On resistance to persuasive communications.

Festinger, Léon; Maccoby, Nathan

doi:10.1037/h0049073

Cited by 357 publications

(156 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

147

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, there is no change in judgment direction. Strictly speaking, inoculation cannot be regarded as an effect, but rather as a non-effect or resistance effect (see also Festinger and Maccoby, 1964;McGuire, 1964;Wegener, Petty, Smoak, and Fabrigar, 2004).…”

Section: Phase 2: Change or Stability Of On-line And Memory-based Judmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond accessibility? Toward an on-line and memory-based model of framing effects

Matthes

2007

Comm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Phase 2: Change or Stability Of On-line And Memory-based Judmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond accessibility? Toward an on-line and memory-based model of framing effects

Matthes

2007

Comm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Suspicion of persuasive intent was greater for nondistracted Ss. Festinger & Maccoby (1964) demonstrated that a persuasive communication can be more effective if the audience is somewhat distracted from the communication. The effect seems to have been a reliable one, although it was found in only two of three populations studied and only for Ss who were strongly opposed to the position advocated.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Persuasion as a function of varying amounts of distraction

Rosenblatt

1966

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ss in four conditions heard the same communication. No slides were shown in a nondistraction condition; irrelevant slides shown in one condition were intended to be moderately distracting, and those in the others to be strongly distracting. Significantly more persuasion occurred in the moderate distraction condition than in the nondistraction condition and in one strong distraction condition. Suspicion of persuasive intent was greater for nondistracted Ss. Festinger & Maccoby (1964) demonstrated that a persuasive communication can be more effective if the audience is somewhat distracted from the communication. The effect seems to have been a reliable one, although it was found in only two of three populations studied and only for Ss who were strongly opposed to the position advocated. Freedman & Sears (1965) found no significant effect of distraction, but their distraction was a weak one, consisting only of misleading instructions preceding a persuasive communication.While moderate distraction may produce greater persuasion, might strong distraction reduce persuasion? (1) In comparison with moderate distraction, strong distraction should make it more difficult for the audience to comprehend a persuasive message, thus making it less likely that a basic point or a compelling sequence of arguments is comprehended. (2) It maybe frustrating to have attention and comprehension made difficult. If the communicator or the experimenter, who in some sense is the communicator's sponsor, is perceived as the source of distraction, audience members might react by rejecting the communication independently of the apparent validity of its assertions. (3) Strong distraction might make the experiment seem ludicrous, leading Ss to reject the communication or the speaker as not worth serious consideration.Festinger and Maccoby assert that distraction enhances persuasion because it makes it difficult for people to think of counterarguments. An alternative interpretation is that audience members do not attempt counterarguments because distraction disguises the experiment as one on comprehension; consequently, suspicion of persuasive attempt is not aroused.The present study was designed to test the hypothesis that there is a curvilinear relation between distraction and persuasion and to investigate the relation of suspicion of persuasive intent to distraction. MethodThere were four conditions in the experiment, which used a posttest-only design. Ss heard a tape-recorded communication, preceded by instructions to expect to Psychon. Sci., 1966, Vol. 5 (2) PAUL C. ROSENBLATT UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURIevaluate the communication after hearing it. In three of the conditions Ss saw slides accompanying the talk. In the fourth, a projector illuminated the screen, but no slide was shown. In each of the three conditions that used slides, there were six slides, and the slides were changed at exactly the same points during the talk.The communication used was one advocating opposition to tuberculosis chest X-ray surveys, a position at great variance f...

show abstract

“…According to the messagecomprehension explanation (McGuire, 1969), this occurred because distractions disrupt message comprehension. In contrast, studies finding support for Allyn and Festinger's initial finding that distraction enhances persuasion have mostly relied on the counterargument disruption explanation (Festinger & Maccoby, 1964), which argues that message distraction interferes with individuals' ability to counterargue, thereby making them less resistant to the arguments in the message. Notably, this explanation was eventually adopted by the E-ELM to explain how transportation leads to narrative persuasion by distracting people from generating arguments against the subtext (Slater & Rouner, 2002).…”

Section: Transportation As Communication-relevant Distractionmentioning

confidence: 65%

Exploring Subtext Processing in Narrative Persuasion: The Role of Eudaimonic Entertainment-Use Motivation and a Supplemental Conclusion Scene

Cohen

2016

Communication Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study sought to expand current narrative persuasion models by examining the role of subtext processing. The extended elaboration likelihood model suggests that transportation leads to persuasion by reducing counterarguments to stories' persuasive subtexts. The model implicitly argues that transportation should reduce total subtext processing, including counterarguments and intended elaboration. But this study reasoned that people with stronger eudaimonic motivation to have meaningful entertainment experiences, would put more effort into processing stories' subtexts while engaging with the narrative. Because less eudaimonically motivated individuals may be at risk for missing the subtext, it was also expected that adding a supplemental conclusion scene that reiterates the intended message would facilitate persuasion.Following a pre-test survey, 201 undergraduate students were randomly assigned to view an episode of the crime drama Numb3rs: one of two versions of "Harvest," designed to promote organ donation (with or without a conclusion scene), or a control episode. After viewing, participants completed a thought-listing task and second survey.Results show that "Harvest" did not result in persuasive outcomes related to organ donation. Transportation was a marginally significant positive predictor of total subtext processing. Contrary to predictions, eudaimonic motivation negatively predicted amount of total subtext processing.Eudaimonic motivation also negatively (but marginally) predicted doctor mistrust, but this effect was moderated by conclusion condition: eudaimonic motivation was negatively associated with doctor mistrust only in the no conclusion condition. Eudaimonic motivation was also negatively (but marginally) associated with intended elaboration. Further examination showed that, compared to people with low eudaimonic motivation, those with high eudaimonic motivation were less likely to engage in intended elaboration, but only in the no conclusion condition. This pattern of findings provides indirect evidence that intended elaboration was responsible for decreasing doctor mistrust among people with high eudaimonic motivation who saw the conclusion. But surprisingly, intended elaboration was not directly related to any persuasive outcomes.The findings tentatively suggest that transportation and subtext processing can coexist and that eudaimonic motivation can affect the extent to which viewers engage in subtext processing during narrative engagement. The results also indicate that supplemental conclusions may be useful tools for narrative persuasion. Nobody has influenced my development as a scholar more than Cindy Hoffner. Her research and teaching inspired me, and her mentorship gave me the skills, professional socialization, and confidence to become an independent scholar. This dissertation is a direct product of her hours of dedication, her firm guidance, her unrelenting patience, and her unwavering faith in me. I hope that I one day have the opportunity to be half as good a mentor to ...

show abstract

On resistance to persuasive communications.

Cited by 357 publications

References 1 publication

Beyond accessibility? Toward an on-line and memory-based model of framing effects

Beyond accessibility? Toward an on-line and memory-based model of framing effects

Persuasion as a function of varying amounts of distraction

Exploring Subtext Processing in Narrative Persuasion: The Role of Eudaimonic Entertainment-Use Motivation and a Supplemental Conclusion Scene

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About