Counterattitudinal Advocacy: The Role of Behavioral Intentions in Attitude Change
Abstract
This study examines the role of counterattitudinal advocacy in attitude change. We propose that counterattitudinal advocacy can lead to attitude change when the advocate has high behavioral intentions to enact the advocated attitude. We tested this hypothesis in a 2 (advocacy: counterattitudinal versus non-counterattitudinal) × 2 (behavioral intention: high versus low) between-subjects experiment. Results showed that when the advocacy was counterattitudinal, participants with high behavioral intentions reported significantly greater attitude change than those with low behavioral intentions. These findings suggest that counterattitudinal advocacy can lead to attitude change when the advocate is motivated to enact the advocated attitude.
Keywords: counterattitudinal advocacy, attitude change, behavioral intention
Introduction
Counterattitudinal advocacy is defined as “the deliberate attempt to persuade others to adopt an attitude that is contrary to their current belief” (Kreuter & Fryer, 2004, p. 54). This type of advocacy has been found to be an effective way to change attitudes. For example, previous research has shown that counterattitudinal advocacy can increase receptivity to attitude change when the advocate is perceived to have expertise in the attitude domain (Kreuter & Fryer, 2004; Pratkanis & Aronson, 2001). However, the mechanisms underlying successful counterattitudinal advocacy have yet to be fully explored.
The present study addresses this gap in the literature by examining the role of behavioral intentions in counterattitudinal advocacy. We propose that counterattitudinal advocacy is more likely to lead to attitude change when the advocate has high behavioral intentions to enact the advocated attitude. We test this hypothesis in a 2 (advocacy: counterattitudinal versus non-counterattitudinal) × 2 (behavioral intention: high versus low) between-subjects experiment.
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 80 undergraduate students (44 female, 36 male) from a large Midwestern university. The mean age of participants was 19.8 years (SD = 1.5).
Materials and Procedure
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: counterattitudinal advocacy with high behavioral intentions, counterattitudinal advocacy with low behavioral intentions, non-counterattitudinal advocacy with high behavioral intentions, and non-counterattitudinal advocacy with low behavioral intentions.
In the counterattitudinal advocacy conditions, participants read an essay advocating for the legalization of marijuana. In the non-counterattitudinal advocacy conditions, participants read an essay advocating for increased funding for drug prevention programs.
For the high behavioral intention conditions, participants were asked to rate their agreement with the essay on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) and were also asked to rate their willingness to engage in behavior that supported the advocated attitude on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all willing, 7 = very willing). For the low behavioral intention conditions, participants were only asked to rate their agreement with the essay.
After reading the essay, participants completed a post-test assessing their attitudes toward marijuana legalization. Attitude change was measured with a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
Results
A 2 (advocacy: counterattitudinal versus non-counterattitudinal) × 2 (behavioral intention: high versus low) ANOVA was conducted to examine the effect of advocacy and behavioral intention on attitude change. The results showed a main effect of advocacy, F(1,76) = 8.14, p