The Defensive Consumer: Fortifying Consumer Resistance

Marketing activities and advertising campaigns are designed to induce persuasion and reduce resistance (Knowles & Linn, 2004). However, over the last 70 years marketing researchers have preoccupied themselves by measuring personality traits and cognitive processes that influence persuasion (for a review see Brinol &

Petty, 2004). In contrast, measurably less research has explored how individuals resist persuasion. This research imbalance is perhaps indicative of the marketer’s vested interest in persuasion rather than resistance. However, from a consumer perspective, resistance is an especially important topic.

Research suggests that individuals spontaneously accept the implications of a message in the course of comprehending it (Gilbert, 1991). Thus, it must follow that

44

resisting a persuasive message requires defensive motivation that allows individuals to contest the default position of message acceptance. Overcoming the hardwired response of message acceptance is of vital importance to consumers’ long term welfare. The ability to protect oneself from persuasive attacks becomes especially important when confronted by manipulative or deceptive marketing attempts. The four faces of resistance are: reactance, distrust, scrutiny and inertia (Knowles & Linn, 2004; p.7 ).

“There’s a sucker born every minute” (Anon)

This infamous quote is commonly attributed to businessman, P.T. Baranum. While the exact origins of the quote remain in doubt¹ there is less doubt that the quote’s derogatory sentiment stirs unease among consumers. After all, consumers are “goal driven agents” that may pursue a wide variety of shopping related goals (Lee &

Higgins 2009; p. 319). The overarching goal to avoid deception and deceit is a primary goal that is likely to influence the enactment of all other subordinate consumer goals (Vohs, Baumeister, & Chin, 2007).

The pervasive consumer fear of being duped or “being a sucker” is known as

“Sugrophobia” (Vohs et al., 2007). Sugrophobia activates self-protection instincts that allow consumers to defend their egos and their wallets against attack (Cohen, Aronson, & Steele, 2000; Vohs et al., 2007). This deeply engrained fear motivates consumers to assess the bona fides of persuasive messages. Avoiding deception and

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_a_sucker_born_every_minute, [25.10.14]

45

thwarting manipulative influences is an ongoing task that consumer’s undertake on a daily basis. In order for consumers to achieve this important goal they must consult their “persuasion knowledge” (Friestad & Wright, 1999).

2.7.1. Persuasion Knowledge (PK)

Persuasion Knowledge (PK) represents the set of core beliefs and intuitive theories which individuals use to “cope” with persuasion attempts (Friestad & Wright, 2013). More formally defined, PK refers to “consumers theories about persuasion and includes beliefs about marketers’ motives, strategies, and tactics; effectiveness and appropriateness of persuasion tactics; psychological mediators of tactic effectiveness;

and ways of coping with persuasion attempts” (Campbell & Kirmani, 2000; p. 69).

PK arms individuals with an interpretive set of beliefs designed to protect them from the voluminous barrage of persuasive attacks they encounter each day.

Wright (1986) dubbed PK the “schemer schema” because it allows consumers to detect manipulative or deceptive elements within persuasive appeals. It also informs consumers’ response strategies when they are the “target” of the persuasive attack. A consumer’s ever expanding catalogue of transactional encounters ensures that an individual’s PK is continually being updated and refined as they age. PK is also the product of folk knowledge that is constantly developing at a cultural/societal level.

Informed by personal experience and societal inputs, an individual’s PK evolves over time (Friestad & Wright, 1994). An individual’s sensitivity to ulterior motives changes as a function of age (for a review see Xie & Boush, 2011). The “soft whispering of Mother Culture” starts at an earlier age and continues throughout

46

adolescence and adulthood (Friestad & Wright, 1999; p. 139). For example, children begin to develop the ability to critically analyse persuasiveness communications between the ages of seven and eleven years (John, 1999). While culture plays a large role in the knowledge diffusion process, PK remains a uniquely, person-specific resource. Indeed, PK is “one of the most valuable socioeconomic resources” available to individuals (Friestad & Wright, 1999; p. 185). Consequently, any cognitive phenomenon (e.g. mindset) that comprises the activation of PK poses a threat to consumers. Consumers who do not have recourse to their PK are less likely to be able to detect “manipulative intent”.

2.7.2. Manipulative Intent

In order to avoid “being a sucker”, customers need to be sensitive to

“Manipulative Intent” (MI) within persuasive communications (Wentzel, Tomczak, &

Herrmann, 2010). Inferences of Manipulative Intent are defined as “as consumer inferences that the advertiser is attempting to persuade by inappropriate, unfair, or manipulative means” (Campbell, 1995; p. 228). Various studies have demonstrated that PK activation aids in the detection of MI within marketing communications; e.g.

negative comparisons (Jain & Posavac, 2004), biased endorsers (Kirmani & Zhu, 2007), rhetorical questions (Ahluwalia & Burnkrant, 2004), flattery (Campbell &

Kirmani, 2000), cause-related marketing (Szykman, Bloom, & Blazing, 2004), advocacy advertising (Menon & Kahn, 2003) and borrowed-interest creative devices (Campbell, 1995). The detection of MI induces message resistance (Kirmani & Zhu, 2007).

47

Research has demonstrated that prevention (promotion) focused individuals do not exhibit any difference in their sensitivity of MI when an adverts MI salience is low or high (Kirmani & Zhu, 2007). Specifically, prevention-focused individuals are likely to detect (not detect) MI when MI is high (low). Similarly, promotion-focused individuals are likely to detect (not detect) MI when MI is high (low). However, MI detection rates differ between these groups when MI salience is made moderately salient. Under such conditions, prevention-focused individuals are more likely to detect the MI than promotion-focused individuals. These findings suggest that when the components of an advert are ambiguous, prevention (promotion) focused individuals are more (less) likely to perceive the advert as manipulative. To date, few studies have tested if motivational orientation moderates an individual’s ability to detect MI. What’s more, few studies have investigated the specific resistance strategies that individuals with different regulatory/motivational orientations employ.

Ahluwalia (2000) demonstrated that individuals who are committed to their attitude are likely to use a wide variety of resistance strategies to protect their views.

However, two particular strategies are especially important. Research suggests that counterarguing and bolstering are the most widely used and the most effective resistance strategies employed by consumers (Zuwerink Jacks & Cameron, 2003).

Consequently, both defensive strategies are central to consumer welfare and autonomy. Importantly, recent research suggests that these defensive strategies can be activated outside of conscious awareness. Specifically, bolstering and counterarguing mindsets have been found to decrease (increase) resistance thereby increasing (decreasing) persuasion (Xu & Wyer, 2012).

48