persuasion theory research paper

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

An inclusive, real-world investigation of persuasion in language and verbal behavior

Vivian p. ta.

1 Department of Psychology, Lake Forest College, 555 N. Sheridan Road, Lake Forest, IL 60045 USA

Ryan L. Boyd

2 Department of Psychology, Data Science Institute, Security Lancaster, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

Sarah Seraj

3 Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX USA

Anne Keller

Caroline griffith.

4 Department of Counselor Education and Human Services, University of Dayton, Dayton, OH USA

Alexia Loggarakis

5 School of Social Work, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL USA

Lael Medema

Linguistic features of a message necessarily shape its persuasive appeal. However, studies have largely examined the effect of linguistic features on persuasion in isolation and do not incorporate properties of language that are often involved in real-world persuasion. As such, little is known about the key verbal dimensions of persuasion or the relative impact of linguistic features on a message’s persuasive appeal in real-world social interactions. We collected large-scale data of online social interactions from a social media website in which users engage in debates in an attempt to change each other’s views on any topic. Messages that successfully changed a user’s views are explicitly marked by the user themselves. We simultaneously examined linguistic features that have been previously linked with message persuasiveness between persuasive and non-persuasive messages. Linguistic features that drive persuasion fell along three central dimensions: structural complexity, negative emotionality, and positive emotionality. Word count, lexical diversity, reading difficulty, analytical language, and self-references emerged as most essential to a message’s persuasive appeal: messages that were longer, more analytic, less anecdotal, more difficult to read, and less lexically varied had significantly greater odds of being persuasive. These results provide a more parsimonious understanding of the social psychological pathways to persuasion as it operates in the real world through verbal behavior. Our results inform theories that address the role of language in persuasion, and provide insight into effective persuasion in digital environments.

Introduction

Understanding persuasion —how people can fundamentally alter the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of others—is a cornerstone of social psychology. Historically, social influence has been outstandingly difficult to study in the real-world, requiring researchers to piece together society-level puzzles either in the abstract [ 1 ] or through carefully-crafted field studies [ 2 ]. In recent years, technology has driven interest in studying social influence as digital traces make it possible to study how the behaviors of one individual or group cascade to change others’ behaviors [ 3 , 4 ]. Nevertheless, most social processes are complex, to the point where they are very difficult to study as they operate outside of the lab. However, the availability of digital data and computational techniques provide a ripe opportunity to begin understanding the precise mechanisms by which people influence the thoughts and feelings of others.

Today, persuasion is often transacted—partially or wholly—through verbal interactions that take place on the internet [ 5 ]: a message is transmitted from one person to another through the use of language, altering the recipient’s attitude. As such, researchers have sought to identify linguistic features 1 that are linked to a message’s persuasive appeal. A relatively sizable number of linguistic features that are important in message persuasiveness have emerged from this body of research and include features that indicate what a message conveys as well as how it was conveyed (Table ​ (Table1). 1 ). Models of persuasion, such as the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) [ 6 ], have been used to identify these linguistic features and explain how they affect message persuasiveness.

Summary of linguistic features and predictions

Despite the impressive corpus of studies to date, the existing literature has several limitations. Studies have largely examined the effect of linguistic features on persuasion in isolation by only focusing on a small number of linguistic features (i.e., one or two) at a time. While this body of literature has collectively identified a relatively sizable number of linguistic features that are linked to message persuasiveness, it remains unclear how these links, taken together, inform the social aspects of verbal behavior in persuasion. In other words, what do the linguistic features connected with message persuasiveness reveal about the key verbal behaviors involved in persuasion? As language provides “a rich stream of ongoing social processes” [ 7 ], synthesizing these findings can provide a more complete understanding of the social psychological pathways to persuasion.

In the same vein, real-world messages are constructed using a varied combination of linguistic features to transmit complex thoughts, emotions, and information to others. Nevertheless, studies tend to examine how a single linguistic feature (or a small set of features) correlate with persuasion without taking into account other potentially important linguistic features within a given message [ 8 , 9 ]. The meaning of a given word or feature in any text is dependent on the context by which it was used which can be inferred by the words and features that surround it [ 10 , 11 ]. As such, the effect of any particular linguistic feature on message persuasiveness can be attenuated by the presence of other features in the message. As they are typically studied in isolation, little is known about the relative impact of linguistic features on a message’s persuasive appeal.

Furthermore, studies that examine the effect of linguistic features on persuasion tend to focus on persuasion in terms of engaging in specific behaviors [ 3 , 12 – 14 ] rather than changing attitudes in general. Persuading people to engage in a specific behavior is conceptually distinct from changing people’s attitude on a topic. Although changes in behavior can facilitate changes in attitude, changes in behavior can also be dependent on attitude change (e.g., an individual may not engage in behavior change unless they believe that the behavior will result in a desirable outcome). Although changes in behavior can facilitate changes in attitude, changes in behavior does not always indicate that attitude change has occurred (e.g., an individual may decide to ultimately receive the COVID-19 vaccine because their employer requires it and not because their views regarding vaccines have changed) [ 15 ].

Finally, many studies that investigate the effect of linguistic features on persuasion are conducted in controlled lab settings [ 16 , 17 ] due to the sheer difficulty of studying persuasion as it unfolds in the real-world. Given that persuasion often takes place through online social interactions [ 5 ], there is a need to study persuasion in this setting. Doing so also enables researchers to better understand how digital environments influence the process of persuasion, especially as digital environments are now progressively constructed to persuade the attitudes and behaviors of users [ 18 ] and there is “little consensus on how to persuade effectively within the digital realm” [ 19 ].

