![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Research on resistance to persuasion has examined a number of relevant variables such as one’s bolstering of one’s own argument and, for example, generating counterarguments in order to resist a persuasive message. Is resistance to persuasion a function of a widespread practice of bolstering and/or counterarguing? Or, is resistance to persuasion more meaningfully examined from an individual differences approach based on relative levels of trait argumentativeness within samples? Three hypotheses were offered and tested. Results suggested that empirical investigations of the relationship of bolstering arguments and generating counterarguments to resistance to persuasion should report argumentativeness levels of research participants. Trait argumentativeness may have a very substantial role in the effect sizes reported in resistance to persuasion research. High argumentatives significantly preferred counterarguing over bolstering in resistance to persuasion whereas low argumentatives significantly preferred bolstering over counterarguing, suggesting a root difference between high and low argumentatives requiring further investigation for verification.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Charles J. Wigley
Charles J. Wigley III (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1986, J.D., University of Akron, 1978) is Professor Emeritus, Communication Studies, Canisius College, Buffalo, NY. Email:[email protected]
Linda L. McCroskey
Linda L. McCroskey (Ph.D., University of Oklahoma, 1998) is Associate Professor, Long Beach State University. Email:[email protected]
Andrew S. Rancer
Andrew S. Rancer (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1979) is Professor Emeritus, School of Communication, University of Akron, Akron, OH. Email: [email protected]