Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2019-10
Rebound effects in persuasion: considering potential ironic effects of suppression and correction / Efectos rebote en la persuasión: una consideración de los posibles efectos irónicos de la supresión y la corrección
Previous theory and research in persuasion has failed to examine possible ironic effects of attempting to suppress or to correct for influences of a potentially biasing source. Yet, because people often encounter sets of persuasive communications in order (e.g., in advertising), such rebound effects seem possible. Data on such possibilities are scarce, however. Here we present a relevant study. It followed the typical single-shot persuasive message with a second message on an unrelated topic but employed a similar type of (potentially biasing — attractive or unattractive) source. Attitudes following the second communication showed increased source impact for participants asked to suppress source-related thoughts during the first message (especially when the second message was encountered under load). Instructions to correct for potential source effects during the first message did not show ironic effects following the second message. This relatively small study is not enough to make definitive claims, but it suggests that rebound effects of thought suppression are possible in (repeated) persuasion settings. Future research and open questions regarding ironic effects are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramowitzJ. S.TolinD. F.StreetG. P. (2001). Paradoxical effects of thought suppression: A meta-analysis of controlled studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 683–703.
2.
AlbarracínD.JohnsonB.ZannaM. (2005). The handbook of attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
BairdB.SmallwoodJ.FishmanD. J.MrazekM. D.SchoolerJ. W. (2013). Unnoticed intrusions: Dissociations of meta-consciousness in thought suppression. Consciousness and Cognition, 22, 1003–1012. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2013.06.009
4.
BurkleyE. (2008). The role of self-control in resistance to persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 419–431. doi:10.1177/0146167207310458
5.
ChaikenS. (1979). Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1387–1397. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.8.1387
6.
ChaikenS.LibermanA.EaglyA. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In UlemanJ. S.BarghJ. A. (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
7.
ChienY.-W.HsiaoC.-C. (2015). Be yourself, image is nothing: Bias correction when viewing ads in sequence. Social Influence, 10, 19–30. doi:10.1080/15534510.2014.890667
8.
ChienY.-W.WegenerD. T.HsiaoC.-C.PettyR. E. (2010). Dimensional range overlap and context effects in consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 530–542. doi:10.1086/652415
9.
ChienY.-W.WegenerD. T.PettyR. E.HsiaoC.-C. (2014). The flexible correction model: Bias correction guided by näive theories of bias. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8/6, 275–286. doi:10.1111/spc3.12105
10.
CialdiniR. B.GuadagnoR. E. (2004). Sequential request compliance tactics. In GassR. H.SteiterJ. S. (Eds.), Perspectives on persuasion, compliance-gaining, and social influence (pp. 207–222). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
11.
FabrigarL. R.WegenerD. T. (2016). Conceptualizing and evaluating the replication of research results. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 68–80. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.07.009
12.
FörsterJ.LibermanN. (2004). A motivational model of post-suppressional rebound. European Review of Social Psychology, 15, 1–32. doi:10.1080/10463280340000081
13.
FörsterJ.LibermanN.FriedmanR. S. (2007). Seven principles of goal activation: A systematic approach to distinguishing goal priming from priming of non-goal constructs. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 211–233. doi:10.1177/1088868307303029
14.
GailliotM.BaumeisterR.DeWallC.ManerJ.PlantE.TiceD.SchmeichelB. (2007). Self-control relies on glucose as a limited energy source: Willpower is more than a metaphor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 325–336. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.325
15.
GilbertD.HixonJ. (1991). The trouble of thinking: Activation and application of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 509–517. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.4.509
16.
GiulianoR. J.WichaN. Y. (2010). Why the white bear is still there: Electrophysiological evidence for ironic semantic activation during thought suppression. Brain Research, 1316, 62–74. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2009.12.041
17.
GordijnE.HindriksI.KoomenW.DijksterhuisA.Van KnippenbergA. (2004). Consequences of stereotype suppression and internal suppression motivation: A self-regulation approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 212–224. doi:10.1177/0146167203259935
18.
JoharG. V.SimmonsC. J. (2000). The use of concurrent disclosures to correct invalid inferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 307–322. doi:10.1086/jcr.2000.26.issue-4
19.