We sought to address these limitations in the current study. Specifically, we collected large-scale data from r/ChangeMyView , an online public forum on the social media website Reddit where users engage in debates in an attempt to change each other’s views on any topic. Most importantly, messages that successfully changed a user’s views are explicitly marked by the user themselves. That is, individuals are exposed to several messages and explicitly identified the message(s) that actually changed their views. We simultaneously examined linguistic features that have been previously linked with message persuasiveness (Table ​ (Table1) 1 ) between persuasive and non-persuasive messages to test the following research questions:

• What are the key linguistic dimensions of persuasion? Given that a relatively sizable number of linguistic features have been linked with persuasion, we first sought to determine whether these features could be meaningfully reduced to a smaller number of dimensions representing the key verbal processes of persuasion. We then assessed whether these dimensions were uniquely predictive of persuasion when controlling for the effects of the remaining dimensions.
• Which individual linguistic features, when assessed simultaneously, are the most essential and relevant to a message’s persuasive appeal? We then simultaneously assessed all linguistic features that have been linked with message persuasiveness in a single model to examine the relative impact of the features on a message’s persuasive appeal to identify features that were most crucial to message persuasiveness.

While theory-driven predictions can be made regarding how each linguistic feature relates to persuasion, there has been a considerable amount of variability across studies in terms of which features positively or negatively relate to persuasion, as well as studies that show mixed or inconclusive results pertaining to the effect of a given linguistic feature on persuasion (see Table ​ Table1). 1 ). Given that our primary goal was to obtain a more unified understanding of the social psychological pathways to persuasion via language, the current study is guided by a jointly data-driven and exploratory approach, with results informing our understanding of the directional relationship between the linguistic features and message persuasiveness. Overall, assessing the interplay between important linguistic features on persuasion using large-scale, real-world data help inform theories, such as ELM, that address how linguistic features influence persuasion to provide a parsimonious and ecologically-valid understanding of the social psychological processes that shape persuasion.

Although some previous studies have used r/ChangeMyView data to investigate the effect of linguistic features on persuasion, they differ from the current investigation in important ways. The types and combinations of linguistic features that have been examined vary across studies and typically feature a mix of linguistic features that have and have not been linked to persuasion. For example, Tan et al. [ 21 ] examined how some persuasion-linked linguistic features (including arousal, valence, reading difficulty, and hedges), some non-persuasion-linked features (e.g., formatting features such as use of italics and boldface), and interaction dynamics (e.g., the time a replier enters a debate) were associated with successful persuasion. Wei et al. [ 22 ] investigated how surface text features (e.g., reply length, punctuation), social interaction features (e.g., the number of replies stemming from a root comment), and argumentation-related features (e.g., argument relevance and originality) related to persuasion. Musi et al. [ 23 ] assessed the distribution of argumentative concessions in persuasive versus non-persuasive comments, and Priniski and Horne [ 24 ] examined persuasion through the presentation of evidence only in sociomoral topics. Moreover, studies tend to have greater emphasis on model building to accurately detect persuasive content online rather than interpretability and a more unified understanding of the social psychological pathways to persuasion via language. For instance, Khazaei et al. [ 20 ] assessed how all LIWC-based features varied across persuasive and non-persuasive replies and used this information to train a machine learning model to identify persuasive responses.

Data collection

We used data from the Reddit sub-community (i.e., “subreddit”) r/ChangeMyView , a forum in which users post their own views (referred to as “original posters”, or “OPs”) on any topic and invite others to debate them. Those who debate the OP (referred to as “repliers”) reply to the OP’s post in an attempt to change the OP’s view. The OP will award a delta (∆) to particular replies that changed their original views.

Using data from r/ChangeMyView presents several advantages. All replies in r/ChangeMyView are written with the purpose of persuasion. The replies that successfully change an OP’s view are explicitly marked by the OP themselves, allowing for a sample of persuasive and non-persuasive replies. All OPs and repliers must adhere to the official policies 2 of r/ChangeMyView . For instance, OPs are required to explain at a reasonable length (using 500 characters or more) why they hold their views and to interact with repliers within a reasonable time frame. Replies must be substantial, adequate, and on-topic. Because these policies are enforced by moderators, the resulting interactions are high in quality [ 21 ] and are conducted under similar conditions with similar expectations. OPs can also post their view on any topic, allowing for an examination of persuasion across a wide variety of topics.

All top-level replies (direct replies to the OP’s original statement of views) posted between January 2013 and October 2018 were initially collected from the Pushshift database [ 25 ]. We focused only on the top-level replies and omitted any additional replies that were in response to a direct reply (i.e., a direct reply’s “children”). This ensured that replies that were deemed persuasive were due to its contents and not due to any resulting “back-and-forth” interactions given that deltas can also be awarded to downstream replies. We also omitted any top-level replies that were made by a post’s OP and any replies that received a delta in which the delta was not awarded by the OP. Because the data contained a substantially greater number of non-persuasive replies (99.39%) than persuasive ones, analyses were conducted on a balanced subsample that included all top-level replies that were awarded a delta and a random subsample of top-level replies that were not awarded a delta that came from the original posts in which at least one delta was awarded. This allowed us to compare the persuasive and non-persuasive replies from the same original post while bypassing issues associated with class imbalances [ 26 ].

As an example, consider a parent post that garnered two top-level replies that were awarded a delta, and three top-level replies that were not awarded a delta. In this case, the two top-level replies that were awarded a delta were included in the subsample and two out of the three top-level replies that were not awarded a delta would be randomly selected for inclusion in the subsample. Using the random number generator in Microsoft Excel, the 3 top-level replies that were not awarded a delta were assigned a random number between 1 and 100. Replies with the lowest two values were then selected for inclusion in the subsample. Parent posts almost always contained a greater number of top-level replies that were not awarded a delta than top-level replies that were awarded a delta. However, for the very few instances in which a parent post contained a greater number of top-level replies that were awarded a delta than top-level replies that were not awarded a delta, we included all top-level replies in the subsample ( N  = 9020 top-level replies; n  = 4515 top-level replies that were awarded a delta; n  = 4505 top-level replies that were not awarded a delta). Example persuasive and non-persuasive replies can be found in Table ​ Table2 2 .

