"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with nonsense": Extending the impact of the disrupt-then-reframe technique of social influence

Journal of Consumer Psychology

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 280-290

  Fennis, Bob M ^a   Das, Enny H H J ^a   Pruyn, Ad Th H ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b ESADE BUSINESS SCHOOL   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3042577110     PISSN: 10577408     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1403_9     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Aaker, J. L. (1999). The malleable self: The role of self-expression in persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(1), 45-57.
2. Bargh, J. A. (2002, September). Losing consciousness: Automatic influences on consumer judgment, behavior, and motivation. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 280-285.
3. Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., Lee-Chai, A., Barndollar, K., & Trötschel, R. (2001). The automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1014-1027.
4. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
5. Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp 1-61). New York: Academic.
6. Burger, J. M. (1999). The foot-in-the-door compliance procedure. A multiple-process analysis and review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 303-325.
7. Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822-848.
8. Campbell, M. C., & Goodstein, R. C. (2001, December). The moderating effect of perceived risk on consumers' evaluations of product incongruity: Preference for the norm. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 439-449.
9. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
10. Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1976). Communication modality as a determinant of message persuasiveness and message comprehensibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 605-614.
11. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford.
12. Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
13. Cialdini, R. B., Trost, M. R., & Newsom, J. T. (1995). Preference for consistency: The development of a valid measure and discovery of surprising behavioral implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 318-328.
14. Davis, B. P., & Knowles, E. S. (1999). A disrupt-then-reframe technique of social influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 192-199.
15. Erickson, M. H. (1964). The confusion technique in hypnosis. The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 6, 183-207.
16. Gueguen, N. (2001). Social labeling and compliance: An evaluation of the link between the label and the request. Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 743-748.
17. Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1981). The multiple source effect in persuasion: The effects of distraction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 627-635.
18. Higgins, E.T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1-46). New York: Academic.
19. Higgins, E. T. (1999). Promotion and prevention as a motivational duality: Implications for evaluative processes. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 503-525). New York: Guilford.
20. Higgins, E. T. (2002). How self-regulation creates distinct values: The case of promotion and prevention decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12, 177-191.
21. Howard, D. J. (1997). Familiar phrases as peripheral persuasion cues. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 231-243.
22. Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314.
23. Kamins, M. A. (1989). The enhancement of response rates to a mail survey trough a labeled probe foot-in-the-door approach. Journal of the Market Research Society, 31, 273-283.
24. Kardes, F. R. (2002). Consumer behavior and managerial decision making (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
25. Knowles, E. S., Butler, S., & Linn, J. A. (2001). Increasing compliance by reducing resistance. In J. P. Forgas & K. D. Williams (Eds.), Social influence: Direct and indirect processes (pp. 41-60). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
26. Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
27. Langer, E. J. (1992). Matters of mind: Mindfulness/mindlessness in perspective. Consciousness and Cognition 1, 289-305.
28. Langer, E. J, Blank, A., & Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action: The role of "placebic" information in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 635-642.
29. Lee, Y. H., & Mason, C. (1999, September). Responses to information incongruency in advertising: The role of expectancy, relevance and humor. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 156-169.
30. Mandler, G. (1982). The structure of value: Accounting for taste. In M. S. Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition: The seventeenth Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 3-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
31. Patch, M. A. (1988). Differential perception of source legitimacy in sequential request strategies. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 817-823.
32. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.
33. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 37-72). New York: Guilford.
34. Petty, R. E., Wells, G. L., & Brock, T. C. (1976). Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding to propaganda: Thought disruption versus effort justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1014-1027.
35. Pollock, C. L., Smith, S. D., Knowles, E. S., & Bruce, H. J. (1998). Mindfulness limits compliance with the that's-not-all technique. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1153-1157.
36. Santos, M. D., Leve, C., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1994). Hey buddy, can you spare seventeen cents? Mindful persuasion and the pique technique. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 755-764.
37. Smith, S. M., & Shaffer, D. R. (2001). Vividness can undermine or enhance message processing: The moderating role of vividness congruency. Personality and Social-Psychology Bulletin, 26, 769-779.
38. Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1985). A theory of action identification. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
39. Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they're doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94(1), 3-15.
40. Wegner, D. M., Vallacher, R. R., Macomber, G., Wood, R., & Arps, K. (1984). The emergence of action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 269-279.