Although previous research has provided indirect evidence that rhetorical questions can increase attitudinal resistance, what little work that was done was not specifically designed to examine the issue. Current models of attitude change suggest that rhetorical questions can increase persuasion and message processing, creating a relatively strong, resistant attitude. These processing and resistance effects in turn may be mediated by a property of attitude strength such as participants’ cognitive responses. In Study 1, placing rhetorical questions in a message increased participants’ message processing and counterargument generation relative to a control message. In addition, participants’ attitudes were mediated by participants’ cognitive responses. Study 2 found that a message containing rhetorical questions increased participants’ attitudinal resistance to an attacking message more than a control message, and the resistance effects were related to participants’ cognitive responses. These results provide the first direct evidence for the resistance effects of rhetorical question use and for mediators.
Areni, C. S. (2003). The effects of structural and grammatical variables on persuasion: An elaboration likelihood model perspective. Psychology and Marketing, 20, 349-375.
2.
Aristotle. (1926). The art of rhetoric (J. H. Freese, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
4.
Blankenship, K. L., Craig, T. Y., & Holtgraves, T. (2004). The role of source credibility in the use of tag questions in persuasion. Presented at the 76th annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
5.
Blankenship, K. L., & Holtgraves, T. (2005). The role of different markers of linguistic powerlessness in persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 3-24.
6.
Brennan, S. E., & Williams, M. (1995). The feeling of another’s knowing: Prosody and filled pauses as cues to listeners about metacognitive states of speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 383-398.
7.
Brock, T. C. (1967). Communication discrepancy and intent to persuade as determinants of counterargument production. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 269-309.
8.
Burnkrant, R. E., & Howard, D. J. (1984). Effects of the issue of the use of introductory rhetorical questions versus statements on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 1218-1230.
9.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
10.
Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford.
11.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. New York: Harcourt Brace.
12.
Enzle, M. E., & Harvey, M. D. (1982). Rhetorical requests for help. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 172-176.
13.
Fabrigar, L. R., Priester, J. R., Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). The impact of attitude accessibility on elaboration of persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 339-352.
14.
Fazio, R. H. (1989). On the power and functionality of attitudes: The role of attitude accessibility. In R. A. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 247-282). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15.
Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitude as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 247-282). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16.
Haugtvedt, C. P., & Wegener, D. T. (1994). Message order effects in persuasion: An attitude strength perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 205-218.
17.
Howard, D. J. (1989). The prevalence of question use and question strategies in print advertising. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 11, 89-112.
18.
Howard, D. J. (1990). Rhetorical question effects on message processing and persuasion: The role of information availability and the elicitation of judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 217-239.
19.
Howard, D. J., & Kerin, R. A. (1994). Question effects and question generation and the mediation of attitude change. Psychological Reports, 75, 209-210.
20.
Knowles, E. S., & Linn, J. A. (2004). Resistance and persuasion. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21.
Kruglanski, A. W., Thompson, E. P., & Spiegel, S. (1999). Separate or equal?: Bimodal notions of persuasion and a single process “unimodel.” In C. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 293-313). New York: Guilford.
22.
McGuire, W. J. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion: Some contemporary approaches. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 191-229). New York: Academic Press.
23.
McGuire, W. J., & Papageorgis, D. (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.
24.
Miller, N., & Coleman, D. (1981). Methodological issues in analyzing the cognitive mediation of persuasion. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 105-125). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
O’Barr, W. M. (1982). Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
26.
Petty, R. E., Brinol, P., & Tormala, Z. L. (2002). Thought confidence as a determinant for persuasion: The self-validation hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 722-741.
27.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
28.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Heesacker, M. (1981). The use of rhetorical questions in persuasion: A cognitive response analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 432-440.
29.
Petty, R. E., Haugvedt, C. P., & Smith, S. M. (1995). Elaboration as a determinant of attitude strength. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 93-130). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30.
Petty, R. E., & Krosnick, J. A. (Eds.). (1995). Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
Roskos-Edwoldsen, D. (Ed.). (2003). Communication and emotions: Essays in honor of Dolf Zillmann. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
32.
Swasy, J. L., & Munch, J. M. (1985). Examining the target on receiver elaborations: Rhetorical question effects on source processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 877-886.
33.
Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2004). Resisting persuasion and attitude certainty: A meta-cognitive analysis. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 65-82). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
34.
Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Smoak, N. D., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2004). Multiple routes to resisting attitude change. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 13-38). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
35.
Zillman, D. (1972). Rhetorical elicitation of agreement in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 159-165.
36.
Zillman, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1974). Rhetorical elicitation of concession in persuasion. Journal of Social Psychology, 94, 223-236.