Example replies

Note : All example replies were derived from different parent posts

To gain an initial understanding of the types of topics that were raised for debate in the subreddit, we randomly selected 100 replies from the final dataset and manually coded their content. Six overarching topics emerged: legal and politics; race, culture, and gender; business and work; science and technology; behavior, attitudes, and relationships; and recreation. More information regarding debated topics can be found in the supplementary materials. 3 .

Linguistic features

Prior to extracting linguistic features from our data, we conducted a cursory search of the psychological literature to identify prominent linguistic features reported to have a significant relationship with message persuasiveness in at least one published study. These linguistic features are listed in Table ​ Table1. 1 . Each reply in the r/ChangeMyView dataset was analyzed separately using Language Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) [ 27 ] which calculates the percentage-use of words belonging to psychologically or linguistically meaningful categories. We used LIWC to quantify word count, analytic thinking (analytical thinking formula = articles + prepositions—personal pronouns—impersonal pronouns—auxiliary verbs—conjunctions—adverbs—negations; relative frequencies are normalized within LIWC2015 to a 0-to-100 scale, with higher scores reflecting more analytical language and lower scores reflecting more informal and narrative-like language), the percentage-use of self-references (i.e., first-person singular pronouns, or “i-words”), and the percentage-use of certainty terms in each reply within our corpus. Dictionaries of terms that have been rated on emotionality 4 (i.e., valence, arousal, and dominance) from [ 28 ] were imported into LIWC to measure the percentage-use of language that scored high and low on valence, arousal, and dominance. A dictionary of hedges from [ 29 ] was also imported into LIWC to measure the percentage-use of hedges. Following [ 21 ], the use of examples was measured by occurrences of “for example”, “for instance”, and “e.g.”. Language abstraction/concreteness was measured using the linguistic category model, with higher scores indicating higher levels of language abstraction and lower scores indicating lower levels of language abstraction (i.e., greater language concreteness; formula for calculation = [(Descriptive Action Verbs × 1) + (Interpretative Action Verb × 2) + (State Verb × 3) + (Adjectives × 4)]/(Descriptive Action Verbs + Interpretative Action Verbs + State Verbs + Adjectives)) [ 30 ]. Type-token ratio, the ratio between the number of unique words in a message and the total number of words in the given message [ 31 ], was used to measure lexical diversity with higher scores indicating greater lexical diversity (type-token ratio formula = number of unique lexical terms/total number of words). Last, reading difficulty was measured via the SMOG Index which estimates the years of education the average person needs to completely comprehend a piece of text (SMOG Index formula = 1.0430 [√number of polysyllables × (30/number of sentences)] + 3.1291). Because a higher SMOG score indicates that higher education is needed to comprehend a piece of text, higher reading difficulty scores represent text that is more difficult to read and lower scores represent text that is easier to read [ 32 ]. More information about these linguistic features and example replies that scored high and low on each linguistic feature are reported in the supplementary.

Given that a relatively sizable number of linguistic features have been linked with persuasion, we first determined whether these features could be meaningfully reduced to a smaller number of dimensions representing the key verbal processes of persuasion. Second, we determined whether these dimensions were each uniquely predictive of persuasion when controlling for the effects of the remaining dimensions. Third, we simultaneously assessed all linguistic features that have been linked with message persuasiveness in a single model to understand how linguistic features interact with one another to influence a message’s persuasive appeal and identify features most crucial to message persuasiveness. All data and analytic code can be found in the supplementary. Descriptive statistics, zero-order correlations between all variables, and complete analytic outputs for all analyses are presented in the supplementary.

To identify the key linguistic dimensions of persuasion (RQ 1), we submitted all linguistic features into a principal components analysis (PCA) with a varimax rotation. Bartlett’s Sphericity Test ( p  < 0.001) and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin metric (KMO = 0.55) suggested that our data were suitable for analysis. Features with factor loadings greater than the absolute value of 0.50 were retained and used to quantify principal components. Three principal components were extracted that collectively accounted for 36.28% of the total variance: structural complexity, negative emotionality, and positive emotionality (see Table ​ Table3). 3 ). Structural complexity had high loadings in the direction of lower lexical diversity, higher word count, and greater reading difficulty. Negative emotionality had high loadings in the direction of greater percentage-use of terms that scored low on valence and low on dominance. Positive emotionality had high loadings in the direction of greater percentage-use of terms that scored high on dominance, high on valence, and hedges.

Results of PCA with Varimax Rotation

To assess if all three dimensions were uniquely important to message persuasiveness, we entered each component into a multilevel logistic regression analysis using lme4 [ 33 ]. This procedure corrects for non-independence of replies (i.e., replies to the same parent post) on the dependent variable: persuasion (delta awarded = 1, no delta awarded = 0). We include random intercepts for replies nested within parent posts and replies nested within repliers (i.e., some repliers provided replies to multiple original posts). All three components emerged as significant predictors of persuasion. For a one-unit increase in structural complexity, the odds of receiving a delta increase by a factor of 2.25, 95% CI [2.11, 2.39]. For a one-unit increase in negative emotionality, the odds of receiving a delta decrease by a factor of 0.89, 95% CI [0.85, 0.94]. For a one-unit increase in positive emotionality, the odds of receiving a delta also decrease by a factor of 0.92, 95% CI [0.88, 0.97]. Post-hoc power analyses conducted using the simr package in R (Version 1.0.5) [ 34 ] revealed that we had at least 96% power to detect a small effect (i.e., 0.15) for each of these factors on persuasion.

