Lecture 1 – Introduc?on to persuasion
Ar#cles lecture 1
1. Knowles - The importance of resistance to persuasion (page 3-9)
Four Faces of Resistance
1. Reactance:
o Descrip#on: Resistance triggered by a perceived threat to freedom of choice.
o Example: Pushing back when told what to do.
o Focus: Emphasizes emo?onal and mo?va?onal aspects.
2. Distrust:
o Descrip#on: General skep?cism towards proposals or messages for change.
o Example: Doub?ng mo?ves behind a sales pitch.
o Focus: Combines emo?onal dislike with cogni?ve disbelief.
3. Scru?ny:
o Descrip#on: Heightened aFen?on and analysis of persuasive aFempts.
o Example: Cri?cally evalua?ng a persuasive argument.
o Focus: Primarily cogni?ve, involving cri?cal examina?on.
4. Iner?a:
o Descrip#on: Resistance focused on maintaining the status quo.
o Example: Preferring old habits over new rou?nes.
o Focus: Tied to the desire for stability, resis?ng change without ac?ve opposi?on.
2. Fransen - Resistance
Health communica#on = aims to persuade people to change aNtudes, inten?ons, or behaviors for a
healthier lifestyle, such as adop?ng a healthy diet or regular exercise.
Mo#va#ons for Resistance
- Several mo?va?ons for resis?ng health messages include reactance (threat to freedom),
skep#cism due to the need for accuracy, inability to change behavior leading to defensive
reac?ons, and protec#on of self-esteem.
Defensive Responses to Health Messages
- Contes#ng: Rejec?ng the message. Example: Dismissing a nutri2on 2p as irrelevant.
- Bolstering: Strengthening exis?ng aNtudes. Example: Emphasizing the benefits of current
lifestyle choices.
- Cogni#ve reappraisal: Adop?ng addi?onal beliefs. Example: Accep2ng a health claim but
modifying its implica2ons.
- Biased processing: Adjus?ng the message to fit exis?ng aNtudes. Example: Interpre2ng
exercise advice in a way that aligns with personal habits.
- Suppression: Stopping nega?ve thoughts. Example: Pushing aside concerns raised by a health
warning.
- Avoidance: Ignoring or not paying aFen?on to the message. Example: Tuning out during a
public health announcement.
,Lecture 1
Ways to adver#se (examples)
- Fear appeal: a boy with a scar and a message for storing firearms safely (can be scary)
- Humor/sexual appeal: a technique to aFract aFen?on instead of scaring people away (kids
playing with adult toys)
Forms of resistance
- Week zonder vlees -> I eat what I want!
- Adblockers
- Nee-nee s?ckers on mailboxes /do not call me register
- Avoid salespeople on the street
- Cogni?ve dissonance with an?-smoking adver?sements
Resistance
- A reaction against change
o I don’t like it = attitudinal
o I don’t believe it = cognitive
o I don’t want it = motivational
- The ability to withstand a persuasive aFack
- An outcome: not being moved by pressures to change
- A mo#va#onal state: mo?va?on to oppose and counter pressures to change
Resistance is the most important element in the persuasion process.
To understand persuasion, you must understand resistance.
, Lecture 2 – psychological reactance & politeness theory
Reactance theory (Brehm, 1966)
1. Freedom – the need to think, behave, and feel as we choose (autonomous)
2. Threat to freedom – someone/ something that makes it more difficult to be autonomous
(you need to do something)
3. Reactance – nega?ve feelings or thoughts (she can’t tell me what to do)
4. Restoring freedom
o Direct
§ Boomerang effect = doing the opposite of what the persuasive message had
in mind (rebellious)
o Indirect
§ Derogate the source of the threat
§ Increase liking for threatened choice
§ Deny the existence of the threat
§ Exercise different freedom
Rains (ar#cle 1): The Nature of Psychological Reactance Revisited
• Reactance = a mo?va?onal state directed towards restoring threatened or eliminated
freedom, derived through outcomes like source deroga?on, adop?ng opposing posi?ons, or
finding the threatened object more aFrac?ve.
- First, it was said that it could not be measured directly, but later it was proposed to view
reactance as cogni?on (counterarguing) and/or affect (anger) for direct measurement.
Rains (ar#cle 1) : The nature of reactance
- 1: Single process cogni#ve model: Purely cogni#ve (counterarguments)
- 2: Single process affec#ve model: Purely affec#ve (feelings or emo?ons) = anger as a
mediator
- 3: Dual process cogni#ve-affec#ve model: Cogni#ve and affec#ve (dis?nct effects -> dual
process) = cogni?on and anger are independent of each other
- 4: Linear process affec#ve-cogni#ve model: Cogni#ve and affec#ve (linear effects) = anger ->
cogni?on
- 5: intertwined process cogni#ve-affec#ve model: Cogni#ve and affec#ve (intertwined
effects) = cogni?on and anger are part of reactance together
Results
- the intertwined model (reactance as a latent factor with anger and counterarguing)
consistently best fits the sample data.
