CONSUMERS’ RESISTANCE TO PERSUASIVE EFFORTS: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON THE EFFECTS OF ATTITUDE STRENGTH, ATTITUDE VALENCE AND MESSAGE STRENGT

Yıl 2012, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 16, 75 - 97, 01.01.2012

İnci Dursun Ebru Tümer Kabadayı

Öz

This study aims to investigate the factors affecting consumers’ resistance to counterattitudinal persuasive messages. In this context, effects of attitude valence, attitude strength indicators and strength of the persuaive message were investigated. Data was collected through an experimental study that was conducted on 120 participants. Analysis revealed that, contrary to expectations, all attitude strength indicators do not have an effect on resistance in the same direction. Results indicated that resistance to persuasion decreased as strength of the message increased. It was also found that resistance intensity changed with respect to the valence of initial attitude. Results, specifically unexpected findings were discussed. Research provides some important insights into understanding consumers’ reaction to communication efforts

Anahtar Kelimeler

Resistance To Persuasion, Attitude Strength, Strength Of The Persuasive Message, Attitude Valence

TÜKETİCİLERİN İKNA ÇABALARINA KARŞI GÖSTERDİKLERİ DİRENÇ: TUTUM GÜCÜ, TUTUM YÖNÜ VE MESAJ GÜCÜNÜN ETKİLERİ ÜZERİNE DENEYSEL BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Öz

Araştırma, tüketicilerin tutumları ile çelişen ikna mesajlarına karşı gösterdikleri direnci etkileyen faktörlerin incelenmesini amaçlamaktadır. Bu bağlamda, tutum yönünün, tutum gücü boyutlarının ve ikna mesajının gücünün etkileri incelenmiştir. Hipotezlerin testi için gerekli veri 120 katılımcı üzerinde uygulanan deneysel bir çalışma ile toplanmıştır. Analiz sonuçları tutum gücü boyutlarının değişime karşı direnç üzerinde beklenildiği gibi aynı yönde etki etmediğini ortaya çıkarmıştır. Sonuçlar, ikna mesajının gücü arttıkça tüketicilerin gösterdiği direncin düştüğünü belirtmektedir. Sonuçlar aynı zamanda, ikna mesajlarına gösterilen direncin tutum yönüne göre farklılık gösterdiğine işaret etmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları, özellikle beklenmeyen bulgular tartışılmıştır. Araştırma, tüketicilerin ürünlere yönelik iletişim çabalarına gösterdikleri tepkiyi anlama yolunda önemli ipuçları sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İknaya Karşı Direnç, Tutum Gücü, İkna Mesajının Gücü, Tutum Yönü

