Strategies for Resisting Persuasion

Abstract

This research examines the variety of strategies individuals may use to resist persuasion. In Study 1, participants wrote an essay describing how they respond when faced with a persuasive challenge. Six expected strategies were reliably identified in the essays: attitude bolstering, counterarguing, negative affect, selective exposure, social validation, and source derogation. A novel strategy, asserting confidence that nothing could change one's mind, was also revealed. Studies 2 and 3 had individuals rate the likelihood of having each of these 7 responses in defense of their attitudes toward abortion or the death penalty, respectively. As predicted, message-oriented strategies (i.e., attitude bolstering and counterarguing) were reported as most likely to be used, and less socially acceptable strategies (e.g., source derogation) were reported as least likely. Attitude importance, perceived knowledge, perceived effectiveness of the strategy, and social desirability concerns all significantly predicted the perceived likelihood of using various strategies. A final study examined actual strategy use and found counterarguing, attitude bolstering, source derogation, and negative affect to be prevalent responses. Counterarguing was the most effective strategy for resisting persuasion. Attitude bolstering, although commonly used by respondents, did not predict resistance.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 191 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.