A conversion narrative recounts the process that led the speaker to reject one belief for a different, usually incompatible, alternative. However, researchers know little about whether, when, and, if so, how such messages affect audience attitudes about controversial science. Using a general US population-sample experiment, we assessed the attitudinal impact of three versions of a statement by Mark Lynas, an environmental activist who converted from opposing to championing genetically modified crops. Participants were exposed to (1) a one-sided pro-genetically modified message by Lynas, (2) a two-sided pro-genetically modified message in which Lynas indicates but does not detail his conversion, or (3) a two-sided pro-genetically modified message in which Lynas explains the process that prompted his conversion. We find that his conversion messages influenced attitudes by way of perceived argument strength, but not speaker credibility. This finding implies such messages induce greater elaboration, which may lead to durable attitudes that predict behavior.
AllenM (1991) Meta-analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one-sided and two-sided messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication55: 390–404.
2.
AnsolabehereSRoddenJSnyderJM (2008) The strength of issues: Using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint, and issue voting. American Political Science Review102: 215–232.
3.
BauerM (2009) The evolution of public understanding of science—discourse and comparative evidence. Science, Technology and Society14: 221–240.
BerinskyAJ (2015) Rumors and health care reform: Experiments in political misinformation. British Journal of Political Science47: 241–262.
6.
BoothWC (1995) The rhetoric of fundamentalist conversion narratives. In: MartyMEApplebyRS (eds) Fundamentalisms Comprehended. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 367–395.
7.
BreinesJGChenS (2013) Activating the inner caregiver: The role of support-giving schemas in increasing state self-compassion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology49: 58–64.
8.
BrookesGBarfootP (2017) Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2015: Impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions. GM Crops & Food8: 117–147.
9.
CaldwellP (1983) The Puritan Conversion Narrative: The Beginnings of American Expression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
CampbellAConversePEMillerWEStokesDE (1960) The American Voter. New York, NY: John Wiley.
11.
CorbettJBDurfeeJL (2004) Testing public (un)certainty of science: Media representations of global warming. Science Communication26: 129–151.
12.
DillardJPWeberKMVailRG (2007) The relationship between the perceived and actual effectiveness of persuasive messages: A meta-analysis with implications for formative campaign research. Journal of Communication57: 613–631.
13.
DixonGNClarkeCE (2013) Heightening uncertainty around certain science: Media coverage, false balance, and the autism-vaccine controversy. Science Communication35: 358–382.
14.
DjupePAGwiasdaGW (2010) Evangelizing the environment: Decision process effects in political persuasion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion49: 73–86.
15.
DrummondCFischhoffB (2017) Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114: 9587–9592.
16.
DuttonDG (1973) The maverick effect: Increased communicator credibility as a result of abandoning a career. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science5: 145–151.
EttemaJS (2007) Journalism as reason-giving: Deliberative democracy, institutional accountability, and the news media’s mission. Political Communication24: 143–160.
19.
FishbeinMAjzenI (1981) Acceptance, yielding, and impact: Cognitive processes in persuasion. In: PettyREOstromTBrockT (eds) Cognitive Responses in Persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 339–359.
20.
FredriksenP (1986) Paul and Augustine: Conversion narratives, orthodox traditions, and the retrospective self. Journal of Theological Studies37: 3–34.
GibsonJLCaldeiraGASpenceLK (2003) The Supreme Court and the US presidential election of 2000: Wounds, self-inflicted or otherwise?British Journal of Political Science33: 535–556.
24.
GreenwaldAGLeavittC (1984) Audience involvement in advertising: Four levels. Journal of Consumer Research11: 581–592.
25.
GreszkiRMeyerMSchoenH (2015) Exploring the effects of removing “too fast” responses and respondents from web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly79: 471–503.
26.
GroelingTBaumMA (2008) Crossing the water’s edge: Elite rhetoric, media coverage, and the rally-round-the-flag phenomenon. Journal of Politics70: 1065–1085.
27.
HaleJLMongeauPAThomasRM (1991) Cognitive processing of one-and two-sided persuasive messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication55: 380–389.
28.
HallmanWKCuiteCLMorinXK (2016) Public perceptions of animal-sourced genetically modified food products. Journal of Animal Science94(Suppl. 5): 216.
HindmarshDB (2005) The Evangelical Conversion Narrative: Spiritual Autobiography in Early Modern England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
HoSSBrossardDScheufeleDA (2008) Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research20: 171–192.
32.
HoekenHHustinxL (2009) When is statistical evidence superior to anecdotal evidence in supporting probability claims? The role of argument type. Human Communication Research35: 491–510.
33.
HornseyMJFieldingKS (2017) Attitude roots and Jiu Jitsu persuasion: Understanding and overcoming the motivated rejection of science. American Psychologist72: 459–473.
34.
JacksonSJacobsS (1983) Generalizing about messages: Suggestions for design and analysis of experiments. Human Communication Research9: 169–191.
35.
JohnsonBTEaglyAH (1989) Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin106: 290–314.
36.
JohnsonBTMaioGRSmith-McLallenA (2005) Communication and attitude change: Causes, processes, and effects. In: AlbarracinDJohnsonBTZannaMP (eds) The Handbook of Attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 617–669.
37.
JohnsonBTSmith-McLallenAKilleyaLALevinKD (2004) Truth or consequences: Overcoming resistance to persuasion with positive. In: KnowlesESLinnJS (eds) Resistance and Persuasion. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 215–233.
38.
JordanMD (1986) Ancient philosophic protreptic and the problem of persuasive genres. Rhetorica4: 309–333.
39.
