2021) (No exam content).......................................................................................58
Exam information................................................................................................................................60
,L1. Introduction (Fransen, 2023; Knowles & Linn, 2004)
Health communication messages often have the goal to persuade recipients to change their
attitudes, intentions, or behaviour. However, persuasive health messages are not always as
successful as required and desired. Instead of studying the processes that result in attitudinal or
behavioural change, the focus now lies on studying the processes that explain resistance to change.
Resistance= a reaction against change/persuasion. It is a counteract to someone else's attempt to
limit one's choices, the ability to withstand a persuasive attack. For example, people know smoking is
bad for your health, but still ignore the advertisement about it and keep smoking.
To understand and be successful at persuasion, you need to understand resistance (Knowles).
Resistance is the most important element in the persuasion process (Fransen).
Resistance=
- A reaction against change: ‘I don't like it’, ‘I don't believe it’, ‘I won't do it’.
- The sentence that begins like; ‘Well, perhaps, but..’.
- The ability to withstand a persuasive attack
- Resistance has a dual definition:
o An outcome: not being moved by pressures to change. The outcome of resistance
tells us about whether and how much the persuasive attempt was effective.
o A motivational state: the motivation to oppose and counter pressures to change.
One model of attitude structure distinguishes three components which also applies to resistance.
Components of resistance:
- Affective: ‘I don't like it’
- Cognitive: ‘I don't believe it’
- Behavioral: ‘I won't do it’
Source of resistance: ‘Reactance’ to an external source: resistance caused by external threats to
one’s freedom of choice. When a person senses that someone else is limiting his freedom to choose
or act, an uncomfortable state of reactance results, creating motivation to reassert that freedom. As
a results, the reactant person likes the forbidden fruit even more, and finds ways to enact the
banned behavior. Factors that determine the amount of reactance:
- The freedoms that are threatened: the more numerous and important the freedoms, the
greater the reactance to losing them.
- The nature of the threat: direct and demanding requests will create more reactance than
legitimate, subtle, and indirect requests.
The four faces of resistance:
1. Reactance: recognizes the influence attempt as an integral element of resistance. It is only
initiated when the influence is directly perceived and when it threatens a person's choice
, alternatives. It emphasizes the affective and motivational sides of resistance (‘I don't like it
and I won't do it').
2. Distrust: people become guarded and wary when faced with a proposal, offer, or message to
change. They wonder what the motive behind the proposal might be, what the true facts
are. Underlies affective and cognitive reactions to influence (I don't like it and I don't believe
it’).
3. Scrutiny (nauwkeurig onderzoek): the natural reaction to attend more carefully and
thoughtfully of every aspect of the situation. Each point of the proposal is examined more
carefully and questioned more thoroughly, the strengths of an argument as well as the
weaknesses of an argument. The cognitive element is working (‘I don't believe it’).
4. Inertia (luiheid): focuses on staying put; keep the attitude system in balance.
Motivations for resisting health messages:
- Reactance theory: a counter attitudinal/behavioral health message which is not in line with
recipients’ attitudes or behavior, may elicit a threat to freedom to the recipient. When
people feel threatened in their freedom to choose, they are motivated to regain their
freedom. This can be done with:
o Showing the opposite behaviour (boomerang effect = direct restoration)
o Dismissing the source/message (=indirect restoration)
o Demonstrating other unhealthy behavior as an alternative for the threatened
unhealthy behaviour (=vicarious restoration)
- People strive for correct and valid attitudes (they want to be right), and may therefore
question the provided health information to make sure that they don't make a mistake.
- When people see no effective way of changing their behavior and show defensive reactions
to diminish the perceived threat. For them, it is more beneficial to reduce the threat by
responding defensive, because they are not able to change their behavior (easily). People
resist a message in a way to maintain a positive self-concept when their self-esteem is
threatened.
Observing and measuring whether and how people resist a persuasive message is a challenge. The
absence of attitudinal or behavioural change can be seen as a sign of resistance, but the message
can also be for example, poorly designed.
, Defensive responses= the strategies recipients use to resist persuasion. Those are measurable and
reveal more about the underlying processes explaining resistance towards (threatening)
communication.
Contesting= actively rejecting the issue or advocacy of the message by means of;
- Counterarguing= refuting the arguments presented in a message
- Denial
- Source derogation= claiming that a source is untrustworthy or unknowledgeable
- Message derogation= stating, for example, that the message is exaggerated
Bolstering= strategies that empower and strengthen the existing attitude or behavior
- Attitude bolstering= stressing why your current attitude is valid
- Social validation= other people show similar behaviour so it must be good
Cognitive reappraisal= the strategy of not accepting the threating risk presented in a message and
adopting additional beliefs to reduce the threat. This can be done by downplaying the relevance of
the message to themselves:
- Fatalism= telling yourself that nothing can be done to decrease the risk
- Risk normalization= accepting that risks are part of life
- Religiosity= god decides what happens to me
- Downward social comparison= other people behave much unhealthier than I do.
Biased processing= processing a message in such way that the message can still fit with existing
attitudes and behaviour.
- Weighting attributes= attaching more weight to information that is consistent with current
attitudes and behaviour and less weight to inconsistent information.
L1. Introduction (Fransen, 2023; Knowles & Linn, 2004).......................................................................2
L2. Psychological Reactance & Politeness theory (Rains, 2013; Jenkins, 2013).....................................7
L3. Persuasion knowledge and advertising literacy (Eisend, 2022; Hudders, 2017).............................13
L4. Self-threat and cognitive dissonance (Van 't Riet, 2013; Zuwerink Jacks & Cameron, 2003; Valli &
Nai, 2022)............................................................................................................................................20
L5. Receivers’ resistance strategies & Sender strategies to overcome resistance (Knowles, 2004;
Fransen, 2015).....................................................................................................................................28
L6. Narrative persuasion and self-persuasion......................................................................................39
L7. Emotional appeals (Cummins et al., 2020; Strick et al., 2012).......................................................43
L8. Influencer endorsement and native advertising (Breves et al., 2021; Youn, 2019)........................49
L9. (Beckert et al., 2021) (No exam content).......................................................................................58
Exam information................................................................................................................................60
,L1. Introduction (Fransen, 2023; Knowles & Linn, 2004)
Health communication messages often have the goal to persuade recipients to change their
attitudes, intentions, or behaviour. However, persuasive health messages are not always as
successful as required and desired. Instead of studying the processes that result in attitudinal or
behavioural change, the focus now lies on studying the processes that explain resistance to change.
Resistance= a reaction against change/persuasion. It is a counteract to someone else's attempt to
limit one's choices, the ability to withstand a persuasive attack. For example, people know smoking is
bad for your health, but still ignore the advertisement about it and keep smoking.
To understand and be successful at persuasion, you need to understand resistance (Knowles).
Resistance is the most important element in the persuasion process (Fransen).
Resistance=
- A reaction against change: ‘I don't like it’, ‘I don't believe it’, ‘I won't do it’.
- The sentence that begins like; ‘Well, perhaps, but..’.
- The ability to withstand a persuasive attack
- Resistance has a dual definition:
o An outcome: not being moved by pressures to change. The outcome of resistance
tells us about whether and how much the persuasive attempt was effective.
o A motivational state: the motivation to oppose and counter pressures to change.
One model of attitude structure distinguishes three components which also applies to resistance.
Components of resistance:
- Affective: ‘I don't like it’
- Cognitive: ‘I don't believe it’
- Behavioral: ‘I won't do it’
Source of resistance: ‘Reactance’ to an external source: resistance caused by external threats to
one’s freedom of choice. When a person senses that someone else is limiting his freedom to choose
or act, an uncomfortable state of reactance results, creating motivation to reassert that freedom. As
a results, the reactant person likes the forbidden fruit even more, and finds ways to enact the
banned behavior. Factors that determine the amount of reactance:
- The freedoms that are threatened: the more numerous and important the freedoms, the
greater the reactance to losing them.
- The nature of the threat: direct and demanding requests will create more reactance than
legitimate, subtle, and indirect requests.
The four faces of resistance:
1. Reactance: recognizes the influence attempt as an integral element of resistance. It is only
initiated when the influence is directly perceived and when it threatens a person's choice
, alternatives. It emphasizes the affective and motivational sides of resistance (‘I don't like it
and I won't do it').
2. Distrust: people become guarded and wary when faced with a proposal, offer, or message to
change. They wonder what the motive behind the proposal might be, what the true facts
are. Underlies affective and cognitive reactions to influence (I don't like it and I don't believe
it’).
3. Scrutiny (nauwkeurig onderzoek): the natural reaction to attend more carefully and
thoughtfully of every aspect of the situation. Each point of the proposal is examined more
carefully and questioned more thoroughly, the strengths of an argument as well as the
weaknesses of an argument. The cognitive element is working (‘I don't believe it’).
4. Inertia (luiheid): focuses on staying put; keep the attitude system in balance.
Motivations for resisting health messages:
- Reactance theory: a counter attitudinal/behavioral health message which is not in line with
recipients’ attitudes or behavior, may elicit a threat to freedom to the recipient. When
people feel threatened in their freedom to choose, they are motivated to regain their
freedom. This can be done with:
o Showing the opposite behaviour (boomerang effect = direct restoration)
o Dismissing the source/message (=indirect restoration)
o Demonstrating other unhealthy behavior as an alternative for the threatened
unhealthy behaviour (=vicarious restoration)
- People strive for correct and valid attitudes (they want to be right), and may therefore
question the provided health information to make sure that they don't make a mistake.
- When people see no effective way of changing their behavior and show defensive reactions
to diminish the perceived threat. For them, it is more beneficial to reduce the threat by
responding defensive, because they are not able to change their behavior (easily). People
resist a message in a way to maintain a positive self-concept when their self-esteem is
threatened.
Observing and measuring whether and how people resist a persuasive message is a challenge. The
absence of attitudinal or behavioural change can be seen as a sign of resistance, but the message
can also be for example, poorly designed.
, Defensive responses= the strategies recipients use to resist persuasion. Those are measurable and
reveal more about the underlying processes explaining resistance towards (threatening)
communication.
Contesting= actively rejecting the issue or advocacy of the message by means of;
- Counterarguing= refuting the arguments presented in a message
- Denial
- Source derogation= claiming that a source is untrustworthy or unknowledgeable
- Message derogation= stating, for example, that the message is exaggerated
Bolstering= strategies that empower and strengthen the existing attitude or behavior
- Attitude bolstering= stressing why your current attitude is valid
- Social validation= other people show similar behaviour so it must be good
Cognitive reappraisal= the strategy of not accepting the threating risk presented in a message and
adopting additional beliefs to reduce the threat. This can be done by downplaying the relevance of
the message to themselves:
- Fatalism= telling yourself that nothing can be done to decrease the risk
- Risk normalization= accepting that risks are part of life
- Religiosity= god decides what happens to me
- Downward social comparison= other people behave much unhealthier than I do.
Biased processing= processing a message in such way that the message can still fit with existing
attitudes and behaviour.
- Weighting attributes= attaching more weight to information that is consistent with current
attitudes and behaviour and less weight to inconsistent information.
