Persuading and Resisting Persuasion by other People

 

 

Persuading and Resisting Persuasion by other People

Persuasion is a universal component of today’s life while being an ancient art. Tomrala and Petty (2002) define this art as a unique process where messages are crafted and delivered in a way that can change other people’s behaviors or attitude willingly (Tormala & Petty, 2002; Stiff, 2003). Persuasion in this case attempts to influence attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, motivations and intentions. According to Chen & Moore (1992), persuasion not only involves changing attitudes, but it also centers on convincing people not to fall prey to undesirable and unethical influence. In reference to psychological research and theory, this paper hopes to find out how we can persuade, and also resist persuasion by other people.

Generally, the main aspect of persuasion is self-persuasion (Pastorino & Doyle, 2012). Psychologists argue that communicators do not change people’s minds. Rather, people decide to alter their own attitudes or resist persuasion (Burch, 2011). Clearly, the subject matter of the persuasion influences the outcome. If the message is inappropriate or the person presenting it is ill prepared, the likelihood of success is minimal.

How Do People Respond to Persuasive Messages?

Whereas most people respond to persuasive messages in different ways, the majority respond to persuasive messages either thoughtfully or mindlessly. When people are thoughtful, they listen to what the persuader is saying carefully while weighing the options of the presented argument. The message is then analyzed for consistency and logic and criticized accordingly (Mills, 2000). When we analyze the message thoughtfully, the persuasiveness of the information is determined by the benefits of the case in question. Some models including elaboration likely-hood model perceive the permanence of the change of attitude as that which is influenced by the content’s elaboration (Gopinatha & Nyer, 2008).

Unlike thoughtful analysis, responding to messages thoughtlessly closes the brains of those responding (Stiff, 2003; Lemanski & Lee, 2012). Bearing in mind that people often do not have the inspiration, ability and time to respond keenly when responding mindlessly, they barely consider facts, logic and evidence when making judgment. Instead, people respond to their own intuitions while allowing them to guide them on how to respond.

How we can persuade

Persuasion aims at changing another person’s behavior or attitude toward some events, objects, ideas or other people by using words to convey feelings, information or reasoning. People may use heuristic or systematic persuasion to get others to act their way (Kassin, Fein & Markus, 2010). While exploratory persuasion changes beliefs and attitudes as a response to habits and emotions, in systematic persuasion, reasoning and logic are used to motivate persuasion (Breckler, Olson & Wiggins, 2006).

People also use persuasion tactics for various reasons including changing other people’s opinions and getting others to do things for them. They do this by invoking social norms, providing evidence and facts using emotion, force, deception and flattery (Vazire & Vilson, 2012). In relation to the persuasion schema notion, Wright and Friestad have suggested in their persuasion knowledge model that through exposure to persuasion over the lifespan, people should develop beliefs about how persuasion works (Hogan, 2010).

The order in which the persuader presents his message/argument also makes a considerable difference to success. Persuasion is in this case improved if the message is presented in a sequential manner the persuader evokes an initial statement to catch the interest of his listeners (Hogan, 2010). The message is then presented and the persuader engages in analyzing the likelihood of a successful persuasion. While giving a summary of the idea and the possible benefits, the persuader further gives the evidence of holding his claim and allows the listener to digest the information presented (Honey, 2001; Burkley, 2006; Fisker, 2009).

The persuader may also successfully send his message across by crafting messages that depend on compliance-gaining strategies (Gueffey & Almonte, 2009). Ideally, strategies used to craft and disseminate persuasive messages may be categorized as coercive/sanction strategies, deceptive/circumvention strategies, direct/explanative strategies or altruism (need persuasion).

Largely, effective persuasion heavily depends on who is being persuaded. According to Haugtved and Petty (1992), all human beings are easier to persuade on the peripheral rather than the central route to persuasion. Nevertheless, individual differences among human beings can influence whether they are persuaded or not. Self-esteem, mood and intelligence are some of the existing variables that contribute significantly in the persuasion process (Pastorino & Doyle, 2012).