KahanDMJenkins-SmithHBramanD (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research14: 147–174.
40.
LazarsfeldPF (1949) The American soldier: An expository review. Public Opinion Quarterly13(3): 377–404.
41.
LeePH (2016) Covariate adjustments in randomized controlled trials increased study power and reduced biasedness of effect size estimation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology76: 137–146.
42.
LevineJMValleRS (1975) The convert as a credible communicator. Social Behavior and Personality3: 81–90.
43.
LinW (2013) Agnostic notes on regression adjustments to experimental data: Reexamining Freedman’s critique. The Annals of Applied Statistics7: 295–318.
44.
LongakerM (2012) Letters to power: Public advocacy without public intellectuals. Philosophy & Rhetoric45: 468–472.
45.
LunsfordAA (1979) Aristotelian vs. Rogerian argument: A reassessment. College Composition and Communication30(2): 146–151.
46.
LupiaAMcCubbinsMD (1998) The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacKinnonDPLockwoodCMWilliamsJ (2004) Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research39(1): 99–128.
49.
McCrightAMDunlapRE (2017) Combatting misinformation requires recognizing its types and the factors that facilitate its spread and resonance. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition6: 389–396.
McGuireWJ (1985) Attitudes and attitude change. In: LindzeyGAronsonE (eds) Handbook of Social Psychology, 3rd edn, vol. 2. New York, NY: Random House, pp. 233–346.
52.
McGuireWJ (2000) Standing on the shoulders of ancients: Consumer research, persuasion, and figurative language. Journal of Consumer Research27: 109–114.
MaheswaranDChaikenS (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology61: 13–25.
55.
MarrisC (2001) Public views on GMOs: Deconstructing the myths: Stakeholders in the GMO debate often describe public opinion as irrational. But do they really understand the public?EMBO Reports2: 545–548.
56.
National Academies of Science (2016) Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
57.
NaurothPGollwitzerMKozuchowskiHBenderJRothmundT (2017) The effects of social identity threat and social identity affirmation on laypersons’ perception of scientists. Public Understanding of Science26: 754–770.
58.
NicoliaAManzoAVeronesiFRoselliniD (2014) An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology34: 77–88.
59.
NisbetECCooperKEGarrettRK (2015) The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis) trust science. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science658: 36–66.
60.
O’KeefeDJ (1999) How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: A meta-analytic review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided messages. Annals of the International Communication Association22: 209–249.
61.
O’KeefeDJ (2002) Persuasion: Theory and Research, 2nd edn.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
62.
PanchinAYTuzhikovAI (2017) Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology37: 213–217.
63.
PasekJ (2017) It’s not my consensus: Motivated reasoning and the sources of scientific illiteracy. Public Understanding of Science27: 787–806.
64.
PettyREBrinolP (2010) Attitude change. In: BaumeisterRFFinkelEJ (eds) Advanced Social Psychology: The State of the Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 217–259.
65.
PettyRECacioppoJT (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology19: 123–205.
PreacherKJHayesAF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods40(3): 879–891.
68.
ReichTTormalaZ (2013) When contradictions foster persuasion: An attributional perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology49: 426–439.
69.
ReinemannCMaurerM (2005) Unifying or polarizing? Short-term effects and postdebate consequences of different rhetorical strategies in televised debates. Journal of Communication55: 775–794.
70.
ReynoldsRReynoldsJL (2002) Evidence. In: DillardJPPfauM (eds) The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 427–444.
71.
RungeKKBrossardDScheufeleDARoseKMLarsonBJ. (2017) Attitudes about food and food-related biotechnology. Public Opinion Quarterly81: 577–596.
SlaterMDRounerD (1996) Value-affirmative and value-protective processing of alcohol education messages that include statistical evidence or anecdotes. Communication Research23(2): 210–235.
74.
SlaterMDPeterJValkenburgPM (2015) Message variability and heterogeneity: A core challenge for communication research. Annals of the International Communication Association39(1): 3–31.
75.
SmithVJ (2007) Aristotle’s classical enthymeme and the visual argumentation of the twenty-first century. Argumentation and Advocacy43: 114–123.
VancilD (1993) Rhetoric and Argumentation. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
81.
VeenstraASHossainMDLyonsBA (2014) Partisan media and discussion as enhancers of the belief gap. Mass Communication and Society17: 874–897.
82.
VeenstraASLyonsBAFowler-DawsonA (2016) Conservatism vs. conservationism: Differential influences of social identities on beliefs about fracking. Environmental Communication10: 322–336.
VolleJ (2010) The campaign for president of the United States, 1964. In: VolleJ (ed.) The Political Legacies of Barry Goldwater and George Mcgovern. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 29–50.
85.
WallaceAH (2014) Editor in chief of food and chemical toxicology answers questions on retraction. Food and Chemical Toxicology65: 394–395.
86.
WattsD (2011) Everything Is Obvious: *Once You Know the Answer. New York, NY: Crown Business.
87.
WoodWQuinnJM (2003) Forewarned and forearmed? Two meta-analytic syntheses of forewarnings of influence appeals. Psychological Bulletin129: 119–138.
88.
YueCZhaoSCummingsCKuzmaJ (2015) Investigating factors influencing consumer willingness to buy GM food and nano-food. Journal of Nanoparticle Research17: 283.
89.
ZarefskyD (1980) Lyndon Johnson redefines “equal opportunity”: The beginnings of affirmative action. Central States Speech Journal31: 85–94.
90.
ZhaoXStrasserACappellaJLermanCFishbeinM (2011) A measure of perceived argument strength: Reliability and validity. Communication Methods and Measures5: 48–75.
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.
