The Cognitive Mediation Hypothesis Revisited: An Empirical Response to Methodological and Theoretical Criticism

Abstract

The cognitive mediation hypothesis has become a well-established assumption in persuasion theory. However, several theoretical and methodological criticisms have been raised to call this assumption into question. Three experiments that address these criticisms were conducted to provide a more direct test of the cognitive mediation hypothesis. Using the forewarning effect as a testing arena, Experiment I demonstrated that interference with either motivation or ability to counterargue reduced fore-warning-induced resistance to persuasion. Experiment 2 demonstrated that exposure to counterarguments generated by others and self-generated counterarguments were functionally equivalent and redundant. Experiment 3 used a path-analytic approach to demonstrate that the persuasion differences produced by forewarning were eliminated by covarying the effect of cognitive responses generated between forewarning and message exposure. Taken together, the three experiments provide converging support for the cognitive mediation hypothesis, reconfirming the central role of cognition in the persuasion process.