Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Article

Meta-Cognition Predicts Attitude Depolarization and Intentions to Engage With the Opposition Following Pro-Attitudinal Advocacy

Published Online:August 12, 2020https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000424

Abstract

Abstract. Across two studies we show that attitudes can paradoxically depolarize when people advocate for their own opinions. In Study 1 (n = 276), we show that attitude depolarization is driven by how much meta-cognitive confidence people place in their advocacy attempt, such that those who experience low confidence during advocacy are more likely to depolarize. In Study 2 (n = 495), we show that meta-cognitive confidence predicts communicative intentions, such as intentions to engage with those holding dissimilar views. In Study 2, we also show that the confidence–polarization and confidence–engagement links are unaffected by audience attitudes, but are moderated by Need-for-Cognition. The findings suggest that confidence and level of elaboration may predict some self-persuasive effects of pro-attitudinal advocacy.

References

  • Abeywickrama, R. S., & Laham, S. M. (2017). Thought conviction as a meta-cognitive moderator of self-persuasion in counter-attitudinal advocacy. Unpublished Data. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13, 145–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450001037X First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Briñol, P., McCaslin, M. J., & Petty, R. E. (2012). Self-generated persuasion: Effects of the target and direction of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 925–940. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027231 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2003). Overt head movements and persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1123–1139. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1123 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2015). Elaboration and validation processes: Implications for media attitude change. Media Psychology, 18, 267–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1008103 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Kao, C. F., & Rodriguez, R. (1986). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1032–1043. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.5.1032 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Cheatham, L., & Tormala, Z. (2015). Attitude certainty and attitudinal advocacy: The unique roles of clarity and correctness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1537–1550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215601406 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cheatham, L., & Tormala, Z. (2017). The curvilinear relationship between attitude certainty and attitudinal advocacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216673349 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. ChaikenY. TropeEds., Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 73–96). New York, NY: Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2013.58.2.0489 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Clark, H. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1982). Audience design in meaning and reference. Advances in Psychology, 9, 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(09)60059-5 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Clark, J. K., Wegener, D. T., Sawicki, V., Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2013). Evaluating the message or the messenger? Implications for self-validation in persuasion. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1571–1584. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213499238 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Clarkson, J. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Leone, C. (2011). A self-validation perspective on the mere thought effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 449–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.003 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Clarkson, J. J., Valente, M. J., Leone, C., & Tormala, Z. L. (2013). Motivated reflection on attitude-inconsistent information: An exploration of the role of fear of invalidity in self-persuasion. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1559–1570. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213497983 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Downing, J. W., Judd, C. M., & Brauer, M. (1992). Effects of repeated expressions on attitude extremity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.1.17 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Echterhoff, G., Higgins, E. T., & Groll, S. (2005). Audience-tuning effects on memory: The role of shared reality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 257–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.257 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Echterhoff, G., Higgins, E. T., Kopietz, R., & Groll, S. (2008). How communication goals determine when audience tuning biases memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.137.1.3 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Echterhoff, G., Higgins, E. T., & Levine, J. M. (2009). Shared reality: Experiencing commonality with others’ inner states about the world. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 496–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01161.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.390 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Festinger, L. (1962). Cognitive dissonance. Scientific American, 207, 93–106. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Flanders, J., & Thistlethwaite, D. (1967). Effects of familiarization and group discussion upon risk taking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024204 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Förster, J., & Liberman, N. (2007). Knowledge activation. In A. W. KruglanskiE. Tory HigginsEds., Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 201–231). New York, NY: Guilford Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Gordijn, E. H., Postmes, T., & de Vries, N. K. (2001). Devil’s advocate or advocate of oneself: Effects of numerical support on proand counterattitudinal self-persuasion. Personaility and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201274002 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Greenwald, A. G., & Albert, R. D. (1968). Acceptance and recall of improvised arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 31–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021237 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hart, W., Albarracín, D., Eagly, A. H., Brechan, I., Lindberg, M. J., & Merrill, L. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 555–588. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015701 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hayes, A. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press. https://doi.org/978-1-60918-230-4 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Henningsen, D. D., & Henningsen, M. L. M. (2004). The effect of individual difference variables on information sharing in decision-making groups. Human Communication Research, 30, 540–555. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/30.4.540 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Higgins, E. T., & Rholes, W. S. (1978). “Saying is believing”: Effects of message modification on memory and liking for the person described. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 363–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(78)90032-X First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/2087772 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization. A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1141–1151. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1141 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Janis, I. L., & King, B. T. (1954). The influence of role playing on opinion change. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 49, 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056957 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kim, S. Y., Allen, M., Preiss, R. W., & Peterson, B. (2014). Meta-analysis of counterattitudinal advocacy data: Evidence for an additive cues model. Communication Quarterly, 62, 607–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2014.949385 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • King, B. T., & Janis, I. L. (1956). Comparison of the effectiveness of improvised versus non-improvised role-playing in producing opinion changes. Human Relations, 9, 177–186. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Kleinman, S. B. (2012). Preelection selective exposure: Confirmation bias versus informational utility. Communication Research, 39, 170–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211400597 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Krosnick, J. A., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In R. E. PettyJ. A. KrosnickEds., Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 1–24). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Love, R. E., & Greenwald, A. (1978). Cognitive responses to persuasion as mediators of opinion change. The Journal of Social Psychology, 104, 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1978.9924065 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mercier, H., & Landemore, H. (2012). Reasoning is for arguing: Understanding the successes and failures of deliberation. Political Psychology, 33, 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00873.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2012). The elaboration likelihood model. In P. A. Van LangeA. W. KruglanskiE. T. HigginsEds., Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 224–245). New York, NY: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2014). The elaboration likelihood and metacognitive models of attitudes: implications for prejudice, the self and beyond. In J. W. ShermanB. GawronskiY. TropeEds., Dual-process theories of the social mind (pp. 172–187). New York, NY: Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60214-2 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., Loersch, C., & McCaslin, M. J. (2009). The need for cognition. In M. R. LearyR. H. HoyleEds., Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 318–329). New York, NY: Guilford Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Petty, R. E., Briñol, 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.722 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., Tormala, Z. L., & Wegener, D. T. (2007). The role of metacognition in social judgment. In A. W. KruglanskiE. T. HigginsEds., Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 254–284). New York, NY: Guilford Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 668–672. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v14i2.309 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Pew Research Center. (2014). Political polarization in the American public. Retrieved from https://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/ First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Powell, M. C., & Fazio, R. H. (1984). Attitude accessibility as a function of repeated attitudinal expression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167284101016 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Reeves, B., Yeykelis, L., & Cummings, J. J. (2016). The use of media in media psychology. Media Psychology, 19, 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1030083 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7, 331–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sunstein, C. (2002). The law of group polarization. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 10, 175–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470690734.ch4 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tesser, A. (1978). Self-generated attitude change. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 289–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60010-6 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Tesser, A., & Leone, C. (1977). Cognitive schemas and thought as determinants of attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 340–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(77)90004-X First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tormala, Z. L. (2016). The role of certainty (and uncertainty) in attitudes and persuasion. Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.10.017 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tormala, Z. L., Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2004). Hidden effects of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 31, 75–76. Retrieved from http://web.uam.es/otros/persuasion/papers/2004ACR-hiddeneffects.pdf First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2002). What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger: The effects of resisting persuasion on attitude certainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1298–1313. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1298 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tormala, Z. L., Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2002). Ease of retrieval effects in persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1700–1712. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616702237651 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tuller, H. M., Bryan, C. J., Heyman, G. D., & Christenfeld, N. J. S. (2015). Seeing the other side: Perspective taking and the moderation of extremity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 59, 18–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.02.003 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Vinokur, A., & Burnstein, E. (1978). Depolarization of attitudes in groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 872–885. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.8.872 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Voelkel, J., & Feinberg, M. (2018). Morally reframed arguments can affect support for political candidates. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 917–924. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617729408 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Walter, N., & Cohen, J. (2019). When less is more and more is less: The paradoxical metacognitive effects of counterarguing. Communication Monographs, 86, 377–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2019.1580378 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wagner, B. C., Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2012). Dimensions of metacognitive judgment: Implications for attitude change. In P. BriñolK. DeMarreeEds., Social metacognition (pp. 43–61). New York, NY: Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203865989 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1997). The flexible correction model: The role of naive theories of bias in bias correction. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 141–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60017-9 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wilson, T. D. (1990). Self-persuasion via self-reflection. In J. M. OlsonM. P. ZannaEds., Self-inference processes: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 6, pp. 43–67). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wilson, T. D., & Dunn, D. S. (1986). Effects of introspection on attitude-behavior consistency: Analyzing reasons versus focusing on feelings. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 249–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(86)90028-4 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wilson, T. D., Kraft, D., & Dunn, D. S. (1989). The disruptive effects of explaining attitudes: The moderating effect of knowledge about the attitude object. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 379–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(89)90029-2 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Zimbardo, P. G. (1965). The effect of effort and improvisation on self-persuasion produced by role-playing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(65)90039-9 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar