Abstract
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 911-921 |
| Journal | Journal of experimental social psychology |
| Volume | 46 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2010 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- IR-73302
Cite this
}
Forewarned is forearmed: Conserving self-control strength to resist social influence. / Janssen, L.; Fennis, B.M.; Pruyn, Adriaan T.H.
In: Journal of experimental social psychology, Vol. 46, No. 6, 2010, p. 911-921.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic
TY - JOUR
T1 - Forewarned is forearmed: Conserving self-control strength to resist social influence
AU - Janssen, L.
AU - Fennis, B.M.
AU - Pruyn, Adriaan T.H.
PY - 2010
Y1 - 2010
N2 - Recent research has shown that resisting persuasion involves active self-regulation. Resisting an influence attempt consumes self-regulatory resources, and in a state of self-regulatory resource depletion, people become more susceptible to (unwanted) influence attempts. However, the present studies show that a forewarning of an impending influence attempt prompts depleted individuals to conserve what is left of their regulatory resources and thus promotes self-regulatory efficiency. As a result, when these individuals are subsequently confronted with a persuasive request, they comply less (Experiments 1 and 3), and generate more counterarguments (Experiment 2) than their depleted counterparts who were not forewarned and thus did not conserve their resources, and they are as able as non-depleted participants to resist persuasion.
AB - Recent research has shown that resisting persuasion involves active self-regulation. Resisting an influence attempt consumes self-regulatory resources, and in a state of self-regulatory resource depletion, people become more susceptible to (unwanted) influence attempts. However, the present studies show that a forewarning of an impending influence attempt prompts depleted individuals to conserve what is left of their regulatory resources and thus promotes self-regulatory efficiency. As a result, when these individuals are subsequently confronted with a persuasive request, they comply less (Experiments 1 and 3), and generate more counterarguments (Experiment 2) than their depleted counterparts who were not forewarned and thus did not conserve their resources, and they are as able as non-depleted participants to resist persuasion.
KW - IR-73302
U2 - 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.06.008
DO - 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.06.008
M3 - Article
VL - 46
SP - 911
EP - 921
JO - Journal of experimental social psychology
JF - Journal of experimental social psychology
SN - 0022-1031
IS - 6
ER -