Advertisement

Marketing Letters

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 27–38 | Cite as

“Top 10” reasons: When adding persuasive arguments reduces persuasion

  • Kimberlee WeaverEmail author
  • Stefan J. Hock
  • Stephen M. Garcia
Article

Abstract

Across four studies, we show that experts’ efforts to strengthen the persuasiveness of health and civic duty-related appeals actually weakened them. When designing “Top 10” reasons lists to get people to quit smoking, encourage young people to vote, and persuade individuals to engage in fitness, governmental (studies 1–2) and non-profit (study 3) agencies chose to include mildly strong reasons alongside strong ones in their effort to be as persuasive as possible. However, from the target audience’s perspective, those mildly favorable reasons actually decreased the persuasiveness of the message compared to a condition in which fewer but only highly persuasive reasons were used. Building upon the Presenter’s Paradox by Weaver, Garcia & Schwarz (Journal of Consumer Research 39 (3):445–460, 2012), these results demonstrate that averaging in impression formation occurs not only in targets commonly thought of as unified entities such as consumer products and people but also occurs in persuasion contexts where the individual arguments comprising a message are independent of each other.

Keywords

Presenter’s Paradox Averaging and adding Self/other differences Persuasive arguments 

References

  1. Anderson, N. H. (1965). Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(4), 394–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, N. H. (1968). Application of a linear serial model to a personality-impression task using serial presentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(4), 354–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asch, S. (1952). Social psychology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. E. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Camia, C. (2012). Study: about 49% of young voters cast ballots. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2012/11/07/obama-romney-youth-vote- election/1690075/. Accessed 10 June 2013.
  6. Dillard, J. P., Weber, K. M., & Vail, R. G. (2007). The relationship between the perceived and actual effectiveness of persuasive messages: a meta-analysis with implications for formative campaign research. Journal of Communication, 57, 613–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Douglas County Election Center (2012). Top 10 reasons why young people should vote. http://cltr.co.douglas.nv.us/elections/Top10Reasons.htm. Accessed 10 June 2013.
  8. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Forth Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  9. Fishbein, M., Jamieson, K. H., Zimmer, E., von Haeften, I., & Nabi, R. (2002). Avoiding the boomerang: testing the relative effectiveness of antidrug public service announcements before a national campaign. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 238–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Friedrich, J., Fetherstonhaugh, D., Casey, S., & Gallagher, D. (1996). Argument integration and attitude change: suppression effects in the integration of one-sided arguments that vary in persuasiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gaeth, G. J., Levin, I. P., Chakraborty, G., & Levin, A. M. (1990). Consumer evaluation of multi-product bundles: an information integration analysis. Marketing Letters, 2, 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Medical News Today (2013). Ten medical reasons to exercise: what does exercise really do for us? http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/132408.php. Accessed 10 June 2013.
  13. Meyvis, T., & Janiszewski, C. (2002). Consumers’ beliefs about product benefits: the effect of obviously irrelevant information. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 618–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. National Health, Lung, and Blood Institute (2013a). Top 10 reasons to quit smoking. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/hbp/prevent/q_smoke/top_ten.htm. Accessed 10 June 2013.
  15. National Health, Lung, and Blood Institute (2013b). Congressional Budget Justifications. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/about/directorscorner/legislativeinformation/congressional-budget-justifications/vol-3-tab-2-nhlbi.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2013.
  16. Nisbett, R. E., Zukier, H., & Lemley, R. E. (1981). The dilution effect: nondiagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information. Cognitive Psychology, 13(2), 248–277.Google Scholar
  17. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Strasser, A. A., Cappella, J. N., Jepson, C., Fishbein, M., Tang, K. Z., Han, E., et al. (2009). Experimental evaluation of anti-tobacco PSAs: effects of message content and format on physiological and behavioral outcomes. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 11, 293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tetlock, P. E., Lerner, J. S., & Boettger, R. (1996). The dilution effect: judgmental bias, conversational convention, or a bit of both? European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 915–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Thornton, W., Kirchner, G., & Jacobs, J. (1991). Influence of a photograph on a charitable appeal: a picture may be worth a thousand words when it has to speak for itself. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 433–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Troutman, C. M., & Shanteau, J. (1977). Inferences based on nondiagnostic information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Performance, 19, 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Weaver, K., Garcia, S. M., & Schwarz, N. (2012). The presenter’s paradox. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 445–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yadav, M. S. (1994). How buyers evaluate product bundles: a model of anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 342–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kimberlee Weaver
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stefan J. Hock
    • 2
  • Stephen M. Garcia
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of MarketingVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of MarketingVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  3. 3.Department of Psychology and Organizational StudiesUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations