Does warning people that they will be influenced really forearm them? In a meta-analytic synthesis of the literature, we found that warnings do make people defensive (Wood & Quinn, 2003), but that defensiveness can lead to resistance to the influence attempt or, paradoxically, to agreement. It all depends on what is being attacked by the warning.
When a warning threatens people's attitudes, people respond by defending their opinions. They cognitively bolster their own views and resist the appeal. However, when a warning threatens people's self-images, especially their image as someone who is certain of their opinions and not easily influenced, people respond by defending their self-concepts. They defend the self in a paradoxical way. They pre-emptively shift their attitudes before the appeal is delivered, and thereby avoid being gullible and having to change to the message.
Electronic versions are provided as a professional courtesy to individuals in the spirit of sharing academic work for noncommercial purposes. Copyright for these papers and all associated rights continue to reside with the copyright holders, as noted in each paper.
Quinn, J. M., & Wood, W. (2004). Forewarnings of influence appeals: Inducing resistance and acceptance. In E. S. Knowles and J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and Persuasion (pp. 193-214). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [request paper]
Wood, W., & Quinn, J. M. (2003). Forewarned and forearmed? Two meta-analytic syntheses of forewarnings of influence appeals. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 119-138. [request paper]