Trait argumentativeness as a correlate of bolster and counterargue tendencies in resistance to persuasion research

ABSTRACT Research on resistance to persuasion has examined a number of relevant variables such as one’s bolstering of one’s own argument and, for example, generating counterarguments in order to resist a persuasive message. Is resistance to persuasion a function of a widespread practice of bolstering and/or counterarguing? Or, is resistance to persuasion more meaningfully examined from an individual differences approach based on relative levels of trait argumentativeness within samples? Three hypotheses were offered and tested. Results suggested that empirical investigations of the relationship of bolstering arguments and generating counterarguments to resistance to persuasion should report argumentativeness levels of research participants. Trait argumentativeness may have a very substantial role in the effect sizes reported in resistance to persuasion research. High argumentatives significantly preferred counterarguing over bolstering in resistance to persuasion whereas low argumentatives significantly preferred bolstering over counterarguing, suggesting a root difference between high and low argumentatives requiring further investigation for verification.