And this outcome is particularly likely when the reward is perceived as an obvious attempt on the part of others to get us to do something. When children are given money by their parents to get good grades in school, they may improve their school performance to gain the reward. Although this might not seem logical at first, it is exactly what is expected on the basis of the principle of overjustification. When the children had to choose whether or not to play with the markers when the markers reappeared in the classroom, they based their decision on their own prior behavior. The children in the no reward condition group and the children in the unexpected reward condition group realized that they played with the markers because they liked them.
A salesperson will begin by making a large, often unrealistic request. The individual responds by refusing, figuratively slamming the door on the sale. Once you have already agreed to a smaller request, you might feel a sense of obligation to also agree to a larger request. This is a great example of what psychologists refer to as the rule of commitment, and marketers often use this strategy to encourage consumers to buy products and services.
If that model publicly performs the desired action, or says that she has gained from it, that is likely to have positive persuasive impact. Every day we encounter these small-scale, usually low-stakes persuasive messages, designed to influence our attitudes and behaviors, even though we don’t always label them as such. Others get through and are successful, sometimes despite our own best intentions. The examples above are just a few of the many persuasion techniques described by social psychologists. An interesting experiment is to view a half-hour of a random television program and note every instance of persuasive advertising.
Harmon-Jones, E., Brehm, J. W., Greenberg, J., Simon, L., & Nelson, D. E. Evidence that the production of aversive consequences is not necessary to create cognitive dissonance. Participants who had engaged in a boring task and then told another student it was interesting experienced cognitive dissonance, leading them to rate the task more positively in comparison to those who were paid $20 to do the same. Festinger explained the results of this study in terms of consistency and inconsistency among cognitions.
Research in advertising has also shown that people who rate advertising as deceptive are more inclined to avoid the message . A third motive that might explain why people experience resistance toward persuasion is concerns of deception. People are keen on regarding their belief system as correct and truthful and are more defensive of their attitudes when they believe these are correct. The desire to hold accurate attitudes and opinions is an important motive when processing information (Petty and Cacioppo, 1979; Chaiken, 1980; Petty et al., 2004). As a result of this desire, people often scrutinize information by searching for supporting information and avoiding conflicting information . Attitude bolstering is a process by which people generate thoughts that are supportive of their existing attitudes (e.g., Abelson, 1959; Lydon et al., 1988).
Thus, in most studies source credibility was manipulated by creating a highly attractive source (e.g., President Eisenhower) versus a highly negative source (eg., a Nazi leader). In such “gross” manipulations of credibility, the variables of expertise, likability, and attractiveness are all manipulated simultaneously. three types of hazards that make food unsafe are Therefore, it is impossible to parcel out the effects of each. Future research in this area could use this framework when investigating resistance. The propositions of the framework about the links between the underlying resistance motives and the use of resistance strategies must be empirically tested.
A frequently used resistance strategy is to counter argue the message (e.g., Wright, 1975; Zuwerink Jacks and Cameron, 2003). We refer to this behavior as “contesting the content” to emphasize that this strategy is closely related to source derogation and to defensive responses studied in consumer research . Contesting the content of a message is a thought process that decreases agreement with a counter attitudinal message. It is often conceptualized as a mediating variable between a persuasive message and outcomes such as attitudes and behavior (Festinger and Maccoby, 1964; Silvia, 2006).
Upon exposure to messages, recipients reconsider the reasons for their current attitudes and behavior. Recently, Xu and Wyer demonstrated that it is possible to induce a “bolstering mindset” and that the process of generating affirmative thoughts about one subject may trigger attitude bolstering about other topics. Empowerment strategies involve empowering or strengthening the self or one’s existing attitudes to reduce one’s vulnerability to external influence attempts. When using these strategies, people search to confirm their confidence in existing beliefs or themselves. Within this category three different strategies can be distinguished.