Lumsdaine, A. A., & Janis, I. L. (1953). Resistance to ‘counterpropaganda’ produced by one-sided and two-sided ‘propaganda’ presentations. Public Opinion Quarterly, 17(3), 311–318.
McGuire, W. J. (1961a). The effectiveness of supportive and refutational defenses in immunizing and restoring beliefs against persuasion. Sociometry, 24(2), 184–197.
McGuire, W. J. (1961b). Resistance to persuasion conferred by active and passive prior refutation of same and alternative counterarguments. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(2), 326–332.
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, NY: Academic Press.
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(2), 327–337.
McGuire, W. J., & Papageorgis, D. (1962). Effectiveness of forewarning in developing resistance to persuasion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 26(1), 24–34.
Nabi, R. L. (2003). “Feeling” resistance: Exploring the role of emotionally evocative visuals in inducing inoculation. Media Psychology, 5(2), 199–223.
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1993). The spiral of silence: Public opinion, our social skin. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Papageorgis, D., & McGuire, W. J. (1961). The generality of immunity to persuasion produced by pre-exposure to weakened counterarguments. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 475–481.
Parker, K. A., Ivanov, B., & Compton, J. (2012). Inoculation’s efficacy with young adults’ risky behaviors: Can inoculation confer cross-protection over related but untreated issues? Health Communication, 27(3): 223–233.
Pfau, M. (1992). The potential of inoculation in promoting resistance to the effectiveness of comparative advertising messages. Communication Quarterly, 40(1), 26–44.
Pfau, M. (1997). Inoculation model of resistance to influence. In G. A. Barnett & F. J. Boster (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences: Advances in persuasion (Vol. 13, pp. 133–171). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Pfau, M., Banas, J., Semmler, S. M., Deatrick, L., Lane, L., Mason, A., et al. (2010). Role and impact of involvement and enhanced threat in resistance. Communication Quarterly, 58(1), 1–18.
Pfau, M., & Burgoon, M. (1988). Inoculation in political campaign communication. Human Communication Research, 15(1), 91–111.
Pfau, M., Compton, J., Parker, K. A., An, C., Wittenberg, E. M., Ferguson, M., et al. (2006). The conundrum of the timing of counterarguing effects in resistance: Strategies to boost the persistence of counterarguing output. Communication Quarterly, 54(2), 143–156.
Pfau, M., Compton, J., Parker, K. A., Wittenberg, E. M., An, C., Ferguson, M., et al. (2004). The traditional explanation for resistance versus attitude accessibility: Do they trigger distinct or overlapping processes of resistance? Human Communication Research, 30(3), 329–360.
Pfau, M., Haigh, M., Fifrick, A., Holl, D., Tedesco, A., Cope, J., et al. (2006). The effects of print news photographs of the casualties of war. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(1), 150–168.
Pfau, M., Haigh, M. M., Shannon, T., Tones, T., Mercurio, D., Williams, R., et al. (2008). The influence of television news depictions on the images of war on viewers. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 52(2), 303–322.
Pfau, M., Haigh, M. M., Sims, J., & Wigley, S. (2007). The influence of corporate front-group stealth campaigns. Communication Research, 34(1), 73–99.
Pfau, M., Holbert, R. L., Szabo, E. A., & Kaminski, K. (2002). Issue-advocacy versus candidate advertising: Effects on candidate preferences and democratic process. Journal of Communication, 52(2), 301–315.
Pfau, M., Ivanov, B., Houston, B., Haigh, M., Sims, J., Gilchrist, E., et al. (2005). Inoculation and mental processing: The instrumental role of associative networks in the process of resistance to counterattitudinal influence. Communication Monographs, 72(4), 414–441.
Pfau, M., & Kenski, H. C. (1990). Attack politics: Strategy and defense. New York, NY: Praeger.
Pfau, M., Kenski, H. C., Nitz, M., & Sorenson, J. (1990). Efficacy of inoculation messages in promoting resistance to political attack messages: Application to direct mail. Communication Monographs, 57(1), 1–12.
