Resistance strategies and attitude certainty in persuasion: bolstering vs. counterarguing

Abstract

IntroductionAlthough resistance to persuasion has been of interest in psychology, relatively little research has examined how different resistance strategies can affect the strength-related features of attitudes. The current research presents a metacognitive account of two resistance strategies and their effect on attitude certainty and intentions. Specifically, we examine how the strategies of counterarguing and bolstering can differentially affect attitude certainty and intentions to act on the attitude under attack.MethodsIn two experiments, we implemented a 2(Perceived Thought Type: bolster vs. counterargue) x 2(Perceived Argument Quality: weak vs. strong) between-participants design. Participants read weak or strong arguments about a counterattitudinal topic. After reporting their thoughts in response to the message topic, participants received bogus feedback regarding the nature of their thoughts (i.e., bolstering or counterarguing). Following the feedback, participants reported their attitudes and attitude certainty.ResultsIn Experiment 1 (N =241), participants’ thoughts perceived as counterarguments elicited attitude certainty that was more sensitive to the quality of the attacking information than when thoughts were perceived as bolstering one’s opinion. Experiment 2 (N  = 287) replicated the effect with a different topic and demonstrated a similar pattern on intentions to act on the attacked attitude.DiscussionThe research demonstrates that two relatively thoughtful strategies, bolstering and counterarguing, can play an important role in attitude certainty and intentions following a persuasion attempt.