KangY.HerrP. (2006). Beauty and the beholder: Toward an integrative model of communication source effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 123–130. doi:10.1086/jcr.2006.33.issue-1
20.
MacraeC. N.BodenhausenG.MilneA.JettenJ. (1994). Out of mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 808–817. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.5.808
21.
McShaneB. B.BöckenholtU. (2017). Single-paper meta-analysis: Benefits for study summary, theory testing, and replicability. Journal of Consumer Research, 43, 1048–1063.
22.
MinearM.ParkD. C. (2004). A lifespan database of adult facial stimuli. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 630–633. doi:10.3758/BF03206543
23.
PashlerH.HarrisC. R. (2012). Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 531–536. doi:10.1177/1745691612463401
24.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). New York, NY: Academic Press.
25.
PettyR. E.WegenerD. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In GilbertD.FiskeS.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 323–390). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
26.
PettyR. E.WegenerD. T.WhiteP. (1998). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: Implications for persuasion. Social Cognition, 16, 93–113. doi:10.1521/soco.1998.16.1.93
27.
ShenH.WyerR. S. (2008). Procedural priming and consumer judgments: Effects on the impact of positively and negatively valenced information. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 727–737. doi:10.1086/523292
28.
SilvaP. P. (2012). Controlo de impactos indesejados em contexto persuasivo: Correcção, supressão e seus efeitos irónicos (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). ISPA, Lisbon, Portugal.
29.
Sleeth-KepplerD.WheelerS. C. (2011). A multi-dimensional association approach to sequential consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21, 14–23. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2010.09.007
30.
StrackF.MussweilerT. (2001). Resisting influence: Judgmental correction and its goals. In ForgasJ. P.WilliamsK. (Eds.), Social influence: Direct and indirect processes. The Sydney symposium of social psychology (pp. 199–212). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
31.
TormalaZ. L.ClarksonJ. J. (2007). Assimilation and contrast in persuasion: The effects of source credibility in multiple message situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 559–571. doi:10.1177/0146167206296955
32.
TormalaZ. L.ClarksonJ. J. (2008). Source trustworthiness and information processing in multiple message situations: A contextual analysis. Social Cognition, 26, 357–367. doi:10.1521/soco.2008.26.3.357
33.
TottenhamN.TanakaJ. W.LeonA. C.McCarryT.NurseM.HareT. A.NelsonC. (2009). The NimStim set of facial expressions: Judgments from untrained research participants. Psychiatry Research, 168, 242–249. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2008.05.006
34.
WegenerD. T.PettyR. E. (1997). The flexible correction model: The role of naïve theories in bias correction. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 141–208). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
35.
WegenerD. T.PettyR. E.SmoakN. D.FabrigarL. R. (2004). Multiple routes to resisting attitude change. In KnowlesE. S.LinnJ. A. (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 13–38). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
36.
WegenerD. T.SilvaP. P.PettyR. E.Garcia-MarquesT. (2012). The metacognition of bias regulation. In BriñolP.DeMarreeK. (Eds.), Social metacognition (pp. 81–99). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
37.
WegnerD. M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101, 34–52.
38.
WegnerD. M.SchneiderD.CarterS.WhiteL. (1987). Paradoxical effects of thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 5–13.
39.
WenzlaffR.WegnerD. M. (2000). Thought suppression. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 59–91. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.59
40.
WheelerS. C.BriñolP.HermannA. (2007). Resistance to persuasion as self-regulation: Ego-depletion and its effects on attitude change processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 150–156. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.01.001
41.
WilsonT. D.BrekkeN. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 117–142. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.117
42.
WyerN. (2007). Motivational influences on compliance with and consequences of instructions to suppress stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 417–424. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.03.001
43.
WyerN.ShermanJ.StroessnerS. (2000). The roles of motivation and ability in controlling the consequences of stereotype suppression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 13–25. doi:10.1177/0146167200261002
44.
YzerbytV.CorneilleO.DumontM.HahnK. (2001). The dispositional inference strikes back: Situational focus and dispositional suppression in causal attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 365–376.
