1
VARIED THRUSH MANUSCRIPT REVIEW HISTORY
REVISION NOTES FROM AUTHORS (ROUND 2)
We appreciate the opportunity to revise the manuscript for JCR. We have tried to comply
with most of the comments and suggestions, in spirit if not in letter. Let us summarize the
main changes and then get to specifics.
Main Changes
1. We dropped Experiment 1 in the earlier version of the paper.
2. We have added a study (Experiment 2 in the current version) to confirm our
assumptions concerning the conditions in which a bolstering mindset has a
significant impact. We show that when the target communication advocates a
position to which individuals are inherently likely to oppose (e.g., the ad figured
exotic foods that were unappealing in nature), activating a bolstering mindset
significantly increases the number of positive thoughts that participants generate
towards the ads and their evaluations of the product being advertised.
3. Based in part on these findings, we have enriched the conceptualization of the
paper. We suggest that the effect of a mindset should be evident only if it leads to
behavior that would not occur spontaneously in the absence of this mindset. Thus,
a bolstering mindset has little effect if individuals are disposed a priori to
elaborate the implications of a message. Correspondingly, a counterarguing
mindset has little impact if individuals are disposed to refute the message’s
implications.
4. We reconducted experiment 4 to allow an overall analysis of a 4 (Political TV
programs: Obama speech vs. McCain speech vs. debate vs. control) x 3 (party
affiliations: Republicans vs. Democrats vs. Independents) design. The new data
replicated previous findings when participants were politically independent but
show quite different effects (although consistent with expectations) when
participants were have a priori preferences for one candidate over the other.
5. We have highlighted the contributions of this research to both persuasion
literature and mindset literature.
On one hand, this research identified a new source of influence on the
effectiveness of persuasion over and above the well-known effects of source
factors, message factors, and recipient factors. The present research broadened the
scope of research on persuasion by showing that its effectiveness may be
influenced by factors that occur at different point of time, before the persuasion is
encountered.
This document is part of a JCR Manuscript Review History. It should be used for educational purposes only.
2
On the other hand, the findings extend our general understanding of mindsets in
three ways. First, the weak effects of a bolstering mindset in experiment 1 and the
weak effects of a counterarguing mindset in experiment 2 make salient an
important qualification on the conditions in which inducing a mindset will have an
impact. If individuals are already disposed to engage in the cognitive behavior that
is governed by a mindset, transitory situational factors that activate this mindset
will have little additional impact.
Second, when the behavior induced by a mindset is unsuccessful in attaining the
goal to which it is relevant, it can have a boomerang effect. Although this effect is
most obvious in communication and persuasion, it might also be evident in other
situations in which individuals find it difficult to perform the behavior governed
by a mindset and use this subjective difficulty as information about the
implications of this behavior (Schwarz 1998, 2004).
Finally, the effects observed in experiment 4 suggest that a mindset can be
activated not only by overt behavior but also by the unobserved cognitive activity
that underlies this behavior. This raises the possibility that the cognitive activity in
which individuals spontaneously engage in the course of thinking about an object
or situation could influence their responses to stimuli they encounter in a later,
unrelated situation.
We now turn to more specific comments and suggestions. We first respond to AE’s concerns
and then address Reviewers’ additional concerns.
AE’s concerns
Contribution and Conceptual Framework
1. (para.1) Based on the findings of both old and new experiments, we have
developed a more comprehensive conceptual framework that explicates that
process through which a bolstering mindset or a counterarguing mindset that is
activated in one situation can influence the effectiveness of persuasion in
subsequent, totally unrelated situations. We have also predicted and tested
boundary conditions of the proposed mindset effects.
Even though the effects of procedural priming have been demonstrated in
previous research (Shen and Wyer 2008; Torelli and Kaikati 2009; Xu and Wyer
2007; 2008), each individual study addressed a specific problem (e.g., Shen and
Wyer focused on separating the influence of semantic priming and procedural
priming; Torelli and Kaikati found that values are more likely to guide behaviors
when people are in an abstract rather than concrete mindset; Xu and Wyer
explored the role of comparative mindset on choice) and their findings cannot be
applied to predict how the past behavior may activate different mindsets to
influence the effectiveness of subsequent persuasion. The present research
explored the nature of mindsets that may influence the effectiveness of persuasion,
the conditions that could give rise to these mindsets, as well as the boundary
conditions under which either bolstering mindset or counterarguing mindset may
have reduced effects or a counterarguing mindset may lead to a boomerang effect.
This document is part of a JCR Manuscript Review History. It should be used for educational purposes only.
