Two-Sided versus One-Sided Appeals: A Cognitive Perspective on Argumentation,Source Derogation,and the Effect of Disconfirming Trial on Belief Change

Abstract

The authors consider the effects of exposure to various advertising appeal types (differing in sidedness) on cognitive response and belief change in the context of inoculation and correspondence theory. In one experiment, subjects were exposed to either a one-sided, two-sided refutational, or two-sided nonrefutational appeal and the degree of cognitive activity incurred was measured. Results are partially supportive of both inoculation and correspondence theory, as two-sided appeals produced significantly less counterargumentation and source derogation than the one-sided appeal. In addition, the refutational appeal led to significantly more support argumentation than the one-sided appeal. However, exposure to either two-sided appeal did not differentially affect cognitions. In a second experiment, a disconfirming product trial experience was introduced as an “attack” condition to observe the effects on belief change given exposure to one of the advertising appeals used before. For all attributes, exposure to the one-sided appeal resulted in the greatest degree of belief change. Dominance for the predictions of inoculation over those of correspondence theory is not evident as belief change did not differ significantly between subjects exposed to either two-sided appeal. Finally, a measure of the change in purchase intent has only (nonsignificant) directional support.