In any negotiation, boardroom meeting, or marketing campaign, ideas are constantly challenged. A professional proposes a new strategy, and a colleague immediately offers reasons why it might fail. A consumer sees an advertisement and instantly thinks of reasons not to buy the product. These are moments of resistance. While business leaders often focus on how to persuade others, there is an equally important psychological process occurring on the other side of the table.
This process involves how individuals defend their existing attitudes against attack. A recent investigation explores not just whether people resist persuasion, but the specific mental strategies they use to do so. The study examines how these strategies impact the confidence people feel in their opinions afterward. Published in Frontiers in Psychology in 2023, this research investigates if different ways of thinking lead to different levels of certainty.
Defining the Research Gap
Kevin L. Blankenship and his colleagues at the Department of Psychology at Iowa State University led this investigation. The researchers identified a gap in the current understanding of persuasion. Historically, psychology has focused heavily on how to change minds. Less attention has been paid to the specific mechanics of resistance.
The team noted that resistance is often viewed simply as the opposite of persuasion. However, they propose that resistance is a complex, active process. People do not merely reject information. They employ specific cognitive strategies to maintain their views. The researchers sought to understand two specific strategies: bolstering and counterarguing.
These strategies represent two different mental focuses. Bolstering involves generating thoughts that support one’s existing opinion. It is an internal focus where a person reaffirms why they are right. Counterarguing involves generating thoughts that refute the attacking information. This is an external focus where a person dissects why the opposing view is wrong. The researchers wanted to know if these distinct strategies affected “attitude certainty” differently. Attitude certainty is the subjective sense of conviction one feels about a specific belief.
Understanding the Theoretical Framework
To understand the study, it is necessary to grasp the concept of metacognition. This refers to the thoughts people have about their own thinking. The researchers proposed that it is not just the content of thoughts that matters. The perception of what those thoughts represent is also significant.
The study posits that counterarguing is a “contesting” strategy. When a person counterargues, they measure their own points against the attacking arguments. This makes the strength of the attack highly relevant. If a person successfully refutes a strong argument, they may feel “battle-tested.” This should theoretically increase their certainty.
In contrast, bolstering is an “empowerment” strategy. The person focuses on the strength of their own support system. They are less concerned with the quality of the opposing view. The researchers hypothesized that certainty derived from bolstering would be insulated from the quality of the attack. They predicted that people who bolster would feel equally certain whether they resisted a weak argument or a strong one.
Experiment 1: Manipulating Perceived Strategy
To test these ideas, the researchers devised a method to manipulate which strategy participants believed they were using. They recruited 241 undergraduate students who held a favorable opinion toward drug testing for welfare recipients. The experiment was designed to challenge this specific belief.
The process began with the participants reporting their initial opinions. They were then exposed to a message opposing their view. This message contained arguments against drug testing. Before reading, participants were told the arguments were either “strong” or “weak.” This set the stage for their expectations regarding the quality of the information.
After reading the arguments, the participants listed their thoughts. Then, the researchers introduced a “bogus feedback” mechanism. The computer program claimed to analyze the participants’ typed thoughts. Half the participants were told their thoughts showed they were “bolstering” their own view. The other half were told their thoughts were “counterarguing” the opposing view. This manipulation ensured that the only difference between groups was their perception of the strategy they used.
Analyzing the First Set of Results
The researchers then measured the participants’ attitude certainty. The analysis revealed a distinct pattern. For participants who believed they were counterarguing, the quality of the opposing arguments mattered significantly. Those who faced the “strong” message reported higher certainty than those who faced the “weak” message.
The pattern looked different for the bolstering group. For these participants, the strength of the opposing argument made no difference. Their level of certainty remained consistent regardless of whether the attack was labeled as strong or weak.
These findings supported the team’s hypothesis. When people believe they are refuting an opponent, they gauge their success by the strength of that opponent. Beating a strong adversary creates high confidence. Beating a weak one does not. However, when people believe they are simply supporting themselves, the adversary’s strength becomes irrelevant to their resulting confidence.
Experiment 2: Replicating and Extending the Findings
The team conducted a second experiment to verify these results and explore behavioral intentions. This time, they recruited 287 participants. They changed the topic to a university service proposal, which served as a counterattitudinal issue for the students. The design mirrored the first experiment. Participants read arguments supporting a policy they generally disliked.
The researchers again manipulated the perceived argument quality. Some participants were told they were reading weak reasons to support the program. Others were told they were reading strong reasons. Following the reading, participants listed their thoughts and received the same bogus feedback regarding their strategy. They were categorized again into bolstering or counterarguing groups.
Connecting Certainty to Action
The second experiment measured attitude certainty, but it also added a measure for behavioral intentions. The researchers asked participants how willing they were to act on their opinion. This included willingness to sign petitions or discuss the topic publicly.
The results for attitude certainty replicated the first experiment. Participants in the counterarguing condition reported higher certainty after resisting a strong message compared to a weak one. Participants in the bolstering condition showed no difference in certainty based on the message strength.
The analysis then examined the chain of events leading to action. The researchers looked at the relationship between the strategy used, the certainty felt, and the intention to act. The data showed that for the counterarguing group, resisting a strong message led to higher attitude certainty. This increased certainty, in turn, was linked to a higher willingness to take action.
This connection did not appear in the bolstering group. The path from the message strength to certainty to action was only evident when participants believed they were engaging in counterargument. This suggests that the way people perceive their resistance strategy changes how their attitudes translate into behavior.
Implications for Professional Communication
These findings offer specific insights for business professionals involved in persuasion and negotiation. The research suggests that the durability of an opinion depends on how it was defended. If a leader wants a team to be unshakably certain about a decision, the method of defense matters.
Encouraging a team to counterargue against strong opposition may solidify their resolve. If they feel they have successfully dismantled a strong opposing case, their confidence increases. This “battle-testing” creates an attitude that is ready for action.
However, this comes with a risk. If the team feels they only defeated a weak argument, their certainty may remain low. In scenarios where the opposition is known to be weak or trivial, a counterarguing strategy might result in lukewarm conviction.
Bolstering as a Consistent Defense
The study indicates that bolstering offers a different advantage. It provides a stable level of certainty that is less dependent on the external environment. If a professional wants to maintain confidence regardless of the opposition’s quality, focusing on internal strengths is effective.
For example, a brand might focus its messaging on its own distinct values rather than comparing itself to competitors. This encourages consumers to bolster their positive attitude toward the brand. The research suggests this could result in a consistent level of certainty that remains steady even when competitors launch strong or weak attacks.
Questions for Future Investigation
This study opens several avenues for future inquiry. The researchers point out that they manipulated the participants’ perceptions of their strategies. In the real world, people naturally gravitate toward different strategies. Future research needs to examine if people who naturally prefer counterarguing show these same patterns without external prompts.
Another area for exploration involves knowledge. The researchers found that perceived knowledge about a topic increased when participants counterargued strong messages. It remains to be seen how different types of knowledge interact with these strategies. For instance, does knowing more about opposing viewpoints naturally lead to more counterarguing?
Finally, the context of the resistance warrants further study. The current experiments took place in a controlled setting. Future work could investigate how these dynamics play out in high-pressure business negotiations or public policy debates. Understanding whether the social context shifts the preference for bolstering or counterarguing could provide deeper insights into human decision-making.
![[Adobe Stock]](https://www.psychologyofselling.pro/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/HPV-vaccine-350x250.jpg)