Next, the individual linguistic features were assessed simultaneously to identify those that were the most essential and relevant to a message’s persuasive appeal (RQ 2). A logistic least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression was performed using glmmLasso [ 35 ]. A LASSO regression is a penalized regression analysis that performs variable selection to prevent overfitting by adding a penalty ( λ ) to the cost function (i.e., the sum of squared errors) equal to the sum of the absolute value of the coefficients. This penalty results in sparse models with few coefficients. In other words, this method selects a parsimonious set of variables that best predict the outcome variable and has many advantages over other feature selection methods [ 36 ]. All linguistic features were entered into the LASSO regression model. A grid search was performed to identify the most optimal shrinkage parameter based on BIC. Five features emerged with nonzero coefficients: word count, lexical diversity, reading difficulty, analytical thinking, and self-references (Table ​ (Table4 4 ).

Results of LASSO regression

*** p  < 0.001; ** p  < 0.01; λ = 62

These variables were subsequently entered into a multilevel logistic regression. Again, persuasion was entered as the dependent variable and we included random intercepts for replies nested within parent posts and replies nested within repliers. All five predictors emerged as significant predictors of persuasion. Specifically, for a one-unit increase in word count, the odds of receiving a delta increase by a factor of 1.23, 95% CI [1.13, 1.35]. For a one-unit increase in reading difficulty scores (i.e., greater difficulty in reading comprehension), the odds of receiving a delta increase by a factor of 1.10, 95% CI [1.04, 1.16]. For a one-unit increase in analytical thinking, the odds of receiving a delta increase by a factor of 1.10, 95% CI [1.05, 1.17]. For a one-unit increase in self-references, the odds of receiving a delta decrease by a factor of 0.92, 95% CI [0.87, 0.98]. Last, for a one-unit increase in lexical diversity, the odds of receiving a delta decrease by a factor of 0.54, 95% CI [0.50, 0.59]. Post-hoc power analyses conducted using the simr [ 34 ] revealed that we had at least 96% power to detect a small effect (i.e., 0.15) for each of these predictors on persuasion.

Previous studies have largely examined the effect of linguistic features on persuasion in isolation and do not incorporate properties of language that are often involved in real-world persuasion. As such, little is known about the key verbal dimensions of persuasion or the relative impact of linguistic features on a message’s persuasive appeal in real-world social interactions. To address these limitations, we collected large-scale data of online social interactions from a public forum in which users engage in debates in an attempt to change each other’s views on any topic. Messages that successfully changed a user’s views are explicitly marked by the user themselves. We simultaneously examined linguistic features that have been previously linked with message persuasiveness between persuasive and non-persuasive messages. Our findings provide a parsimonious and ecologically-valid understanding of the social psychological pathways to persuasion as it operates in the real world through verbal behavior.

Three linguistic dimensions appeared to underlie the tested features: structural complexity, negative emotionality, and positive emotionality. Each dimension uniquely predicted persuasion when the effects of the remaining dimensions were statistically controlled, with greater structural complexity exhibiting the highest odds of persuasion. Interestingly, messages marked with less emotionality had higher odds of persuasion than messages marked with more emotionality, regardless of whether it was positive or negative. Emotionality can help persuasion in specific contexts [ 37 , 38 ], but emotional appeals can also backfire when audiences prefer cognitive appeals [ 39 ]. Given that OPs were publicly inviting others to debate them, it is plausible that they preferred cognitively-appealing responses—ones that include an abundance of clear and valid reasons to support an argument—rather than emotionally-appealing responses.

The linguistic features that made a message longer, more analytic, less anecdotal, more difficult to read, and less lexically diverse were most essential to a message’s persuasive appeal and uniquely predictive of persuasion. Longer messages provide more context and likely contain more arguments than shorter messages. Presenting more arguments can be more persuasive even if the arguments themselves are not compelling [ 40 ]. Longer messages likely provided more opportunities for the OP to engage with material that could potentially change their mind, thus increasing the likelihood of persuasion.

Although more readable content is easier to understand and less aversive than less readable content [ 41 ], greater reading difficulty and comprehension can engender more interest, attention, and engagement [ 42 , 43 ]. It can also facilitate deeper cognitive processing that leads to greater learning and long-term retention [ 44 , 45 ]. This is especially true for individuals intrinsically motivated or capable of engaging in complex and novel tasks [ 46 ]. OPs were likely capable of and intrinsically motivated to engage in content that challenged their beliefs considering they were inviting others to debate them. The interpretation of users being intrinsically motivated to challenge their beliefs is also in line with the link that emerged between greater usage of analytical language and persuasion. Similarly, messages that focused less on one’s own personal experiences may have provided more objective evidence to support a particular argument, facilitating persuasion.

Last, while greater lexical repetitions may be perceived as less interesting [ 31 , 47 ], it facilitated persuasion in this context. Lexical repetitions provide effective ways for speakers to communicate complex topics as it keeps “lexical strings relatively simple, while complex lexical relations are constructed around them” [ 48 ]. Lexical repetitions are advantageous for navigating through the order and logic of an argument, providing “textual markers” that help readers connect important aspects of an argument together [ 49 ]. Lower lexical diversity, then, appeared to be beneficial for building arguments that are more cohesive, more coherent, and thus, more persuasive.

Altogether, our findings reveal that the linguistic features linked to persuasion fall along three dimensions pertaining to structural complexity, negative emotionality, and positive emotionality. Our findings also highlight the importance of linguistic features related to a message’s structural complexity, particularly the verbal behaviors that provide a greater amount of factual evidence in a way that enables readers to connect important aspects of the information in an appropriately stimulating manner. Although the other linguistic features that were examined in this study may contribute to message persuasiveness to some degree, our results indicate that they are relatively less important after word count, lexical diversity, reading difficulty, analytical thinking, and self-references are taken into account. These findings also seem to reflect r/ChangeMyView’s digital environment. A central feature of r/ChangeMyView is ensuring that all posts and replies meaningfully contribute to the conversations. As such, OPs and repliers must adhere to all moderator-enforced policies of interaction. In addition, users who post on r/ChangeMyView are likely individuals who are open to attitude change given that they are publicly inviting others to debate them on a topic they already have an opinion on. This suggests that, in digital environments that underscore meaningful contributions to conversations, the ability to convey more objective information while fostering engagement and a holistic understanding of an argument are most vital to the alteration of established attitudes among open-minded individuals.

Our findings also have implications for the process by which persuasion research via language is conducted. Assessing the relative importance of a linguistic feature on message persuasiveness allowed us to understand its interconnections with other linguistic features and its link to persuasion, yielding a more comprehensive and well-rounded understanding of the feature’s role in message persuasiveness. Consider word count , for example: without assessing word count’s relative importance on message persuasiveness in the current study, we would not have been able to ascertain its link to message persuasiveness via a message’s structural complexity and the importance of providing more content in a way that enables readers to connect important aspects of the information in an appropriately stimulating manner. Because the meaning of a word or linguistic feature in any text is dependent on the context by which it is used, understanding the social psychological pathways to persuasion via language requires researchers to account for the presence of multiple linguistic features within a given message when assessing a linguistic feature’s link to message persuasiveness. This holistic approach may also help reconcile conflicting results from previous research on language and persuasion.

Our findings also inform theories, such as ELM, that address how linguistic features influence persuasion and provide a more precise understanding of the social psychological pathways to persuasion. For example, ELM states that here are two main routes to persuasion: the central route, which focuses on the message quality on persuasion, and the peripheral route, which uses heuristics and peripheral cues to help influence individual decisions regarding a topic [ 6 ]. Individuals are more likely persuaded via the central route if they have the ability and motivation to process the information. On the other hand, individuals are more likely persuaded via the peripheral route if involvement is low and information processing capability is diminished. OPs likely have the ability and motivation to process arguments from repliers and are thus likely persuaded via the central route given that they are publicly inviting others to debate them. Supplying more information to support a conclusion may be more likely to persuade via the central route, but this information also needs to be organized in a way that helps readers connect important aspects of the information together. A wealth of information that is structured in an incoherent manner would undoubtedly hinder comprehension, and thus, persuasion.

Strengths and limitations

Our dataset contained a large sample of replies that spanned a wide variety of topics, and provided high ecological validity given that it captured the process of persuasion as it occurred naturally without elicitation. The enforcement of rules on r/ChangeMyView yielded interactions that were conducted under similar conditions and expectations. This helped to minimize interaction variance without interfering with the naturalistic nature of the data. However, OPs can award deltas to responses within subtrees (the “children” of direct replies) typically as the result of “back-and-forth” interactions with repliers. These were not included in the current study as we only examined top-level responses. Our results could also differ by topic, recency of the post, and post length, and it is possible non-linguistic features such as the popularity of a post, the number of “upvotes” (i.e., the number of instances other users have registered agreement with a particular post or reply) a reply receives, and the number of deltas a replier has ever received may also impact message persuasiveness. Future studies should determine if these variables moderate the findings, and doing so would also address the relative importance of linguistic versus non-linguistic features on message persuasiveness.

Although it is a policy on r/ChangeMyView that OPs must post a non-neutral opinion (i.e., their post must take a non-neutral stance on a topic), and posts that violate this rule are removed by moderators, it is possible that an OP’s post did not accurately reflect their true attitude or attitude strength. Given the nature of the data, this study cannot address whether the resulting attitude changes were long-lasting, nor if the OP’s attitude strength moderated their attitude change. Longitudinal studies can assess these points. Because there were substantially more non-persuasive replies (99.39%) than persuasive ones, we constructed a balanced subsample and conducted our analyses on this balanced subsample. While this strategy limited biased outcomes stemming from a large class imbalance, it also limits the generalizability of results to posts in which no persuasion occurred. Further examinations of the class imbalance are needed to address this issue. For example, it is possible that posts in which no persuasion occurred are systematically different from posts in which persuasion occurred. Or, perhaps the class imbalance simply reflects the rigid nature of attitudes. In addition, our results may only reflect a particular population given that Reddit users tend to skew younger and male [ 50 ]. Since we did not have access to subjects’ demographic information, we cannot assert the representativeness of our sample. Future research should investigate persuasion that takes place on other debate-style forums and websites to incorporate more diverse subjects, interaction modes, and digital environments.

Acknowledgements

We thank Haley Bader, Carolynn Boatfield, Maria Civitello, Katie Kauth, and Xinyu Wang for their assistance in data cleaning, Arthur Bousquet and Leonardo Carrico for their assistance in data analysis, and David Johnson for his helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this paper. Preparation of this manuscript was funded, in part, by grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation (#196255) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (15F06718R0006603). The views, opinions, and findings contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be construed as position, policy, or decision of the aforementioned agencies, unless so designated by other documents.

Author contributions

VT developed the concept of the study, conducted data analysis, and wrote the manuscript. RL Boyd collected the data, assisted with study development, natural language and statistical analyses and provided critical revisions. SS assisted with data preparation and analyses and provided critical revisions. AK, CG, AL, and LM assisted with data cleaning and literature review.

Not applicable.

Declarations

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

https://osf.io/4rj26/?view_only=5556b511084b4e75bc14808e47d15dce .

Approval granted by Lancaster University’s ethics committee (Reference #FST19067).

Not applicable; data was non-identifiable and publicly available.