Pfau, M., Park, D., Holbert, R. L., & Cho, J. (2001). The effects of party- and PAC-sponsored issue advertising and the potential of inoculation to combat its impact on the democratic process. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(12), 2379–2397.
Pfau, M., Roskos-Ewoldsen, D., Wood, M., Yin, S., Cho, J., Kerr-Hsin, L., et al. (2003). Attitude accessibility as an alternative explanation for how inoculation confers resistance. Communication Monographs, 70(1), 39–51.
Pfau, M., Semmler, S. M., Deatrick, L., Mason, A., Nisbett, G., Lane, L., et al. (2009). Nuances about the role and impact of affect in inoculation. Communication Monographs, 76(1), 73–98.
Pfau, M., Szabo, E. A., Anderson, J., Morrill, J., Zubric, J., & Wan, H. H. (2001). The role and impact of affect in the process of resistance to persuasion. Human Communication Research, 27(2), 216–252.
Pfau, M., Tusing, K. J., Koerner, A. F., Lee, W., Godbold, L. C., Penaloza, L. J., et al. (1997). Enriching the inoculation construct: The role of critical components in the process of resistance. Human Communication Research, 24(2), 187–215.
Pfau, M., Van Bockern, S., & Kang, J. G. (1992). Use of inoculation to promote resistance to smoking initiation among adolescents. Communication Monographs, 59(3), 213–230.
Pfau, M., & Van Bockern, S. (1994). The persistence of inoculation in conferring resistance to smoking initiation among adolescents: The second year. Human Communication Research, 20(3), 413–430.
Poole, M. S., & Hunter, J. E. (1979). Change in hierarchically organized attitudes. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 157–176). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Pryor, B., & Steinfatt, T. M. (1978). The effects of initial belief level on inoculation theory and its proposed mechanisms. Human Communication Research, 4, 217–230.
Tannenbaum, P. H., & Norris, E. L. (1965). Effects of combining congruity principle strategies for the reduction of persuasion. Sociometry, 28(2), 145–157.
Wallack, L., & Corbett, K. (1987). Alcohol, tobacco and marijuana use among youth: An overview of epidemiological program and policy trends. Health Education Quarterly, 14, 223–249.
Wan, H.-H., & Pfau, M. (2004). The relative effectiveness of inoculation, bolstering, and combined approaches in crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16(3), 301–328.
Wigley, S., & Pfau, M. (2010a). Arguing with emotion: A closer look at affect and the inoculation process. Communication Research Reports, 27(3), 217–229.
Wigley, S., & Pfau, M. (2010b). Communicating before a crisis: An exploration of bolstering, CSR, and inoculation practices. In W. T. Coombs & S. J. Holladay (Eds.), The handbook of crisis communication (pp. 568–590). Malden, MA: Wiley.
Wood, M. L. M. (2007). Rethinking the inoculation analogy: Effects on subjects with differing preexisting attitudes. Human Communication Research, 33(3), 357–378.
CHAPTER 15
Supportive and Persuasive Communication
Theoretical Intersections
Graham D. Bodie
This chapter highlights various associations among persuasion and supportive communication research. Social support and persuasion play critical roles in a host of contexts and settings, serving essential functions in families, places of work, schools, and communities. Persuasion and support also serve as contexts in which to explore issues related to health, gender, and cultural differences, and mediated message production and processing. Thus, the sheer number of potential parallels between these literatures precludes my ability to entertain exhaustion. Instead, I forward several similarities I view as having the greatest potential to spark creative cross-fertilization and to i
mprove our understanding of what makes human communication possible. Specifically, this chapter focuses on how research in persuasion and social support have advanced our understanding of the (1) nature of messages and their effects, (2) character of message production and processing and the interactions within which these occur, and (3) relationships within which supportive and persuasive interactions are nested. A final section outlines directions for future research that can add richness to the individual persuasion and support literatures as well as help advance more general theory development. In order to frame these larger sections, I begin this chapter by offering a definition of supportive communication and draw from it parallels to work in persuasion.
What Is Supportive Communication?
* * *
The study of social support continues to be dominated by three primary perspectives (MacGeorge, Feng, & Burleson, 2011). Scholars who study social support as a sociological phenomenon primarily focus on social integration, while the psychological perspective primarily focuses on perceived support, or the degree to which one perceives his or her social network as available if needed. A major feature that differentiates communication-focused scholarship on social support from the extensive sociological and psychological literatures is its explicit focus on peculiarities of enacted support (Goldsmith, 2004). More specifically, research on supportive communication is concerned with “the messages through which people both seek and express support … the interactions in which supportive messages are produced and interpreted … [and] the relationships that are created by and contextualize … supportive interactions” (Burleson, Albrecht, Goldsmith, & Sarason, 1994, p. xviii; emphases in original). Given these foci are basic issues of interpersonal communication scholarship more generally (Knapp, Daly, Albada, & Miller, 2002), it is not surprising that those who study compliance gaining, persuasion, and interpersonal influence show similar interests (Dillard, Anderson, & Knobloch, 2001; Wilson, 2010).
The Nature of Messages and Their Effects
* * *
When people attempt to persuade or comfort others, they do so by using particular message features, some of which “more consistently lead to goal attainment than do others” (Burleson, 2010, p. 152). This section is comprised of two subsections; the first outlines features of advice and comforting messages found to reliably predict relevant outcomes, while the second reviews those relevant outcomes.
Message Content
Numerous studies have sought to identify helpful forms of supportive behavior, and synthetic reviews of these empirical findings provide considerable insight about the behavioral features that distinguish more versus less helpful supportive efforts (e.g., MacGeorge et al., 2011). There are similar bodies of research focused on documenting various techniques for enhancing compliance (e.g., Wilson, 2002) and message features that enhance attitude and behavioral change more generally (e.g., D. J. O’Keefe, 2002). Indeed, this chapter’s focus on connecting the support and persuasion literatures is not unique, as there is a long tradition of psychotherapy research equating affect change with changing underlying attitudes (for review, see Perrin, Heesacker, Pendley, & Smith, 2010). Although therapeutic change and attitude change are not identical, I find this particular connection interesting and useful for communication scholarship insofar as it provides the insight that promoting change (in the most general sense) is often catalyzed by a range of specific message features that may not be unique to a particular context (i.e., persuasion or support). In other words, perhaps there exist a set of fundamental features of messages that cut across contexts, the discovery of which might aid in more general theory development. In what follows I explore research on advice as a type of instrumental support and research on person centeredness in the context of emotional support, both of which have borrowed from and can help extend what we know about the effects of messages in the context of persuasion and can shed light onto more fundamental features of messages that assist change.
Features of Advice Messages
Advice is considered both a form social support insofar as it is relevant to helping others solve problems and as a form of persuasion insofar as advisors are recommending a particular action (Feng & MacGeorge, 2006). Thus, it is not surprising that scholars interested in advice as a type of supportive communication have borrowed heavily from work in persuasion. For instance, early work on advice focused on the inherently face threatening nature of these interactions and how messages might be crafted to attend to threats to face (Goldsmith, 1994; Goldsmith & MacGeorge, 2000); similar concerns are found in work on persuasion (e.g., Applegate & Woods, 1991) and compliance gaining (Baxter, 1984; see also Wilson, Aleman, & Leatham, 1998, who consider advice as a form of compliance gaining). Although research generally supports the facework paradigm, critics suggest that “precise linguistic strategies that consistently reduce perceived face-threat have been inconclusive” (MacGeorge, Feng, Butler, & Budarz, 2004, p. 44). Indeed, invoking the term facework focuses attention primarily on message style rather than message substance, causing researchers to focus on message strategies over features (see D. J. O’Keefe, 1994).