Resisting Influence

            Various techniques have been developed and adopted to strengthen resistance to persuasion. The existing techniques work effectively by producing counter-arguments that direct individuals in resisting the persuasive appeals. In most cases, human beings craft their own theories on how to influence others. In the same way, human beings craft methods and strategies of resisting persuasion (Husain, 2012). Among other strategies used to resist persuasion, people have reportedly used methods related to presented messages including creating counter arguments in relation to socially acceptable strategies like source derogation (Breckler, Olson & Wiggins, 2006; Kalat, 2010). Nevertheless, much of the common persuasion resistance research revolves around McGuire’s on inoculation theory which shows that success in resistance counter-arguments are likely to enhance subsequent resistance attempts.

 

As demonstrated in MacGuire’s inoculation theory, people are better able to defend against messages if they have some practice defending their own views (Sanderson, 2009). People are also exposed to small doses of arguments against their position, which make it easier for them to debate against the presented arguments when they hear the arguments later (Husain, 2012). This practice also allows people to defend against a stronger version of the message better later on while increasing attitude certainty.

The most important contributions of the inoculation theory are that it is concerned with preventing persuasion instead of causing it (Morton, McLeroy & Wendel, 2011). The theory further holds that repeatedly exposing an individual to a weakened counter-argument against their current attitude allows them to prepare the process of opposing those arguments such that when presented with a stronger counterargument, they will be able to resist it and retain their original claim. Macguire’s theory in this case categorizes persuasion according to the state at which the audiences are when processing the information presented to them. Macguire further emphasizes people’s initial reception of messages as comprising exposure, attention and comprehension (Fisker, 2009).

The cognitive response theory on the other hand, presents a different idea on how people are persuaded. The theory asserts that people will rarely be influenced by a persuasive message if the given message does not direct an outcome (Breckler et al, 2006). Sanderson (2009) further notes that knowing about an upcoming persuasion attempt also motivates us to resist whatever the message is.

Originally proposed by John Cocioppo and Richard Petty, elaboration likelihood model of attitude change further proposes two basic ways of persuading. The main process of persuading is considered when people carefully think about the logic and the particulars of the message being put across (Kelly & Garcia, 2009). The external process (Kelly & Garcia, 2009) conversely is considered when other factors unrelated to the messages (e.g attractiveness and credibility of the message source or emotional responses) (Weiten, 2011) are considered.

Whereas effective persuasion may be enhanced through various ways, according to the elaboration model, the extent to which people consider changing their behavior or attitude is highly influenced by the content of the messages being sent across (Kelly & Garcia, 2009). Compared to peripheral persuasion in this case, the central process of persuasion contributes to more enduring attitude.

The theory of reasoned action goes ahead to describe the relationship between attitudes, beliefs, behavior and intentions (Knowles & Linn, 2008). According to the theory, people develop intentions from prominent attitudes and beliefs toward an action or object and behave according to their intentions when they have the opportunity to do so.

Other theories argue that people can refuse persuasion through reactance (Rydell, Hugenberg & McConnell, 2006). When a message meant to persuade is seen as threatening a person’s free will, people react to such messages negatively. According to the reactance theory, people experience an unpleasant state (reactance) when their freedom of choice is threatened (Perloff, 2010). In pursuit of resisting persuasion, people should remind themselves that they are in charge of themselves and their lives and there is no reason why they should be persuaded unwillingly (Kelly & Garcia, 2009). Resistance can in this case be reduced through exhibiting the behavior that was threatened.

People can also be directed to resist persuasion by being fore-warned.  A prior knowledge that some given information is intended to influence a person’s thinking is likely to prepare resistance while providing an opportunity to build up opposing opinions (Mynhardt, 2009).

Another facet of resistance spotlights the target of change while revealing a general distrust of proposals (Perloff, 2010). In this case, people become guarded and wary when faced with an offer or proposal or message to change. According to Weiten (2011), people may also react to influence through a general scrutiny. If human beings are informed early enough that the message to be put across is meant to influence them, they are likely to naturally attend to such messages in a more careful and attentive manner.

Whereas resistance tries to respond to calls for change, the main reason for resistance is mainly attributed to the prevailing situations and the nature of the person being persuaded. While choosing the methods to use to resist influence, people consider the importance of the issue and their issue-relevant knowledge (Knowles & Linn, 2008). In addition to their notions of particular strategies of resistance and when they are used, people seem to believe that resistance requires some cognitive effort. When considering the route to take when processing the persuasive messages, people consider various factors including speed of speech, involvement, mood, humor and individual differences (Burkley, 2006). Usually, resistance to persuasion requires self-control resources while consuming self-control resources.