Kaynakça

• Ahluwalia R. (2000). Examination of psychological process underlying resistance to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 217-232.
• Alnıaçık, Ü. (2009). Çevreyi koruma iddiası içeren reklamların etkililiği: mesaj belirginliği, ürün türü ve tüketici bilgi işleme tarzının etkilerini inceleyen deneysel bir araştırma. Doktora Tezi, Gebze Yüksek Teknoloji Enstitüsü, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Gebze.
• Andrews, J. C. & Shimp, T. A. (1990). Effect of involvement, argument strength, and source characteristics and central and peripheral processing of advertising. Psychology and Marketing, 7(3), 95-214.
• Areni, C. S. & Lutz, R. J. (1988). The role of argument quality in the elaboration likelihood model. Advances in Consumer Reseach, 15, 197-201.
• Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C. & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5 (4), 323-370.
• Beltramini, R. F. & Enans, K. R. (1985). Perceived believability of research results information in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 14(3), 18-31.
• Bizer, G. Y., Larsen, J. T. & Petty, R. E. (2011). Exploring the valence-framing effect. Negative framing enhances attitude strength. Political Psycholology, 32 (1), 59- 80.
• Bizer, G. Y. & Petty, R. E. (2005). How we conceptualize our attitudes matters. The effect of valance framing on resistance of political attitudes. Political Psycholology, 26 (4), 553-567.
• Bizer, G. Y. & Krosnick, J. A. (2001). Exploring the structure of strength-related attitude features: the relation between attitude importance and attitude accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (4), 566-586.
• Boller, W. G., Swasy, J. L. & Munch, J. M. (1990). Conceptualizing argument quality via argument structure. Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 321-327.
• Brannon, L. A., Tagler, M. J. & Eagly, A. H. (2007). The moderating role of attitude strength in selective exposure to ınformation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 63, 611-617.
• Brinol, P., Rucker, D. D., Tormala, Z. L. & Petty, R. E. (2004). Individual differences in resistance to persuasion; the role of beliefs and meta-beliefs. In Resistance and Persuasion, (Eds.) Eric Knowles & Jay A Linn,Lawrance Erlbaum Associates, 83-103.
• Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E. & Morris, K. J. (1983). Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation. Recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 (4), 805-818.
• Cialdini, R. B., Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 357-404.
• Cooper, J., & Croyle, R. T. (1984). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 395-426.
• Ditto, P. H., Scepansky, J. A., Munro, G.D., Apanovitch, A. M. & Lockhart, L. K. (1998). Motivated sensivity to preference-inconsistent information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (1), 53-69.
• Eagly, A. H. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Wadsworth Group/Thamson Learning.
• Edwards, K. & Smith, E. E. (1996). Disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 5-24.
• Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, Peterson.
• Festinger, L. & Maccoby, N. (1964). On ressistance to persuasive communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68 (4), 359-366
• Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior. Addison- Wesley Publishing Company.
• Fischer P., Schulz-Hardt, S. & Frey, D. (2008). Selective exposure and ınformation quantity: how different ınformation quantities moderate decision makers’ preference for consistent and inconsistent information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94 (2), 231–244.
• Franc, R. (1999). Attitude strength and the attitude-bahavior domain: magnitude and ındependence of moderating effects of different strength indices. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13 (4), 117-195.
• Greenwald, A. G. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion and attitude change. In Psychological Foundations of Attitudes, (Eds.) A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock & T. M. Ostrom, Newyork academic press, 147-170.
• Haughtvedt, C. P. & Petty, R. E. (1992). Personality and persuasion: need for cognition moderates the persistance and resistance of attitude changes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (2), 308-319.
• Haughtvedt, C. P. & Kasmer, J. A. (2008). Attitude change and persuasion. In Handbook of Consumer Psychology, (Eds.) Haughtvedt, C. P, Herr, P. M. & Kardes, F. R., Newyork: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Newyork, Wiley.
• Houston, D. A. & Fazio, R. H. (1989). Biased processing as a function of attitude accessibility: making objective judgments subjectively. Social Cognition, 7 (1), 51-66.
• Howland, C. I., Janis, I. L. & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change. New Haven CT: University Press.
• Jacks, J. Z. & Cameron, K. A. (2003).Strategies for resisting persusion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25 (5), 145-161.
• Jayanti, R. K. & Burns, A. C. (1998). The antecedents of preventive health care behavior: an empirical study. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 26 (1), 6- 15.
• Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (2006). Yeni İnsan ve İnsanlar. İstanbul: Evrim Yayınevi.
• Knowles, E. S. & Linn, J. A. (2004). The importance of resistance to persuasion. In Resistance and Persuasion, (Eds.) Eric Knowles & Jay A Linn,Lawrance Erlbaum Associates, 1-9.
• Krosnick, J. A., Boninger, D. S., Chuang, Y. C., Brent, M. K. & Carnot, C. G. (1993). Attitude strength: one construct or many related constructs?. Journal of Pesonality and Social Psychology, 65 (6), 1132-1151.
• Krosnick, J. A. & Smith, W. R. (1994). Attitude strength. Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, (1), 279-289.
• Kruglanski, A. W., Webster, D. M. & Klem, A. (1993). Motivated resistance and opennes to persuasion in presence or absence of prior information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (5), 861-876.
• Kruglanski, A. W. & Stroebe, W. (2005). The influence of beliefs and goals on attitudes. Issues of structure, function, and dynamics. In The Handbook of Attitudes, (Eds.) Albarracin, D., Johnson, B. T. & Zanna, M. P. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Lord, C. G., Ross, L. & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: the effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (11), 2098-2109.
• Marcsh, K. L. & Wallace, H. M. (2005). The ınfluence of attitudes on beliefs: formation and change. In The Handbook of Attitudes, (Eds.) Albarracin, Dolores; Johnson, Blair T. & Zanna, Mark P. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• McHoskey, J. W. (1995). Case closed? On the John F. Kennedy assassination: Biased essimilation of evidence and attitude polarization. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17 (3), 395-409.
• McGuire W. J. (1964). Inducing Resistance to persuasion, some contemporary approaches. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 191–229.
• Miller, A. G., McHoskey, J. W., Bane, C. M. & Dowd, T. G. (1993). The attitude polarization phenomenon: role of response measure, attitude extremity, and behavioral consequences of reported attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64 (4), 561-574.
• Moscovici, S. (1963). Attitudes and opinions. Annual Review of Psychology, 14, 231- 260.
• Nunnaly, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
• Olson, J. M. & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 117-154.
• Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-204.
• Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1983). Central and peripheral route to persuasion: application to advertising. In Advertising and Consumer Psychology, (Eds.) Percvy L., Woodside A. G., Lexington: LexingtonBooks.
• Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effect of ınvolvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (1), 69-81.
• Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T. & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41 (5), 847-855.
• Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T. & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 609-647.
• Petty R. E. & Wegener, D. T. (1997). Attitude change: multiple roles for persuasion varibles. In Handbook of Social Psychology, (Eds.) Gilbert D., Fiske S. & Linzey G, Newyork: McGrawHill.
• Pomerantz, E. M., Chaiken, S., & Tordesillas, R. S. (1995). Attitude strength and resistance process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69 (3), 408- 419.
• Prislin, R. (1996). Attitude stability and attitude strength: one is enough to make it stable. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 447-477.
• Raju, S. & Unnava, H. R. (2006). The role of arousal in commitment: an explanation for number of counterargument. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 173-178.
• Rosenberg, M. J. & Abelson, R. P. (1960). An analysis of cognitive balancing. In Attitude Organization and Change, (Eds.) M. J. Rosenberg, C. I. Hovland, W. J. McGuire, R. P. Abelson, & J. W. Brehm, New Haven CT: Yale University Press.
• Shakarchi, R. J. & Haugtvedt, C. P. (2004). Differentiating ındividual differences. In resistance to persuasion. In Resistance and Persuasion, (Eds.) Eric Knowles & Jay A Linn,Lawrance Erlbaum Associates, 105-113.
• Sweeney, P. D. & Gruber, K. L. (1984). Selective expoure: voter ınformation preferences and watergate affair. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (6), 1208-1221.
• Tannenbaum, P. H., Macaulay, J. R. & Norris, E. L. (1966). The principle of congruity and reduction of persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(2), 233-238.
• Tesser, A. & Shaffer, D. R. (1990). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 479-523.
• Wegener D. T., Petty, R. E., Smoak, N. D. & Fabrigar, L. R. (2004). Multiple routes to resisting attitude change. In Resistance and Persuasion, (Eds.) Knowles E. &Linn J. A., Lawrance Erlbaum Associates, 13-38.
• Wellins, R. & McGinnies, E. (1977). Counterarguing and selective exposure to persuasion. The Journal of Social Psychology, 103, 115-127.
• Zuwerink, J. R. & Devine, P. G. (1996). Attitude importance and resistance to persuasion: it's not just the thoughts that counts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (5), 931-944.