The credibility of refutation in two-sided anti-drug messages

Abstract

Purpose – This study aims to address the credibility effects of refutational versus non-refutational two-sided messages. Additionally, it aims to unravel the moderating role of issue ambivalence and argument type. Design/methodology/approach – A 2 × 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial experimental design (N = 853 adolescents) investigates the effect of eight anti-binge drinking and anti-marijuana messages on source and message credibility. Findings – The results show that refutation increases credibility compared to non-refutation. Additionally, a three-way interaction effect is found: credibility depends on the ambivalence of the issue and the argument type. Originality/value – First, this study clarifies the inconsistencies found in previous literature regarding (non-)refutational two-sided messages by addressing two important (and so far neglected) moderating variables. Second, we provide useful new insights for health practitioners who develop campaigns to prevent drug abuse among adolescents.

How Self-confidence Moderates the Effect of Two-sided Messages on Purchase Intention

“…The assertion of Eisend (2006) is still valid, that is, knowledge of the effectiveness of 2SMs, and of the influences of potential moderating and mediating variables, are valuable to marketers in showing how communication strategies aimed at consumers can be improved. However, there is a lack of research into the persuasive impact of 2SMs (Cornelis et al, 2015). Therefore, this research seeks to clarify how 2SMs work by explaining their causal effects on purchase intention, moderated by the self-confidence of individuals, and to examine the underlying mechanisms by which 2SMs are processed.…”

“…There have been several attempts to model and interpret the effect of 2SMs (Bohner et al, 2003; Chen, 2016; Cornelis et al, 2014, 2015; Eisend, 2007, 2008, 2010; Hastak & Park, 1990; Hunt et al, 1982; Kamins & Marks, 1987; Kao, 2011; Pizzutti et al, 2016; Trifts & Häubl, 2003). However, the diversity of the results, as highlighted by Eisend (2006), indicates the necessity of further research on moderating variables (Cornelis et al, 2015). Moreover, in the context of decision-making, moderators of negative information about the attributes of a product remain largely unexplored (Hair & Bond, 2018).…”

The Interaction Effect of Type of Message X YouTuber’s Media Metrics on Customers’ Responses and the Moderation of Conformity Intention

“…In this regard, there have been several attempts to model and interpret the effect of 2SMs [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][14][15][16][17][18]. Nonetheless, the heterogeneity of the results, as pointed out by [9], still indicates the need for further investigation of substantive moderating variables [16]. In this research, it is proposed that the effect of 2SMs in online environments could be different from their effect in traditional advertising media.…”

“…The literature review identified a strand of theoretical development in the study of the effect of 2SMs, namely to establish the limits of the effect of 2SMs by analyzing how the effect occurs in different situations (e.g., online environments such as social networks and websites). In this regard, there have been several attempts to model and interpret the effect of 2SMs [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][14][15][16][17][18]. Nonetheless, the heterogeneity of the results, as pointed out by [9], still indicates the need for further investigation of substantive moderating variables [16].…”

“…Previous studies have shown that the effect of 2SMs depends upon situational factors, such as: disclosure uniqueness, cognitive load and involvement [9], time pressure [14], and the importance of the negative attributes [18]. There is also evidence that the effect of the message may be moderated by some of its characteristics, such as regulatory congruence [15], issue ambivalence, and message arguments [16]. Similarly, the impact of 2SMs may be moderated by individuals' characteristics, such as self-regulatory focus [28], cognitive effort [9], and the need for cognition [14].…”