Resistance & persuasion – notes
Lecture 1
Knowles & Linn (2004)
Learning about persuasion requires understanding the nature and operation of resistance to
persuasion.
Resistance = a reaction against change / response to pressures for change
Resistance to persuasion = the ability to withstand a persuasive attack
Resistance is increased by increasing motivation to resist and by arming the person with the weapons
needed for resistance.
Reactance = caused by external threats to freedom of choice, resulting in an uncomfortable situation
that motivates reasserting that freedom. This provokes oppositional feelings and behaviors (e.g.
wanting the forbidden fruit).
The amount of reactance is determined by:
- The freedoms that are threatened
How important these freedoms are for the person, the greater reactance
- The nature of the threat
Direct and demanding requests will create more reactance than indirect and subtle requests
Sides of resistance:
- Affective I don’t like it
- Motivational I won’t do it
- Cognitive I don’t believe it
Four related perceptions of resistance:
- Reactance
Only initiated when the influence is felt threatening for choice. Emphasizes the affective and
motivational side of resistance.
- Distrust
Focuses on the target of change, becoming wary/guarded when faced with an offer/message
to change as they wonder what the motive is. Emphasizes both affective and cognitive
reactions.
- Scrutiny
When awareness of being the target of influence occurs, the natural reaction is to be more
thoughtful to the situation. Emphasis on the proposal, which is examined more carefully.
Strong arguments are perceived, but also weak arguments are. Primarily focused on the
cognitive aspect of resistance.
- Inertia
Focuses more on staying put than resisting change. Attempts to keep the attitude system in
balance. Requests asking for change in affect, behavior of belief lead to frustrating that
change.
Notes from lecture 1
Definitions of 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
Lecture 2
Wheeler et al. (2007)
Ego-depletion = state in which the self-regulatory resources are diminished
Resisting persuasion is a type of task that could limit self-regulatory resources
When ego-depleted, humans tend to ‘give in’ easier to requests that they may normally would have
rejected. This acceptance is a default, passive and low-effort response strategy.
Hypothesis = ego-depletion lead to higher levels of favorability in thoughts and attitudes. (supported)
However, the effect of ego-depletion on persuasion can differ across strong and weak message
conditions
Resistance is seen as a process, not an outcome
Fennis et al. (2009)
Consumers are induced to comply with a charitable request at much higher rates when approached
with a social influence technique than without a scripted warm-up.
Six experiments showed that a key element of the preliminary stage of a scripted influence tactic is
that it induces a state of self-regulatory resource depletion. This weakened volitional state enhances
compliance with a subsequent request, but only when the request contains heuristics aimed at
promoting compliance (e.g., reciprocity)—which nearly all scripted influence techniques naturally
embed in the process.
What is it that makes consumers say yes to such consequential requests? Processes that are subtle,
indirect, and outside conscious awareness of the target consumer.
The effectiveness of influence techniques in dependent on consumers’ automaticity or
“mindlessness’’. Consumers are prone to employ simple heuristics that increase compliance rates,
such as the principles of consistency (= propensity to behave congruently across situations),
reciprocity (= felt obligation to return a favor), and liking (= wanted to be liked).
The state of mindlessness is achieved by multiple decision moments or sequential requests. These
social influence techniques trigger a psychological mechanism that accounts for the impact on
consumers’ compliance: self-regulation failure brought about by self-regulatory resource depletion.
Two stage model:
- First stage
The initial request is presented to the consumer. Yielding to the initial request(s) results in
self-regulatory resource depletion. A state of low self-regulatory resources produces the
mindlessness typically observed in studies on social influence
There is evidence in support of the hypothesis of stage 1 of the model: yielding to the initial
request in a multiple request influence procedure to gain compliance with a charitable
request affects self-regulatory resource availability (H1) because yielding involves either
effortful self-presentation or intellectual demands.
- Second stage
, Self-regulatory resource depletion fosters the use of heuristics that encourage yielding to the
target request, thereby resulting in acts of charitable giving and volunteering
A state of self-regulatory resource depletion weakens resistance to temptations and
(unwanted) influence attempts.
Notes from lecture 2
No self/control results in heuristics cues (= shortcuts)
Charity + mugging = charitable muggers = chugging = people on the street trying to convince you for
donations/membership
Social influence techniques:
- Sequential request techniques
Do not directly ask the main question, but firstly ask a couple other questions
o Foot-in-door (= begins with a small request, followed by a larger request)
This technique works best when the initial request is highly involving, because it
entails active self-presentation and/or demanding cognitive operations.
o Door-in-the-face (= starts with large request, followed by a smaller request)
o Lowball (= starts with an offer/request, presented in a particularly attractive light,
which is subsequently modified to the actual (less attractive) target request after
initial acceptance)
o Disrupt-then-reframe (an offer is presented to the target, followed by a subtle oddity
or twist in the sales script (such as stating the price of the offer in pennies before
stating it in dollars), and finally a persuasive phrase that concludes the script)
These techniques are effective because they make use of heuristics. F.e. the foot in door technique
makes use of the principle consistency (do you like animals? Do you want to help animals?).
Cialdini says that automaticity is the cornerstone of all influence techniques
Self-control depletion being out of self-control after a number of initial requests
Self-control = ability to control your own thoughts, behavior and motions. You can see it as a muscle,
which will wear out of you use it too much
People that are have self-control depletion they are too tired to focus on the target request (do you
want to donate) and they focus on decisional heuristics (such as consistency, reciprocity, authority,
liking etc.).
Why is self-control so tiresome, which results in depletion?
- Initial request being highly involving (FITD technique)
- Highly involving entails two things:
o Demanding cognitive operations (complicated tasks)
o Active self-representation (giving socially desirable answer)
Low self-control fosters compliance
- Resource depletion have lower resistance counter attitudinal message (that is not in line with
your own attitude)
2-stage model of depletion:
