The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Communication

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Measuring Counterargument: A Review and Critique of the most Popular Techniques


Affiliations
1 University of Kentucky, United States
2 Bellarmine University, United States
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


The manuscript offers a review and critique of the most popular techniques (the thought listing process; the recognition check-off procedure; the closed-ended question measures; and the mechanical testing measures) currently used to assess the concept of counterarguing in the cross-disciplinary literature of the social sciences. The advantages and drawbacks of each technique are summarized. Subsequently, recent empirical findings comparing the differential effectiveness of some of the above techniques in different domains are reviewed and discussed. Furthermore, empirical evidence is examined pertaining to the effectiveness and importance of using multi-technique strategies when attempting to capture the concept of counterarguing. Finally, implications are drawn and recommendations are proposed for how to more effectively measure the concept of counterarguing.

Keywords

Counterargument, Process Assessment, Thought Listing, Check-Off Recognition, Closed Ended Question Measures, Mechanical Testing Measures.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Aune, R. K., & Reynolds, R. A. (1994). The empirical development of the normative message processing scale. Communication Monographs, 61, 113-160.

  • Axiom, D., Yates, S., & Chaiken, S., (1987). Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 30-40.

  • Banas, J. A., & Bessarabova, E. (2009, November). The influence of counterarguing on the inoculation process. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago, Illinois.

  • Benoit, W. L. (1991). Two tests of the mechanism of inoculation theory. The Southern Communication Journal, 56, 219-229.

  • Bohner, G., & Weinerth, T. (2001). Negative affect can increase or decrease message scrutiny: The affect interpretation hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1417-1428.

  • Brandt, D. R. (1979). Listener propensity to counterargue, distraction, and resistance to persuasion. Central States Speech Journal, 30, 321-331.

  • Brinol, P., Rucker, D. D., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2004). Individual differences in resistance to persuasion: The role of beliefs and meta-beliefs. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 83-113). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.

  • Brock, T. C. (1967). Communication discrepancy and intent to persuade as determinants of counterarguing production. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 296-309.

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1981). The nature of attitudes and cognitive responses and their relationship to behavior. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 32-54). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Morris, K. J. (1983). Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 805-818.

  • Calder, B. J., Insko, C. A., & Yandell, B. (1974). The relation between cognitive and memorial processes to persuasion in simulated jury trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 62-93.

  • Cappella, J. N., Price, V., & Nir, L. (2002). Argument repertoire as a reliable and valid measure of opinion quality: Electronic dialogue during campaign 2000. Political Communication, 19, 73-93.

  • Carter, R. F., & Simpson, R. (1970). Cited in P. Clarke (Ed.), New models for mass communication research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

  • Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing in the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.

  • Cialdini, R. B., Levy, A., Herman, C. P., Kozlowski, L. T., & Petty, R. E. (1976). Elastic shifts of opinion determinants of direction and durability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 663-672.

  • Compton, J., & Pfau, M. (2005). Inoculation theory of resistance to influence at maturity: Recent progress in theory development and applications and suggestions for future research. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication yearbook 29 (pp. 97-145). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

  • Cook, T. D., (1969). Competence, counterarguing, and attitude change. Journal of Personality, 37, 342-358.

  • Cullen, D. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to change and attitude change. In A. G. Brock & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Foundations of attitudes. New York: Academic Press.

  • Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

  • Eveland, W. P., & Dunwoody, S. (2002). An investigation of elaboration and selective scanning as mediators of learning from the Web versus print. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46, 34-53.

  • Flower, L., & Hayes, R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365.687.

  • Greenwald, A. G. (1968). On defining attitude and attitude theory. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundation of attitudes (pp. 361-388). New York: Academic Press.

  • Insko, C. A., Turnbull, W., &Yandell;, B. (1974). Facilitative and inhibitive effects of distraction on attitude change. Sociometry 37, 108-128.

  • Ivanov, B., Miller, C. H., Sims, J. D., Compton, J., Harrison, K. J., Parker, K. A.,… & Smith, J. (2011, November). Boosting the potency of resistance: Combining the motivational forces of inoculation and psychological reactance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.

  • Ivanov, B., Pfau, M., & Parker, K. A. (2009). The attitude as a moderator of the effectiveness of inoculation strategy. Communication Monographs, 76, 47-72.

  • Kardes, F. R. (2001). Consumer behavior and managerial decision making (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

  • Lingle, J. H., & Ostrom, T. M. (1979). Retrieval selectivity in memory-based judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 180-194.

