Contrary to common beliefs, sometimes downplaying or even undermining one’s case can enhance impact, especially for people with strong attitudes. Across four studies (N = 1,548), we demonstrate that the placement of the undermining information within a two-sided message matters. By manipulating message order within a two-sided message, Study 1 showed that the relative effectiveness of two- over one-sided messages for people with a moral attitude primarily occurred when the two-sided message acknowledged the recipient’s side at the end rather than at the beginning of the message. Studies 2A/B showed that this effect was associated with positive source perceptions, such that placing the acknowledgment at the end results in people with a higher moral basis perceiving the source as more thoughtful and sincere. Furthermore, this inference process was more likely to occur when motivation to think was relatively high. Study 3, a preregistered experiment, replicated these findings using a different topic.
AndersonN. H. (1996). A functional theory of cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
BoothW. C. (2009). The rhetoric of rhetoric: The quest for effective communication. John Wiley.
3.
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(2), 197–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197
4.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E.KaoF. C. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13
5.
ChoiI.KooM.ChoiJ. A. (2007). Individual differences in analytic versus holistic thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(5), 691–705. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206298568
CromwellH. (1950). The relative effect on audience attitude of the first versus the second argumentative speech of a series. Communications Monographs, 17(2), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637755009375004
8.
CrowleyA. E.HoyerW. D. (1994). An integrative framework for understanding two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 561–574.
9.
DimaggioG.LysakerP. H.CarcioneA.NicolòG.SemerariA. (2008). Know yourself and you shall know the other. . . to a certain extent: Multiple paths of influence of self-reflection on mindreading. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(3), 778–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2008.02.005
10.
EaglyA. H.WoodW.ChaikenS. (1978). Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(4), 424–435. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.4.424
11.
EbbinghausH. (1964). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. Dover.
12.
EisendM. (2010). A meta-analysis of gender roles in advertising. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 38, 418–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-009-0181-x
13.
EtgarM.GoodwinS. A. (1982). One-sided versus two-sided comparative message appeals for new brand introductions. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(4), 460–465.
14.
GlanzerM.CunitzA. R. (1966). Two storage mechanisms in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5(4), 351–360.
15.
GraffG.BirkensteinC.MaxwellC. (2014). They say, I say: The moves that matter in academic writing. Gildan Audio.
16.
GriceH. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In ColeP.MorganJ. L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). Seminar Press.
17.
HaugtvedtC. P.PettyR. E. (1992). Personality and persuasion: Need for cognition moderates the persistence and resistance of attitude changes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.308
18.
HaugtvedtC. P.WegenerD. T. (1994). Message order effects in persuasion: An attitude strength perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1086/209393
19.
HendriksF.JanssenI.JucksR. (2023). Balance as credibility? How presenting one- vs. two-sided messages affects ratings of scientists’ and politicians’ trustworthiness. Health Communication, 38(12), 2757–2764.
20.
HovlandC. I.JanisI. L.KelleyH. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. Yale University Press.
21.
HovlandC. I.MandellW. (1957). Is there a “law of primacy” in persuasion?. In HovlandC. I. (Eds.), The order of presentation in persuasion (pp. 1–22). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
22.
HoweL. C.MacInnisB.KrosnickJ. A.MarkowitzE. M.SocolowR. (2019). Acknowledging uncertainty impacts public acceptance of climate scientists’ predictions. Nature Climate Change, 9(11), 863–867.
23.
HusseinM. A.TormalaZ. L. (2021). Undermining your case to enhance your impact: A framework for understanding the effects of acts of receptiveness in persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25(3), 229–250.
24.
KaoD. T. (2011). Message sidedness in advertising: The moderating roles of need for cognition and time pressure in persuasion. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52(4), 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00882.x
25.
KaminsM. A.MarksL. J. (1987). Advertising puffery: The impact of using two-sided claims on product attitude and purchase intention. Journal of Advertising, 16(4), 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1987.10673090
26.
KassinS. M.ReddyM. E.TullochW. F. (1990). Juror interpretations of ambiguous evidence: The need for cognition, presentation order, and persuasion. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 43–55.
27.
KnowerF. H. (1936). Experimental studies of changes in attitude. III. Some incidence of attitude changes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 20(1), 114–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060943
28.
KrosnickJ. A.PettyR. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 1–24). Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
KuporD.TormalaZ. (2018). When moderation fosters persuasion: The persuasive power of deviatory reviews. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(3), 490–510. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy021
30.
LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. H.SeifertC. M.SchwarzN.CookJ. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131.
31.
LuttrellA.SawickiV. (2020). Attitude strength: Distinguishing predictors versus defining features. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 14(8), e12555. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12555
32.
MinsonJ. A.ChenF. S. (2022). Receptiveness to opposing views: Conceptualization and integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 26(2), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683211061037
33.
MinsonJ. A.ChenF. S.TinsleyC. H. (2020). Why won’t you listen to me? Measuring receptiveness to opposing views. Management Science, 66(7), 3069–3094. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3362
34.
NorcrossJ. C.KrebsP. M.ProchaskaJ. O. (2011). Stages of change. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20758
35.
PettyR. E.BriñolP.LoerschC.McCaslinM. J.LearyM. R.HoyleR. H. (2009). The need for cognition. In LearyM. R.HoyleR. H. (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 318-329). The Guilford Press.
36.
PettyR. E.OstromT. M.BrockT. C. (Eds.). (1981). Cognitive responses in persuasion. Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
PettyR. E.TormalaZ.HawkinsC.WegenerD. T. (2001). Motivation to think and order effects in persuasion: The moderating role of chunking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 332–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201273007
38.
ReichT.MaglioS. J. (2020). Featuring mistakes: The persuasive impact of purchase mistakes in online reviews. Journal of Marketing, 84(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919882428
39.
RoetsA.Van HielA. (2011). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the Need for Closure Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 90–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.004
40.
SchwarzN. (1996). Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research methods, and the logic of conversation. Lawrence Erlbaum.
41.
SkitkaL. J.MorganG. S. (2014). The social and political implications of moral conviction. Political Psychology, 35, 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12166
42.
SwannW. B.GiulianoT.WegnerD. M. (1982). Where leading questions can lead: The power of conjecture in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(6), 1025–1035. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.6.1025
43.
WallaceL. E.WegenerD. T.PettyR. E. (2020). When sources honestly provide their biased opinion: Bias as a distinct source perception with independent effects on credibility and persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(3), 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219858654
44.
WellsB. M.SkowronskiJ. J.CrawfordM. T.SchererC. R.CarlstonD. E. (2011). Inference making and linking both require thinking: Spontaneous trait inference and spontaneous trait transference both rely on working memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1116–1126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.013
45.
XuM.PettyR. E. (2022). Two-sided messages promote openness for morally based attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(8), 1151–1166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220988371
46.
XuM.PettyR. E. (2024). Two-sided messages promote openness for a variety of deeply entrenched attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 50(2), 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221128113
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.