1 We define linguistic feature as a characteristic used to classify a word or corpus of text based on their linguistic properties. Examples include reading difficulty, words denoting high or low emotionality, hedges, etc.

2 For all of r/ChangeMyView’s policies, visit https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_a .

3 Supplementary materials can be found here: https://osf.io/4rj26/?view_only=5556b511084b4e75bc14808e47d15dce

4 We adopted the Valence-Arousal-Dominance circumplex model of emotion (Bradley & Lang, 1994; Russell, 1980) and the PAD emotion state model (Mehrabian, 1980; Bales, 2001) and conceptualize valence, arousal, and dominance as the dimensions of emotion. All three dimensions have been linked to message persuasiveness (see Table ​ Table1 1 ).

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Help & FAQ

Persuasion: Theory and Research

• Communication Studies

Research output : Book/Report › Book

Fingerprint

• Research Psychology 100%
• reviews INIS 100%
• vehicles INIS 100%
• Review Question Computer Science 100%
• Scientific Theory Psychology 33%
• Attention Psychology 33%
• Judgement Psychology 33%
• Narrative Psychology 33%

T1 - Persuasion

T2 - Theory and Research

AU - O'Keefe, Daniel James

N2 - Persuasion: Theory and Research, Third Edition is a comprehensive overview of social-scientific theory and research on persuasion. Written in a clear and accessible style that assumes no special technical background in research methods, the Third Edition has been thoroughly revised to reflect developments in persuasion studies. New discussions of subjects such as reactance and the use of narratives as vehicles for persuasion, revised treatments of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior, and two new chapters on social judgment theory and stage models provide your students with the most current work on persuasion in a clear, straightforward manner. In this edition, author Daniel J. O'Keefe has given special attention to the importance of adapting (tailoring) messages to audiences to maximize persuasiveness. Each chapter has a set of review questions to guide students through the chapter’s material and quickly master the concepts being introduced.

AB - Persuasion: Theory and Research, Third Edition is a comprehensive overview of social-scientific theory and research on persuasion. Written in a clear and accessible style that assumes no special technical background in research methods, the Third Edition has been thoroughly revised to reflect developments in persuasion studies. New discussions of subjects such as reactance and the use of narratives as vehicles for persuasion, revised treatments of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior, and two new chapters on social judgment theory and stage models provide your students with the most current work on persuasion in a clear, straightforward manner. In this edition, author Daniel J. O'Keefe has given special attention to the importance of adapting (tailoring) messages to audiences to maximize persuasiveness. Each chapter has a set of review questions to guide students through the chapter’s material and quickly master the concepts being introduced.

SN - 9781452276670

BT - Persuasion

PB - SAGE Publications, Inc

CY - Thousand Oaks, CA

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Persuasion Theory and Research

• Daniel J. O'Keefe - Northwestern University, USA
• Description

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

Supplements

Password-protected INSTRUCTOR RESOURCES you’ll actually use!  

Save time and ease class preparation with the additional guidance and tools, including:

• Test banks  provide a diverse range of pre-written options as well as the opportunity to edit any question and/or insert your own personalized questions to effectively assess students’ progress and understanding.
• Editable, chapter-specific  PowerPoint ®  slides  offer complete flexibility for creating a multimedia presentation for your course. 
• Sample course syllabi  provide suggested models for structuring your course structure.
• Lecture notes  summarize key concepts on a chapter-by-chapter basis to help with preparation for lectures and class discussions.
• Chapter-specific  discussion questions  help launch conversation by prompting students to engage with the material and by reinforcing important content.
• Media Links , including carefully selected chapter-by-chapter video and multimedia content which enhance classroom-based explorations of key topics
• EXCLUSIVE! Access to full-text  SAGE journal articles  that have been carefully selected to support and expand on the concepts presented in each chapter

It was too theory dense for the experiential learning class I am teaching. However, it had good instructor resources to use.

Relevant topic. Well-written book.

NEW TO THIS EDITION:  

• Integrates cutting-edge research throughout the text to ensure students have the most current information in the field
• New coverage of narrative persuasion helps students see how storytelling can be a tool to persuade and motivate
• New coverage of reactance discusses negative reactions that persuasive messages can evoke—and how to minimize such resistance
• A new chapter on stage models of behavior change explores the idea that influencing behavior involves a set of distinct progressive steps
• A new chapter on social judgment theory describes how receivers with the same position can nevertheless react differently to the same persuasive message
• Special attention is given throughout this edition to the importance of adapting (tailoring) persuasive messaging to enhance effectiveness
• New review questions have been added throughout each chapter to help students quickly master the concepts being introduced   

KEY FEATURES:

• A compact summary of key research findings in persuasion is written in an accessible style that assumes no special technical background in research methods
• A comprehensive overview of different theoretical frameworks provides students with a well-rounded understanding and working knowledge and use of a variety of theories
• Detailed discussions of important theoretical and methodological questions encourage critical thinking and promote further research for a deeper understanding of the material

For instructors

Select a purchasing option.

Persuasion knowledge framework: Toward a comprehensive model of consumers’ persuasion knowledge

• Theory/Conceptual
• Published: 28 April 2023
• Volume 13 , pages 12–33, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Vahid Rahmani   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8498-892X 1  

4040 Accesses

3 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Synthesizing the latest findings of more than one hundred articles in the literature, the current paper presents an integrative, process-based framework entailing a dynamic view of consumers’ persuasion knowledge. Consequently, this paper offers a succinct summary of the status quo of the literature and sheds light on the underdeveloped areas that require further empirical investigation. Furthermore, this article identifies methodological problems (including priming and measurement issues) that have negatively impacted the persuasion knowledge literature and presents potential solutions to alleviate them. Finally, the theoretical and managerial implications of the developed model are discussed in the last section of the paper.