  • Malhotra, N. K. (1999). Marketing research: An applied orientation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

  • McGuigan, F. J. (1970). Covert oral behavior during the silent performance of language tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 74, 309-326.

  • 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.

  • Miller, W. B., & Baron, R. S. (1973). On measuring counterarguing. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 1, 101-118.

  • Morley, D. (1987). Subjective message constructs: A theory of persuasion. Communication Monographs, 54, 183-203.

  • Morley, D., & Walker, K. (1987). The role of importance, novelty, and plausibility in producing belief change. Communication Monographs, 54, 436-442.

  • Neuwirth, K., Frederick, E., & Mayo, C. (2002). Person-effects and heuristic-systematic processing. Communication Research, 29, 320-359.

  • Osterhouse, R. A., & Brock, T. C. (1970). Distraction increases yielding to propaganda by inhibiting counterarguing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 344-358.

  • Petty, R. E. (1977). The importance of cognitive responses in persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 4, 357-362.

  • Petty, R. E., Brinol, P., & Tormala, Z. L. (2002). Thought confidence as a determinant of persuasion: The self-validation hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 722-741.

  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1977). Forewarning, cognitive responding, and resistance to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 645-655.

  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986a). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.

  • Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1986b). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205.

  • Petty, R. E, Wells, G. L., & Brock, T. C. (1976). Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding to propaganda: Thought disruption versus effort justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 874-884.

  • Petty, R. E, Wells, G. L., Heesacker, M., Brock, T. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1983). The effects of recipient posture on persuasion: A cognitive response analysis. Personality and Social Bulletin, 9, 209-222.

  • Pfau, M., Compton, J., Parker, K. A., An, C., Wittenberg, E. M., Ferguson, M., Horton, H., & Malyshev, Y. (2006). The conundrum of the timing of counterarguing effects in resistance: Strategies to boost the persistence of counterarguing output. Communication Quarterly, 54(2).

  • Pfau, M., Compton, J., Parker, K. A., Wittenberg, E. M., An, C., Ferguson, M., Horton, H., & Malyshev, Y. (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., Ivanov, B., Houston, B., Haigh, M., Sims, J., Gilchrist, E., Russell, J., Wigley, S., Eckstein, J., Richert, N. (2005). Inoculation and mental processing: The instrumental role of associative networks in the process of resistance to counterattitudinal influence. Communication Monographs, 72, 414-441.

  • Pfau, M., Tusing, K. J., Koerner, A. F., Lee, W., Godbold, L. C., Penaloza, L. J., Yang, V. S., & Hong, Y. (1997). Enriching the inoculation construct: The role of critical components in the process of resistance. Human Communication Research, 24, 187-215.

  • Reynolds, R. A. (1997). A validation test of a message elaboration measure. Communication Research Reports, 14, 269-278.

  • Roberts, D. F., & Maccoby, N. (1973). Information processing and persuasion: Counterarguing behavior. In P. Clarke (Ed.), New models for communication research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

  • Wolski, S., & Nabi, R. (2004). A closed-ended measure of message processing. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Wright, P. (1974). Analyzing media effects on advertising responses. Public Opinion Quarterly. 38, 192-205.

  • Wright, P. (1980). Message-evoked thoughts: Persuasion research using thought verbalizations. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 151-175.

  • Zuwerink, J. R., & Devine, P. G. (1996). Attitude importance and resistance to persuasion: It's not just the thought that counts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 931-944.


Abstract Views: 223

PDF Views: 2




  • Measuring Counterargument: A Review and Critique of the most Popular Techniques

Abstract Views: 223  |  PDF Views: 2

Authors

Bobi Ivanov
University of Kentucky, United States
Kimberly A. Parker
Bellarmine University, United States
Lindsay L. Dillingham
University of Kentucky, United States

Abstract


The manuscript offers a review and critique of the most popular techniques (the thought listing process; the recognition check-off procedure; the closed-ended question measures; and the mechanical testing measures) currently used to assess the concept of counterarguing in the cross-disciplinary literature of the social sciences. The advantages and drawbacks of each technique are summarized. Subsequently, recent empirical findings comparing the differential effectiveness of some of the above techniques in different domains are reviewed and discussed. Furthermore, empirical evidence is examined pertaining to the effectiveness and importance of using multi-technique strategies when attempting to capture the concept of counterarguing. Finally, implications are drawn and recommendations are proposed for how to more effectively measure the concept of counterarguing.

Keywords


Counterargument, Process Assessment, Thought Listing, Check-Off Recognition, Closed Ended Question Measures, Mechanical Testing Measures.

References