Forbid/Allow Asymmetry in Persuasion

Abstract. Previous research showed that responses to questions about forbidding something differed from those to the seemingly equivalent questions about allowing the same object (forbid/allow asymmetry). We postulate that the effect of the forbid vs. allow framing may be also consequential for the processing of attitude related information and attitude change. The forbid frame (compared with the allow frame) may increase the impact of negative (vs. positive) arguments and/or reduce the impact of initial attitudes on the elaboration the presented information. To test these predictions we conducted three experiments (one preregistered, total N = 655). Participants were reading both pro and con arguments, differing in consistency with their initial attitudes, and concerning three different attitude objects: genetically modified organisms (GMOs), euthanasia, and barbecuing in public places. The results show that the forbid (vs. allow) frame decreases the tendency for generating thoughts prevailingly consistent with participants,’ initial attitudes (Experiment 2). It also reduces bias in the evaluation and interpretation of the presented arguments and yields more similar assessments of arguments that are consistent and inconsistent with initial attitudes (Experiment 3). As a result, the attitudes are more susceptible to change within the forbid frame (they move more in the direction opposite to the initial attitude) than within the allow frame (Experiments 1-3). The results for the first time show the existence of forbid vs. allow asymmetry in persuasion. This effect has practical consequences, e.g., when designing referenda.