1 2 3
4 5
, Using reactance to promote change
- Persuasive strategies:
o Reverse psychology
§ Use reactance to make people do the opposite/promote change
§ Example: don’t join the army
o Scarcity
§ People feel that they need to buy to retain their choice
§ Example: Balenciaga limited edi2on shoes
Jenkins (ar#cle 2): Politeness theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987)
- Nega#ve face wants: people have a fundamental need for autonomy and independence
o people tend to resist when they feel their freedom or independence is under threat.
It's like a natural reac?on against being pushed or controlled.
o If someone tells you what to do and you don't like it, you might resist just because you
want to assert your independence.
- Posi#ve face wants: people have a fundamental need for approval, acceptance, and being
viewed as competent
o adds another layer. It says that resistance can happen not just when autonomy is
threatened (nega#ve face) but also when our need for approval and acceptance is at
risk (posi#ve face).
o If someone says something that makes you feel embarrassed or like they don't accept
you, you might resist their message because it hurts your posi2ve face - the need for
approval.
Theory of language use
Forceful Language: was iden?fied as a key reason people resist messages. It doesn't only threaten
autonomy (your ability to decide for yourself, nega#ve face: desire for freedom) but also affects your
need for acceptance and approval (posi#ve face: desire to be liked and approved)).
- Face maintenance in conversa?ons (polite vs impolite)
- Language has a meta-communica#ve value
o Perceived social rela?onship
o What you say and how you say it
o Communica?ng that you have more power than the other
- Resistance to persuasion is a defensive reac?on to an unjus#fied rela#onal claim
(threatening one or both aspects in face)
Persuasive messages as FTAs (face-threatening acts)
- Containing forceful language
o Using impera2ves such as commands and orders (controlling)
o Demeaning anyone who disagrees with the advocated stance
- A forceful message is less likely to be viewed as a threat to face when:
o Source has greater/legi?mate power rela?ve to the recipient
§ The teacher telling you to be silent
o Situa#on legi?mizes coercion (requires maximum efficiency)
§ Saving someone to avoid geNng run over by giving commands
Ar#cles lecture 1
1. Knowles - The importance of resistance to persuasion (page 3-9)
Four Faces of Resistance
1. Reactance:
o Descrip#on: Resistance triggered by a perceived threat to freedom of choice.
o Example: Pushing back when told what to do.
o Focus: Emphasizes emo?onal and mo?va?onal aspects.
2. Distrust:
o Descrip#on: General skep?cism towards proposals or messages for change.
o Example: Doub?ng mo?ves behind a sales pitch.
o Focus: Combines emo?onal dislike with cogni?ve disbelief.
3. Scru?ny:
o Descrip#on: Heightened aFen?on and analysis of persuasive aFempts.
o Example: Cri?cally evalua?ng a persuasive argument.
o Focus: Primarily cogni?ve, involving cri?cal examina?on.
4. Iner?a:
o Descrip#on: Resistance focused on maintaining the status quo.
o Example: Preferring old habits over new rou?nes.
o Focus: Tied to the desire for stability, resis?ng change without ac?ve opposi?on.
2. Fransen - Resistance
Health communica#on = aims to persuade people to change aNtudes, inten?ons, or behaviors for a
healthier lifestyle, such as adop?ng a healthy diet or regular exercise.
Mo#va#ons for Resistance
- Several mo?va?ons for resis?ng health messages include reactance (threat to freedom),
skep#cism due to the need for accuracy, inability to change behavior leading to defensive
reac?ons, and protec#on of self-esteem.
Defensive Responses to Health Messages
- Contes#ng: Rejec?ng the message. Example: Dismissing a nutri2on 2p as irrelevant.
- Bolstering: Strengthening exis?ng aNtudes. Example: Emphasizing the benefits of current
lifestyle choices.
- Cogni#ve reappraisal: Adop?ng addi?onal beliefs. Example: Accep2ng a health claim but
modifying its implica2ons.
- Biased processing: Adjus?ng the message to fit exis?ng aNtudes. Example: Interpre2ng
exercise advice in a way that aligns with personal habits.
- Suppression: Stopping nega?ve thoughts. Example: Pushing aside concerns raised by a health
warning.
- Avoidance: Ignoring or not paying aFen?on to the message. Example: Tuning out during a
public health announcement.
