Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support

Two-Sided versus One-Sided Appeals: A Cognitive Perspective on Argumentation, Source Derogation, and the Effect of Disconfirming Trial on Belief Change

Michael A. Kamins and Henry Assael
Journal of Marketing Research
Vol. 24, No. 1 (Feb., 1987), pp. 29-39
DOI: 10.2307/3151751
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3151751
Page Count: 11
  • Get Access
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($24.00)
  • Cite this Item
If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support
Two-Sided versus One-Sided Appeals: A Cognitive Perspective on Argumentation, Source Derogation, and the Effect of Disconfirming Trial on Belief Change
Preview not available

Abstract

The authors consider the effects of exposure to various advertising appeal types (differing in sidedness) on cognitive response and belief change in the context of inoculation and correspondence theory. In one experiment, subjects were exposed to either a one-sided, two-sided refutational, or two-sided nonrefutational appeal and the degree of cognitive activity incurred was measured. Results are partially supportive of both inoculation and correspondence theory, as two-sided appeals produced significantly less counterargumentation and source derogation than the one-sided appeal. In addition, the refutational appeal led to significantly more support argumentation than the one-sided appeal. However, exposure to either two-sided appeal did not differentially affect cognitions. In a second experiment, a disconfirming product trial experience was introduced as an "attack" condition to observe the effects on belief change given exposure to one of the advertising appeals used before. For all attributes, exposure to the one-sided appeal resulted in the greatest degree of belief change. Dominance for the predictions of inoculation over those of correspondence theory is not evident as belief change did not differ significantly between subjects exposed to either two-sided appeal. Finally, a measure of the change in purchase intent has only (nonsignificant) directional support.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
29
    29
  • Thumbnail: Page 
30
    30
  • Thumbnail: Page 
31
    31
  • Thumbnail: Page 
32
    32
  • Thumbnail: Page 
33
    33
  • Thumbnail: Page 
34
    34
  • Thumbnail: Page 
35
    35
  • Thumbnail: Page 
36
    36
  • Thumbnail: Page 
37
    37
  • Thumbnail: Page 
38
    38
  • Thumbnail: Page 
39
    39