Despite much prior research on matching appeals to the affective–cognitive orientation of attitudes, little attention has focused on the consequences of affect–cognition (mis)matching when individuals resist persuasion. We propose that unlike a matched attack, an attack that is mismatched to the affective–cognitive orientation of attitudes would result in low defensive confidence individuals holding onto their unchanged attitudes with less certainty than high defensive confidence individuals. As hypothesized, low defensive confidence participants were less certain after an affective than a cognitive attack for a cognitive issue (Study 1), and the opposite was true for an affective issue (Study 2). Both patterns occurred again when the affective–cognitive orientation of attitudes was manipulated (Study 3) or measured as an individual difference (Study 4). Moreover, perceived knowledge mediated the effects on attitude certainty (Study 4). We end by discussing implications for our understanding of affect–cognition matching and attitude certainty.
AbelsonR. P. (1988). Conviction. American Psychologist, 43, 267–275.
2.
AlbarracínD.MitchellA. L. (2004). The role of defensive confidence in preference for proattitudinal information: How believing that one is strong can sometimes be a defensive weakness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1565–1584. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271180
3.
AlbarracínJ.WangW.AlbarracínD. (2012). Are confident partisans disloyal? The role of defensive confidence in party defection. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 1576–1598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00896.x
4.
AquinoA.AlparoneF. R.PagliaroS.HaddockG.MaioG. R.PerrucciM. G.EbischS. J. H. (2020). Sense or sensibility? The neuro-functional basis of the structural matching effect in persuasion. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 20, 536–550. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-020-00784-7
5.
AquinoA.HaddockG.MaioG. R.WolfL. J.AlparoneF. R. (2016). The role of affective and cognitive individual differences in social perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 798–810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216643936
6.
BardenJ.PettyR. E. (2008). The mere perception of elaboration creates attitude certainty: Exploring the thoughtfulness heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 489–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012559
7.
BassiliJ. N. (1996). Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: The case of measures of attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 637–653. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.637
8.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Converting among effect sizes. In BorensteinM. (Ed.), Introduction to meta-analysis (pp. 45–49). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E.FeinsteinJ. A.JarvisW. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197–253. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.119.2.197
12.
ChaikenS.PomerantzE. M.Giner-SorollaR. (1995). Structural consistency and attitude strength. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Ohio State University series on attitudes and persuasion, Vol. 4. Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 387–412). Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
CheathamL.TormalaZ. L. (2015). Attitude certainty and attitudinal advocacy: The unique roles of clarity and correctness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1537–1550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215601406
14.
CheungM. W.-L. (2015). Meta-analysis: A structural equation modeling approach. John Wiley & Sons.
ClarkJ. K.WegenerD. T. (2013). Message position, information processing, and persuasion: The Discrepancy Motives Model. In DevineP.PlantA. (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 189–232). Academic Press.
17.
ClarksonJ. J.TormalaZ. L.RuckerD. D. (2011). Cognitive and affective matching effects in persuasion: An amplification perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1415–1427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211413394
18.
CohenJ.CohenP.WestS. G.AikenL. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
CritesS. L.FabrigarL. R.PettyR. E. (1994). Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 619–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294206001
20.
Dal CinS.ZannaM. P.FongG. T. (2004). Narrative persuasion and overcoming resistance. In KnowlesE. S.LinnJ. A. (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 175–192). Lawrence Erlbaum.
EaglyA. H.MladinicA.OttoS. (1994). Cognitive and affective bases of attitudes toward social groups and social policies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 113–137. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1994.1006
23.
FabrigarL. R.PettyR. E. (1999). The role of the affective and cognitive bases of attitudes in susceptibility to affectively and cognitively based persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 363–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025003008
24.
FabrigarL. R.WegenerD. T. (2010). Attitude structure. In BaumeisterR. F.FinkelE. J. (Eds.), Advanced social psychology: The state of the science (pp. 177–216). Oxford University Press.
25.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
26.
FazioR. H.ZannaM. P. (1978). Attitudinal qualities relating to the strength of the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 398–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(78)90035-5
Giner-SorollaR. (2004). Is affective material in attitudes more accessible than cognitive material? The moderating role of attitude basis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 761–780. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.229
29.
GohJ. X.HallJ. A.RosenthalR. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12267
30.
GrossS.HoltzR.MillerN. (1995). Attitude certainty. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 215–245). Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
HaddockG.MaioG. R. (2019). Inter-individual differences in attitude content: Cognition, affect, and attitudes. In OlsonJ. M. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 59. Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 53–102). Elsevier Academic Press.
32.
HaddockG.MaioG. R.ArnoldK.HuskinsonT. L. (2008). Should persuasion be affective or cognitive? The moderating effects of need for affect and need for cognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 769–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208314871
33.
HaddockG.ZannaM. P. (1994). Assessing the impact of affective and cognitive information in predicting attitudes toward capital punishment. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025758623612
34.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
35.
HirshJ. B.KangS. K.BodenhausenG. V. (2012). Personalized persuasion: Tailoring persuasive appeals to recipients’ personality traits. Psychological Science, 23, 578–581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611436349
36.
HunterJ. E.SchmidtF. L. (2000). Fixed effects vs. random effects meta-analysis models: Implications for cumulative research knowledge. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00156
37.
HuskinsonT. L. H.HaddockG. (2004). Individual differences in attitude structure: Variance in chronic reliance on affective and cognitive information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00060-X
38.
JensenJ. D.KingA. J.CarcioppoloN.DavisL. (2012). Why are tailored messages more effective? A multiple mediation analysis of a breast cancer screening intervention. Journal of Communication, 62, 851–868. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01668.x
39.
KimH.RaoA. R.LeeA. Y. (2009). It’s time to vote: The effect of matching message orientation and temporal frame on political persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 877–889. https://doi.org/10.1086/593700
40.
KreuterM.WrayR. J. (2003). Tailored and targeted health communication: Strategies for enhancing information relevance. American Journal of Health Behavior, 27, 227–232. https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.27.1.s3.6
41.
MaioG. R.EssesV. M. (2001). The need for affect: Individual differences in the motivation to approach or avoid emotions. Journal of Personality, 69, 583–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.694156
42.
MaioG. R.OlsonJ. M. (2000). What is a “value-expressive” attitude? In MaioG. R.OlsonJ. M. (Eds.), Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes (pp. 249–269). Lawrence Erlbaum.
43.
MayerN. D.TormalaZ. L. (2010). “Think” versus “feel” framing effects in persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 443–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210362981
44.
MazzoccoP. J.GreenM. C.SasotaJ. A.JonesN. W. (2010). This story is not for everyone: Transportability and narrative persuasion. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 361–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610376600
45.
McGuireW. J.PapageorgisD. (1961). The relative efficacy of various types of prior belief-defense in producing immunity against persuasion. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042026
46.
MillarM. G.TesserA. (1986). Effects of affective and cognitive focus on the attitude-behavior relation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 270–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.270
47.
MillarM. G.TesserA. (1989). The effects of affective-cognitive consistency and thought on the attitude-behavior relation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(89)90012-7
48.
MonroeB. M.ReadS. J. (2008). A general connectionist model of attitude structure and change: The ACS (Attitudes as Constraint Satisfaction) model. Psychological Review, 115, 733–759. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.3.733
49.
NgA. H.HynieM.MacDonaldT. K. (2012). Culture moderates the pliability of ambivalent attitudes. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 1313–1324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111429
50.
PetrocelliJ. V.ClarksonJ. J.TormalaZ. L.HendrixK. S. (2010). Perceiving stability as a means to attitude certainty: The role of implicit theories of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 874–883.
51.
PetrocelliJ. V.TormalaZ. L.RuckerD. D. (2007). Unpacking attitude certainty: Attitude clarity and attitude correctness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.30
52.
PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (1995). Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Lawrence Erlbaum.
53.
PettyR. E.TormalaZ. L.RuckerD. D. (2004). Resisting persuasion by counterarguing: An attitude strength perspective. In JostJ. T.BanajiM. R.PrenticeD. A. (Eds.), APA science series. APA decade of behavior series. Perspectivism in social psychology: The yin and yang of scientific progress (pp. 37–51). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10750-004
54.
RosenthalR.RosnowR. L. (2008). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
55.
RothmanA. J.BartelsR. D.WlaschinJ.SaloveyP. (2006). The strategic use of gain- and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behavior: How theory can inform practice. Journal of Communication, 56, 202–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00290.x
56.
RuckerD. D.PettyR. E. (2004). When resistance is futile: Consequences of failed counterarguing for attitude certainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.219
57.
RuckerD. D.TormalaZ. L.PettyR. E.BriñolP. (2014). Consumer conviction and commitment: An appraisal-based framework for attitude certainty. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24, 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.07.001
58.
SawickiV.WegenerD. T. (2018). Metacognitive reflection as a moderator of attitude strength versus attitude bolstering: Implications for attitude similarity and attraction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 638–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217744196
59.
SeeY. H. M. (2020). Cognitive-affective processing system. In Zeigler HillV.ShackelfordT. K. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 733–738). Springer.
60.
SeeY. H. M.KhooB. L. Z. (2011). Tailoring information to change attitudes: A meta-structural approach. In RussellM.KavanaughM. (Eds.), Assessing students in the margins: Challenges, strategies, and techniques (pp. 177–198). IAP Information Age Publishing.
61.
SeeY. H. M.PettyR. E.EvansL. M. (2009). The impact of perceived message complexity and need for cognition on information processing and attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 880–889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.006
62.
SeeY. H. M.PettyR. E.FabrigarL. R. (2008). Affective and cognitive meta-bases of attitudes: Unique effects on information interest and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 938–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.938
63.
SeeY. H. M.PettyR. E.FabrigarL. R. (2013). Affective-cognitive meta-bases versus structural bases of attitudes predict processing interest versus efficiency. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1111–1123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213490807
64.
SeeY. H. M.ValentiG.HoA. Y. Y.TanM. S. Q. (2013). When message tailoring backfires: The role of initial attitudes in affect-cognition matching. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 570–584. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1967
SmithS. M.FabrigarL. R.MacDougallB. L.WiesenthalN. L. (2008). The role of amount, cognitive elaboration, and structural consistency of attitude-relevant knowledge in the formation of attitude certainty. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 280–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.447
67.
TeenyJ. D.SievJ. J.BriñolP.PettyR. E. (2020). A review and conceptual framework for understanding personalized matching effects in persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31, 382–414. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1198
68.
TormalaZ. L.PettyR. E. (2002). What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger: The effects of resisting persuasion on attitude certainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1298–1313. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.6.1298
69.
TormalaZ. L.PettyR. E. (2004). Resisting persuasion and attitude certainty: A meta-cognitive analysis. In KnowlesE. S.LinnJ. A. (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 65–82). Lawrence Erlbaum.
70.
Van OverwalleF.SieblerF. (2005). A Connectionist model of attitude formation and change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 231–274. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_3
WanE. W.RuckerD. D.TormalaZ. L.ClarksonJ. J. (2010). The effect of regulatory depletion on attitude certainty. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 531–541. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.3.531
73.
WheelerS. C.PettyR. E.BizerG. Y. (2005). Self-schema matching and attitude change: Situational and dispositional determinants of message elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 787–797. https://doi.org/10.1086/426613
74.
WolfL. J.von HeckerU.MaioG. R. (2017). Affective and cognitive orientations in intergroup perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 828–844. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217699582
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