,Lecture 1
Ways to adver#se (examples)
- Fear appeal: a boy with a scar and a message for storing firearms safely (can be scary)
- Humor/sexual appeal: a technique to aFract aFen?on instead of scaring people away (kids
playing with adult toys)
Forms of resistance
- Week zonder vlees -> I eat what I want!
- Adblockers
- Nee-nee s?ckers on mailboxes /do not call me register
- Avoid salespeople on the street
- Cogni?ve dissonance with an?-smoking adver?sements
Resistance
- A reaction against change
o I don’t like it = attitudinal
o I don’t believe it = cognitive
o I don’t want it = motivational
- The ability to withstand a persuasive aFack
- An outcome: not being moved by pressures to change
- A mo#va#onal state: mo?va?on to oppose and counter pressures to change
Resistance is the most important element in the persuasion process.
To understand persuasion, you must understand resistance.
, Lecture 2 – psychological reactance & politeness theory
Reactance theory (Brehm, 1966)
1. Freedom – the need to think, behave, and feel as we choose (autonomous)
2. Threat to freedom – someone/ something that makes it more difficult to be autonomous
(you need to do something)
3. Reactance – nega?ve feelings or thoughts (she can’t tell me what to do)
4. Restoring freedom
o Direct
§ Boomerang effect = doing the opposite of what the persuasive message had
in mind (rebellious)
o Indirect
§ Derogate the source of the threat
§ Increase liking for threatened choice
§ Deny the existence of the threat
§ Exercise different freedom
Rains (ar#cle 1): The Nature of Psychological Reactance Revisited
• Reactance = a mo?va?onal state directed towards restoring threatened or eliminated
freedom, derived through outcomes like source deroga?on, adop?ng opposing posi?ons, or
finding the threatened object more aFrac?ve.
- First, it was said that it could not be measured directly, but later it was proposed to view
reactance as cogni?on (counterarguing) and/or affect (anger) for direct measurement.
Rains (ar#cle 1) : The nature of reactance
- 1: Single process cogni#ve model: Purely cogni#ve (counterarguments)
- 2: Single process affec#ve model: Purely affec#ve (feelings or emo?ons) = anger as a
mediator
- 3: Dual process cogni#ve-affec#ve model: Cogni#ve and affec#ve (dis?nct effects -> dual
process) = cogni?on and anger are independent of each other
- 4: Linear process affec#ve-cogni#ve model: Cogni#ve and affec#ve (linear effects) = anger ->
cogni?on
- 5: intertwined process cogni#ve-affec#ve model: Cogni#ve and affec#ve (intertwined
effects) = cogni?on and anger are part of reactance together
Results
- the intertwined model (reactance as a latent factor with anger and counterarguing)
consistently best fits the sample data.
1 2 3
4 5
, Using reactance to promote change
- Persuasive strategies:
o Reverse psychology
§ Use reactance to make people do the opposite/promote change
§ Example: don’t join the army
o Scarcity
§ People feel that they need to buy to retain their choice
§ Example: Balenciaga limited edi2on shoes
Jenkins (ar#cle 2): Politeness theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987)
- Nega#ve face wants: people have a fundamental need for autonomy and independence
o people tend to resist when they feel their freedom or independence is under threat.
It's like a natural reac?on against being pushed or controlled.
o If someone tells you what to do and you don't like it, you might resist just because you
want to assert your independence.
- Posi#ve face wants: people have a fundamental need for approval, acceptance, and being
viewed as competent
o adds another layer. It says that resistance can happen not just when autonomy is
threatened (nega#ve face) but also when our need for approval and acceptance is at
risk (posi#ve face).
o If someone says something that makes you feel embarrassed or like they don't accept
you, you might resist their message because it hurts your posi2ve face - the need for
approval.
Theory of language use
Forceful Language: was iden?fied as a key reason people resist messages. It doesn't only threaten
autonomy (your ability to decide for yourself, nega#ve face: desire for freedom) but also affects your
need for acceptance and approval (posi#ve face: desire to be liked and approved)).
- Face maintenance in conversa?ons (polite vs impolite)
- Language has a meta-communica#ve value
o Perceived social rela?onship
o What you say and how you say it
o Communica?ng that you have more power than the other
- Resistance to persuasion is a defensive reac?on to an unjus#fied rela#onal claim
(threatening one or both aspects in face)
Persuasive messages as FTAs (face-threatening acts)
- Containing forceful language
o Using impera2ves such as commands and orders (controlling)
o Demeaning anyone who disagrees with the advocated stance
- A forceful message is less likely to be viewed as a threat to face when:
o Source has greater/legi?mate power rela?ve to the recipient
§ The teacher telling you to be silent
o Situa#on legi?mizes coercion (requires maximum efficiency)
§ Saving someone to avoid geNng run over by giving commands
