Bolstering and Counterarguing Mindsets

Recent research provides the first evidence of behavioural mindsets influencing persuasive communications (Xu & Wyer, 2012). A behavioural mindset occurs when a cognitive or motor response in one situation, increases the likelihood of this response being ‘carried over’ into a conceptually similar, yet unrelated future situation (Xu, 2010). Xu and Wyer (2012) found that inducing participants to generate bolstering (counterarguing) thoughts served to prime the enactment of these cognitive procedures which favourably (adversely) affected assessments of subsequently encountered adverts. Put simply, a “counterarguing” mindset was found to increase resistance while a “bolstering” mindset was found to reduce resistance. While bolstering may be used as a resistance strategy, in this series of studies the authors demonstrated that bolstering cognitive procedures can reduce resistance when they are carried over and applied to a target stimulus rather than mobilised as a defensive strategy.

Xu and Wyer (2012) used a procedural priming procedure to activate counterarguing and bolstering mindsets (Study 1, Study 2 respectively). Specifically, participants in the bolstering, counterarguing and control conditions were induced to

51

write supporting, opposing or neutral statements in response to favourable, unfavourable and neutral propositions respectively. For example, participants in the counterarguing (bolstering) condition were asked to give their opinion on the proposition ‘_____________University should increase (decrease) college fees next year’. Participants were then asked to evaluate an advert in an ostensibly unrelated study. The research demonstrated that participants in the bolstering condition subsequently exhibited significantly more favourable attitudes towards an unrelated advert (i.e. advert persuasiveness and advert appeal) than participants in the control condition and participants in the counterarguing condition. Participants in the bolstering condition also rated the product featured in the advert more favourably (i.e.

attractiveness of product) than participants in the other conditions. The opposite results were observed among participants in the counterarguing condition who exhibited less favourable attitudes towards the advert and the product being advertised. A thought listing task revealed that the valence of generated thoughts mediates these mindsets. Specifically, participants in the bolstering (counterarguing) conditions subsequently generated more positive (negative) thoughts compared to participants in the control condition when making subsequent evaluations of target stimuli. Interestingly, Xu and Wyer (2012) found that the bolstering and counterarguing mindsets only influence behaviours which would not normally occur in the absence of the mindset. For example, in Study 1, a counterarguing mindset adversely affected participants’ evaluations of an advert featuring a positive target stimulus (hotel). However, the counterarguing mindset did not adversely affect evaluations of the advert in Study 2 which featured a negative target stimulus (unappetising, exotic food). The reverse pattern was observed among participants

52

primed with a bolstering mindset in both studies. These results may be explained by the fact that individuals spontaneously accept the implications of a message in the course of comprehending it (Gilbert, 1991). When an individual encounters a message where little elaboration is required (because the person makes a quick initial judgement) then a mindset that is congruent with this message will have little effect.

Hence, if a message spontaneously leads recipients to refute its implications, inducing a counterarguing mindset has little impact (and vice versa). Xu and Wyer (2012) suggest that bolstering and counterarguing mindsets only influence behaviours which would not normally occur in the absence of the mindset. For example, Xu and Wyer (2012; Study 1) found that a counterarguing mindset adversely affected participants’ evaluations of an advert featuring a positive target stimulus (hotel).

However, the counterarguing mindset did not adversely affect evaluations of the advert in Study 2 which featured a negative target stimulus (unappetising, exotic food). The reverse pattern was observed among participants primed with a bolstering mindset in both studies. Specifically, the bolstering mindset positively affected participants’ evaluations of a negative target stimulus (unappetising, exotic food) but did not positively affect evaluations of a positive target stimulus (hotel). It appears the effects of these behavioural mindsets are only observable when the person’s initial reaction to the target stimulus is incongruous with the mindset.

Xu and Wyer's (2012) third study demonstrated that a counterarguing mindset may actually increase persuasion (i.e. decrease resistance) when an individual encounters a strong persuasive communication that is difficult to counterargue against. The researchers demonstrated that participants who were primed with a counterarguing mindset evaluated a highly persuasive charitable appeal more

53

favourably than those in the control condition and those in the bolstering condition.

The results revealed a main effect of priming regardless of whether the charity was well known or unknown. Furthermore, participants in the counterarguing condition were more willing to donate to the charity than participants in the control condition and bolstering condition. In this study, participants in the counterarguing condition did not generate more negative thoughts than participants in the other conditions.

These results suggest that participants who failed in their attempts to effectively counterargue the charity appeal were forced to evaluate it more favourably as a result.