Conclusion

Generally, resistance is seen as the tug-of-war partner with persuasion. In order to effectively deal with persuasion and resistance, messages must be judged by the consequences of the act, the intentions of the persuader, the context in which persuasion occurs and the morality of the message. For human beings to be sure about their own stand after resisting persuasion, they must be convinced that the message resisted is strong enough (Knowles & Linn, 2008). This will make them be certain that they truly have their own principles which they can count on.

 References

Breckler, S., Olson, J. & Wiggins, E. (2006). Social Psychology Alive. USA: Thomson

Burch, G. (2011). Resistance is Useless: The Art of Business Persuasion. UK: Capstone

Publishing Ltd.

Burkley, E. (2006). The Role of Self-control in Resistance to Persuasion. USA: Chapel Hill.

Chen, H. & Moore, d. (1992). Forewarning of Content and involvement: Consequences for

Persuasion and Resistance to Persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 523-541.

Fisker, S. (2009). Social Beings: Core Motives in Social Psychology. USA: John Wily & Sons.

Gopinatha, M. & Nyer, P. (2008). The Effect of Public Commitment on Resistance to

Persuasion: The Influence of Attitude Certainty, Issue Importance, Susceptibility to Normative Influence, Preference for Consistency and Source Proximity. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26, 60–68.

Gueffey, M. & Almonte, R. (2009). Essentials of Business Communication. USA: Library of

Congress.

Haugtvedt, C. & Petty, R. (1992). Personality and Persuasion: Need for Cognition Moderates the

Persistence and Resistance of Attitude Changes. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 63(2), 308-319.

Hogan, K. (2010). The Psychology of Persuasion: How to Persuade Others to Your Way of

            Thinking. USA: Pelican Publishing Company.

Honey, P. (2001). Improve your People Skills. USA: CIPD Publishing.

Husain. A. (2012). Social Psychology. India: Dorling Kindersley.

Kalat, J. (2010). Introduction to Psychology. USA: Cengage Learning.

Kassin, S., Fein, S. & Markus, H. (2010). Social Psychology. USA: Cengage Learning.

Kelly, D. & Garcia, M. (2009). Resisting Persuasion: Building Defenses Against Competitors ’

Persuasive Attacks in the Context of War-Gaming Methodology. Journal of Medical Marketing, 9 (2), 83-88.

Knowles, E. & Linn, A. (2008). Resistance and Persuasion. USA: Library of Congress.

Lemanski, J. & Lee, H. (2012). Attitude Certainty and Resistance to Persuasion: Investigating

the Impact of Source Trustworthiness in Advertising. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(1), 66-75.

Mills, H. (2000). Artful Persuasion: How to Command Attention, Change Minds, and Influence

            People. USA: Library of Congress.

Morton, B., McLeroy, K. Wendel, M. (2011). Behavior Theory in Health Promotion Practice

            and Research. UK: Jones & Bartlett.

Mynhardt, J. (2009). South African Supplement to Social Psychology 3e. South Africa: Pearson

South Africa.

Pastorino, E. & Doyle, S. (2012). What Is Psychology?: Essentials. USA: Library of Congress.

Perloff, R. (2010). The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in

            the Twenty-First Century. New York: Routledge.

Rydell, R., Hugenberg, K. & McConnell, A. (2006). Resistance Can Be Good or Bad: How

Theories of Resistance and Dissonance Affect Attitude Certainty. The Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 32(6), 740-750.

Sanderson, C. (2009). Social Psychology. USA: John Wily & Sons.

Stiff, J. (2003). Persuasive Communication. USA: Guilford Press.

Tormala, Z. & Petty, R. (2002). The Effects of Resisting Persuasion on Attitude Certainty.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (6), 1298–1313.

Vazire, S. & Vilson, T. (2012). Handbook of Self-knowledge. New York: The Guilford Press.

Weiten, W. (2011). Psychology: Themes and Variations. New York: Cengage Learning.

 

Last Completed Projects