Similar content being viewed by others

Consumer Persuasion Knowledge as Dynamic Capability

Ich weiß, sie bekommt Geld dafür! Aber ich hab Guido Maria doch so gern! The Persuasion Knowledge Model von Friestad und Wright

Exploring persuasion knowledge in food advertising: an empirical analysis

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

In 2021, the global marketing spending was estimated to rise by 5.9% and reach $1.35 trillion (Gilblom, 2021 ) while advertising spending was estimated to increase by 5.4% and reach $650 billion (Advertising & Marketing Services, 2022 ; Advertising Agencies, 2021 ). Digital platforms account for over 50% of global advertising expenditures (Advertising & Marketing Services, 2022 ). As the largest ad market in the world, in the United States, the total advertising spending was estimated at 296 billion dollars in 2021, and it is projected to reach 378 billion dollars by 2024 (Guttmann, 2021 ). In addition to the increase in marketing and advertising expenditures, the budget allocation strategies are rapidly changing as well. For example, in 2021, the global product placement spending increased at a much higher rate (i.e., 13.8%) than advertising spending (i.e., 5.4%) and reached $23.3 billion (Gilblom, 2021 ). Furthermore, while TikTok was launched as recently as 2016, the percentage of marketers that used this platform for influencer marketing reached 42% in 2021 and is projected to reach 65% by 2025 (Advertising & Marketing Services, 2022 ).

The magnitude and range of marketing activities, including personal selling, advertising, and product placement indicate that modern consumers are bombarded with numerous persuasion attempts by marketers on a daily basis. Consequently, understanding factors that may influence consumers’ reactions to marketers’ persuasion attempts (including various sales techniques, promotional strategies, and advertising appeals) is of paramount importance to marketing managers. The existing literature indicates that consumers’ persuasion knowledge is one of the most prominent factors in this context.

The evolving literature on the Persuasion Knowledge Model (hereafter referred to as PKM; Friestad & Wright, 1994 ) has advanced our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of consumers’ reactions to marketers’ persuasive communications. The existing literature has investigated the influence of PKM on marketing theory and practice in multiple areas that span advertising (Germelmann et al., 2020 ; Isaac & Grayson, 2020 ; Pechmann & Wang, 2010 ), pricing (Das et al., 2020 ; Hardesty et al., 2007 ; Kachersky, 2011 ; Kachersky & Kim, 2011 ), personal selling (Campbell & Kirmani, 2000 ; Holmes et al., 2017 ; Kirmani & Campbell, 2004 ), cause-related marketing (Hamby & Brinberg, 2018 ), retailing (Gottschalk, 2018 ; Lunardo & Mbengue, 2013 ; Morales, 2005 ), corporate social responsibility (Ham & Kim, 2019 ; Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013 ), advergames (Van Reijmersdal et al., 2012 ; Reijmersdal et al., 2015 ), product placement (Boerman et al., 2017 ; Campbell et al., 2013 ; Tessitore & Geuens, 2019 ), and digital marketing (Chen & Cheng, 2019 ).

This article attempts to synthesize the current literature on PKM into a process-based framework that integrates the existing substantive empirical findings. The developed model delineates three processes that highlight the acquisition, activation, and reaction (to the activation) of persuasion knowledge. Consequently, this paper makes several substantive contributions to theory and practice:

First, this paper reviews the current literature and outlines the established effects of PKM on marketing theory and practice. Second, this article offers a theoretical framework that sheds light on the underpinning psychological mechanisms that are involved in the acquisition, activation, and reaction processes of persuasion knowledge. Third, this paper identifies important underdeveloped connections among the acquisition, activation, and reaction processes of persuasion knowledge. Consequently, it offers a comprehensive theoretical framework to be examined by future empirical research. Fourth, this paper identifies critical methodological issues that have negatively affected the PKM literature. Finally, this paper provides further evidence that companies’ long-term success relies on their commitment to avoid deceptive practices, and it offers several important managerial implications that can guide businesses to serve the needs of their customers more effectively in an ever-changing environment. More specifically, this paper investigates the efficacy of numerous advertising and sales strategies in terms of their potential to activate consumers’ persuasion knowledge and negatively influence consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions. For example, this paper sheds light on the effect of scarcity ad appeal, product placement, mystery ads, provoking guilt in advertising, advergames, cause-related marketing, and publicity on activating consumers’ persuasion knowledge and influencing their attitude toward the ad, attitude toward the brand, attitude toward the company, and purchase intentions.

An overview of the persuasion knowledge framework and its terminology

PKM (Friestad & Wright, 1994 ), in part, investigates how the “persuasion knowledge” that “agents” and “targets” of influence possess determines the outcome of a “persuasion attempt” in a “persuasion episode.” Furthermore, “persuasion knowledge” (hereafter referred to as PK) characterizes people’s beliefs about “the psychological events” (e.g., ads attempting to provoke the emotions of their target audience) that may result in persuasion and “the effectiveness and appropriateness of particular persuasion tactics” (Friestad & Wright, 1994 , p. 6).

Similar terminology has been adopted in this paper. However, although PKM includes both “agents” and “targets” of persuasion, the emphasis in the current paper is only on the targets of persuasion. The rationale behind this approach is that the existing PKM literature has almost exclusively focused on the target PK instead of the agent PK. For example, in a recent meta-analysis conducted by Eisend and Tarrahi ( 2022 ), all 148 papers that were examined were focused on the target PK instead of the agent PK. A notable exception in the literature is an article in which a new scale for measuring salesperson theory-of-mind was developed (Dietvorst et al., 2009 ). Although this paper does not cite the seminal paper of Friestad and Wright ( 1994 ), the developed scale measures a salesperson’s ability to understand nonverbal cues, build rapport, measure a target’s topic knowledge, and manage a persuasion scenario, making it perfectly consistent with the conceptualization of PKM (Friestad & Wright, 1994 ).