In their final study, Xu and Wyer (2012) demonstrated that bolstering and counterarguing mindsets may be induced incidentally. Simply watching a political speech (debate) was found to prime bolstering (counterarguing) mindsets respectively. Specifically, politically partisan participants who watched a speech of a politician they supported were primed with a bolstering mindset. Similarly, a bolstering mindset was induced when politically partisan participants watched a political debate involving the politician they supported. However, when politically partisan participants watched a speech of the politician they opposed, a counterarguing mindset was induced. The study also found that non-partisan participants were primed with a bolstering mindset when they watched a political speech but a counterarguing mindset when they watched a political debate. Having viewed the political speech or debate, participants watched a video of the President of the Toyota car company publically apologising for a recent product recall. The results indicated that participants in the counterarguing condition were more likely to give unfavourable evaluations of Toyota than participants in the bolstering and control conditions. In line with Study 1 and Study 2, the bolstering mindset did not increase

54

evaluations of Toyota since it was already perceived as a favourable brand. The study demonstrated that participants who had been incidentally primed with a counterarguing mindset expressed less confidence that Toyota could improve the safety of their cars when compared to participants in the control or bolstering condition.

2.10. Conclusion

The aim of this chapter is to highlight the malleable nature of consumer resistance. Resistance is both context-dependent and person specific. Importantly though, resistance is also regulated by mindsets that exert their influence outside of conscious awareness. While many studies have shown how mindsets can regulate persuasion, fewer studies have taken the consumer perspective and investigated how mindsets regulate resistance. Consequently, the recent discovery of bolstering and counterarguing mindsets by Xu and Wyer (2012) represents an important theoretical development.

Resistance may be defined as the ability to withstand a persuasion attempt (McGuire, 1964). Resistance is the most important element in the persuasion process (Knowles & Linn, 2004). Accordingly, mindsets that regulate consumer resistance are especially important phenomena. Given that counterarguing and bolstering strategies may be universally enacted across all persuasion scenarios and compliance gaining contexts, mindsets which influence these cognitive procedures are especially important. The findings of Xu and Wyer (2012) are theoretically important for a number of reasons. Firstly, the research demonstrates that behavioural mindsets can influence persuasive communications and can be easily activated. Indeed,

55

these mindsets can be activated incidentally. These findings lead to the worrisome realisation that consumers’ self-protection goals may easily be compromised by forces outside of their conscious awareness. Importantly, the finding of Xu and Wyer (2012) may be distinguished from ‘inoculation effects’. Inoculation effects occur when an individual demonstrates high resistance to a strong persuasive appeal as a result of having been previously exposed to a weaker version of the appeal (McGuire, 1964). However, the recent discovery of the ‘counterarguing mindset’ by Xu and Wyer (2012) significantly broadens the theoretical horizons of consumer resistance within the persuasion literature. Unlike inoculation effects, a counterarguing mindset exerts covert influence across domains. Perhaps more worrying, a bolstering mindset reduces resistance and circumvents the defences of the consumer. Bolstering and counterarguing mindsets are mediated by the valence of the thoughts they make cognitively accessible. Specifically, individuals in a counterarguing (bolstering) mindset generate more negative (positive) thoughts which adversely (favourably) affect subsequent evaluations of a target stimulus (Xu & Wyer, 2012). However, to the author’s knowledge, no other research has yet explored potential moderators for these mindsets. Thus, the boundary conditions of these newly discovered mindsets warrant investigation.

Laran et al. (2011) suggest that “marketing needs a theory for priming effects”

and calls for future research to investigate which marketing stimuli and tactics unconsciously influence consumer responses. Until recently, research that investigates how consumers resist marketing communications was relatively scarce. The voluminous literature on persuasion contrasts starkly with the comparatively modest number of studies that directly investigate resistance (Laran et al., 2011). This

56

knowledge deficit has provoked some academics to call for more research on non-conscious consumer resistance since “there is no clear definition of the meaning of unconscious resistance” (Fransen & Fennis, 2014; p. 928). This doctoral research answers the call for further research on this important topic. Counterarguing and bolstering mindsets have potentially wide-ranging implications for consumer protection and consumer welfare. The current research seeks to replicate the bolstering and counterarguing mindsets and to extend the work of Xu and Wyer (2012) by exploring potential moderators of these mindsets. The primary aim of the current research will be to test the hypothesis that an individuals’ motivational orientation moderates the carryover effects of these behavioural mindsets. If found to be true, the research will help identify individuals who are especially sensitive to these mindsets. This would make a valuable contribution to the scarce literature on behavioural mindsets. It would also make a contribution to the larger body of work within the fields of persuasion and resistance.

57