Current work that attempts to uncover specific ways in which advice messages can reduce threats to face and increase the effectiveness of advice also borrows heavily from persuasion. For instance, research by MacGeorge and her colleagues provides four ways in which advice content can vary—usefulness (comprehensibility, relevance), feasibility (ability to be accomplished), absence of limitations, and efficacy (likelihood the advice will be effective at addressing the problem); these specific features of advice messages are consistently stronger predictors of advice outcomes than more generic strategies of facework (MacGeorge, Feng, & Thompson, 2008). In an extension of this work, Feng and Burleson (2008), borrowing from persuasion the concept of explicitness (see D. J. O’Keefe, 1999), found that advice was perceived as more effective when the efficacy, feasibility, and absence of limitations of the advice message was stated explicitly. Thus, it appears that comprehensible and relevant messages that present a solution perceived as feasible, efficacious, and absent of limitations are likely to instill change (i.e., doing or believing something differently than if left alone) more readily than messages without these characteristics; and it helps even more if these components are clearly and unambiguously stated.
Person Centeredness
Person centeredness (PC) is a general quality of messages and refers to the degree to which “messages take into account and adapt to the subjective, emotional, and relational aspects of communicative contexts” (Burleson, 2007, p. 113). Over 30 years of research in the context of emotional support shows that messages higher in PC are perceived as better and produce better outcomes than messages lower in PC; a smaller set of studies supports heightened effectiveness for person-centered persuasive messages (see Burleson, 2007). Higher person-centered messages are those that illustrate recognition of an interlocutor’s goals while also reflecting the goals of the sender and aspects unique to that situation (see Table 15.1). Thus, PC captures more than adaptation to the person. Indeed, PC was originally labeled “listener-adapted persuasive strategies” (B. J. O’Keefe & Delia, 1979, p. 231), an oversimplification quickly revised to acknowledge that messages (like people) are more or less complex, with complexity a product of the number of relevant interpersonal goals addressed in the message (B. J. O’Keefe & Delia, 1982). That is, messages can vary in “the degree to which and manner in which multiple goals are addressed in the message” (B. J. O’Keefe, 1988, p. 81). By addressing multiple goals, influencers and helpers alike stand to be more successful in changing beliefs and behaviors. Indeed, research shows clear and consistent advantages of attending to multiple interaction goals (e.g., giving explicit advice while also mitigating face concerns, listening attentively to another’s distress while also attending to concerns about one’s own emotional well-being), and the next section reviews these effects and their relations to message quality.
Message Effects
/> The nature and structure of message effects has a long history, and the subject is so vast that it has garnered much more attention than can be afforded here. For the sake of this chapter, I will discuss two broad classes of message effects (Bodie, Burleson, & Jones, 2012; Dillard, Shen, & Vail, 2007; Dillard, Weber, & Vail, 2007; Goldsmith, 2004; MacGeorge et al., 2004; D. J. O’Keefe, 1994). The first class of effects can be labeled message evaluations (ME), judgments or reactions to the message and/or its sender. Assessments of ME in studies of persuasion typically focus on the extent to which a message is favorably evaluated in reference to its persuasive potential using scales tapping evaluations of either the message attributes (e.g., logical–illogical) or the likely outcomes of those messages (e.g., persuasive–not persuasive; Dillard & Sun, 2008). In contrast, evaluations of comforting messages generally focus on the cons tructs of helpfulness (e.g., helpful–unhelpful), sensitivity (e.g., sensitive–insensitive), and supporti veness (e.g., supportive–unsupportive; see Goldsmith, McDermott, & Alexander, 2000). Not surprisingly, various aspects of message quality (like those previously reviewed) have been found to influence evaluations of both persuasive (Dillard, 2003) and supportive (MacGeorge et al., 2011) messages.
Table 15.1 Examples of Low and High Person-Centered Messages
Persuasion (Request for Extension)
Low PC
Professor Griffin, you have to give me an extension on the term paper assignment. I’ve been so busy with so many things lately and I haven’t had a chance to work on it. I’m on the social events committee at my frat house and had to help plan a party last week. The week before that, there was a big paint ball tournament. And before that, I had a huge exam in a really important class in my major. So, I haven’t had a chance to start working on the term paper. I really need an extension on this assignment; I have to get a good grade on it. I’ll turn it in next week, OK?
The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion Page 48