The conundrum of the timing of counterarguing effects in resistance: Strategies to boost the persistence of counterarguing output

Michael Pfau, Joshua Compton, Kimberly A. Parker, Chasu An, Elaine M. Wittenberg, Monica Ferguson, Heather Horton, Yuri Malyshev

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

29 Scopus citations

Abstract

This study examined the timing of counterarguing effects in resistance. Specifically, it investigated the persistence of counterarguing output in resistance across time and explored inoculation message strategies designed to boost the persistence of counterarguing. Results indicated that contrary to what one might expect, the counterarguing output elicited by inoculation treatments was stable across time. The counterarguing output did not increase in the days following treatment, suggesting that inoculation messages require a minimal delay following recipient exposure to elicit counterarguing output, and it proved to be surprisingly robust across time, sustaining itself for much longer periods than early inoculation research had intimated. Also, the results revealed that inoculation-different treatments and reinforcement (booster) messages boost the persistence of the counterarguing output over time. Inoculation-same treatments were initially best in generating counterarguing output, but their effects deteriorated over time. By contrast, inoculation-different messages emerged as being superior in sustaining counterarguing output. Finally, reinforcement messages, administered from five to twenty-one days following inoculation, sustained counterarguing output for as long 44 days.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)143-156
Number of pages14
JournalCommunication Quarterly
Volume54
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2006

Keywords

  • Counterarguing
  • Inoculation
  • Resistance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Communication

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The conundrum of the timing of counterarguing effects in resistance: Strategies to boost the persistence of counterarguing output'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this