3
Based on these findings, we have developed a comprehensive conceptual
framework that can help readers understand how past behavior may influence
people’s responses to persuasion in the future. In addition, this research also raised
and addressed questions on mindset effects in general that have not been
considered in previous research (see comment 5 in the “main changes” section).
2. (para.2) See responses to each reviewer’s concerns below.
Studies, Procedures, and Results
3. (para.1) We have added a study (Experiment 2) to show the conditions in which a
bolstering mindset has an effect. And we have incorporated the findings into
developing a more comprehensive conceptualization.
Theoretically, a bolstering mindset should also lead to a boomerang effect when
the persuasion is very difficult to elaborate. Because all persuasive messages
communications are composed of supportive elaborations, it is less realistic that
ad messages could be so negative that recipients would find it very difficult to
elaborate. Even though we used aversive marketing stimuli in experiment 2, we
observed a positive effect of bolstering mindset, rather than a boomerang effect
(which is supposed to decrease the effectiveness of persuasion).
Other points
4. (para.1) We have added mindset manipulation checks in experiment 1.
5. (para.2) We have addressed the minor issued raised by both Reviewer A and
Reviewer B.
Reviewer A’s concerns
Major Issues
1. (para.1) Reviewer A was right that persuasion literature has shown that
counterarguing could decrease the effectiveness of persuasive messages, and
mindset literature has shown that people’s past behavior can influence their future
behavior in quite unrelated situations. These two lines of research have laid solid
foundations for the predictions made in this paper. However, we believe it is an
important contribution to conceptualize and evaluate the type of mindsets that can
influence the effectiveness of persuasion and explicate their underlying
mechanism. See comment 1 in responses to AE’s concerns for further elaborations
on this point.
2. (para.2) Experiment 3 found that when messages were difficult to refute, inducing
a counterarguing mindset led to a boomerang effect, increasing the donation
intentions and amount of donation in hypothetical situations. Rucker and Petty
(2004) found that instructing participants to refute very strong arguments for a
position led participants to form stronger attitudes in favor of the position than
those who were not. However, in their research, the extremity of attitude did not
change. This might be due to a ceiling effect. For example, in their experiment 1,
This document is part of a JCR Manuscript Review History. It should be used for educational purposes only.
4
participants’ attitude towards the advocacy without counteraruing manipulation
was as high as7.68 on a 9-point scale. Instructing them to counterargue did not
change the extremity of attitude (M = 7.67). However, counterarguing increased
attitude certainty. The current study made two additional contributions. First, we
showed that counterarguing could increase the extremity of attitude when ceiling
effect was not a concern. Second, the tendency to counterargue could be activated
by previous behavior rather than by explicit instructions.
3. (para.3) See comments 2 & 3 in the “main changes” section.
4. (para.4)We have added the results of manipulation checks in experiment 1.
Minor Issues
5. We have incorporate this concern into the conceptualization.
6. Corrected.
7. We have dropped experiment 1.
8. See comments 4 in the “main changes” section.
Reviewer B’s concerns
1. (para.2) We have streamlined the introduction, but enriched the conceptual
framework of bolstering and counterarguing mindset effects. We have presented
the hypotheses more clearly.
2. (para.3)Previous research has shown that priming semantic concepts could lead to
behaviors that are consistent with the implications of those semantic concepts. For
example, Bargh et al (2001) demonstrated that participants primed with
cooperation behaved in a more cooperative way in a resource-dilemma task than
nonprime participants did. And in the persuasive communication context, we think
priming the construct of bolstering will lead to the behavior of making supportive
elaborations, and priming the construct of counterarguing will lead to the behavior
of making counterarguments. However, we don’t think these predictions would
compromise the importance of mindset manipulations. The most interesting aspect
of mindset studies is that the mindsets (i.e., cognitive procedures) could be
activated in the process of performing a behavior, without having participants
being exposed to semantic concepts.
3. (para.4)We have summarized the predicted effects of watching speech or debate
as a function of political affiliations in Table 4. Also see comment 4 in the “main
changes” section.
4. (para.5) See comment 3 in responses to AE’s concerns.
5. (para.6) Experiment 1 was dropped.
Additional minor comments:
This document is part of a JCR Manuscript Review History. It should be used for educational purposes only.
5
6. We have added details of mediation analyses in all experiments of concern.
7. We have corrected the typos.
We hope that the paper is responsive to the various concerns expressed, and is a general
improvement. However, if more needs to be done to get the paper closer to publication
threshold, we are certainly willing to work on it further. Thanks again for the help.
This document is part of a JCR Manuscript Review History. It should be used for educational purposes only.