Figure  1 illustrates the conceptual framework of this paper, which is named Persuasion Knowledge Framework (hereafter referred to as PKF). As depicted in Fig.  1 , PKF is comprised of three interconnected processes: the acquisition process of PK, the activation process of PK, and the reaction process of PK. Oxford English Dictionary defines “acquisition” as “the learning or developing of a skill, habit, or quality.” The acquisition process of PK refers to the process in which consumers acquire PK from relevant sources of information . The existing empirical evidence in the literature illustrates that consumers acquire PK as they age (Carlson et al., 2007 ; Hamby & Brinberg, 2018 ; Kirmani & Campbell, 2004 ; Rozendaal et al., 2011 ; Vanwesenbeeck et al., 2016 ) via cognitive learning processes (Ham et al., 2015 ; Ham & Kim, 2019 ; Kachersky & Kim, 2011 ; Morales, 2005 ; Nelson, 2016 ; Nelson et al., 2009 ; Scott et al., 2013 ; Wei et al., 2008 ; Williams et al., 2004 ; Xie & Johnson, 2015 ).

The Persuasion Knowledge Framework (PKF)

The activation process of PK is defined as a process in which a persuasion episode activates valenced perceptions of the underlying motives of an agent in the mind of a target . Here, the term “underlying motive” is used instead of “ulterior” or “manipulative” intent (e.g., Campbell & Kirmani, 2000 ; Reimer & Benkenstein, 2016 ; Tessitore & Geuens, 2019 ) to highlight that consumers’ perceptions of an agent’s motives are not invariably negative (DeCarlo, 2005 ; Isaac & Grayson, 2017 , 2020 ). Previous studies have indicated that acquiring PK may enable consumers to accurately identify marketers’ underlying motives in a persuasion episode (e.g., Ham & Kim, 2019 ; Nelson & Park, 2015 ; Xie & Johnson, 2015 ).

The reaction process of PK is defined as a process in which targets engage in coping behavior to achieve their salient goals . Salient goals refer to any objective and/or psychological outcome that targets aspire to attain in a persuasion scenario (e.g., feeling good about themselves or getting accurate information from an ad). Most empirical papers that have been published in the PK literature suggest that the activation of PK would lead to negative reactions, especially, although not necessarily (Main et al., 2007 ), when the perceived underlying motives are manipulative (e.g., Boerman et al., 2017 ; Campbell et al., 2013 ; Hossain & Saini, 2014 ; Lunardo & Mbengue, 2013 ).

The coping mechanisms that consumers use to achieve their salient goals are among the building blocks of their PK (Kirmani & Campbell, 2004 ). Furthermore, the reaction process of PK may influence the acquisition process of PK in two ways. First, consumers’ experiences with persuasion agents assimilate into the repository of their internal sources of PK information through the categorization process (Loken, 2006 ; Loken et al., 2002 ). Second, through trial and error, consumers may examine the efficacy of the coping mechanisms that they adopt in persuasion episodes and ameliorate their PK (Friestad & Wright, 1994 ; Kirmani & Campbell, 2004 ).

In summary, the conceptual framework developed in this paper portrays a positive feedback loop in which consumer PK is constantly improved and amended. This process begins with consumers acquiring PK through internal (e.g., memories of interactions with agents of persuasion) and external (e.g., learning about persuasion via reading books, online reviews, news stories, etc.) sources of information. Next, consumers’ PK will enable them to identify marketers’ underlying motives in a persuasion scenario. These perceptions will then lead consumers to deploy various coping strategies (e.g., not trusting the salesperson’s claims about the deal value) to achieve their salient goals. Finally, consumers’ post-purchase evaluations and experiences will become a part of the internal sources of PK and enable them to examine and improve the coping strategies deployed in previous persuasion scenarios (e.g., next time, I should do my research before going to the dealership). Hence, the acquisition of PK will affect the activation process, the activation process of PK will influence the reaction process, and the reaction process of PK will modify the acquisition process, creating a positive feedback loop of consumer PK (Fig.  1 ).

The remaining sections of this paper explore the existing literature on the acquisition, activation, and reaction processes of PK at a greater depth and offer an extended version of PKF (Fig.  2 ). The extended PKF only depicts the moderating/mediated relationships that have been substantiated by empirical evidence in the literature. As a result, the extended model succinctly portrays the status quo of the literature instead of highlighting potentially important variables that have not been investigated by any empirical studies yet. That task has been carried out in the final section of this paper which presents a more comprehensive model (Fig.  3 ) and offers suggestions for future research.

The extended persuasion knowledge framework

Toward a comprehensive framework of persuasion knowledge

In the following sections, for greater clarity, the specific links in the extended PKF (Fig.  2 ) are stated in parentheses. More specifically, one-way main effects are delineated as (A→B), mediation effects are shown as (A→B→C), moderation effects are stated to as (C|A→B), moderated moderation effects are presented as (D|[C|A→B]), and a mediated moderation effect is presented as (D→ [C|A→B]).

The acquisition process of persuasion knowledge (A 1 →A 2 )

PK is a multidimensional concept that includes consumers’ beliefs about the persuasion tactics that agents use in a persuasion scenario, the working mechanisms and the effectiveness of those tactics, the appropriateness of those tactics, and the coping strategies which could help someone respond to those tactics (Friestad & Wright, 1994 ). Furthermore, PK is a domain-based construct. For example, the persuasion tactics that are used in advertising (e.g., disclosing the brand name at the end of the advertisement to grab the attention of the audience [i.e., mystery ads]) may vary from the ones used in pricing (e.g., save up to 50% [i.e., tensile pricing]) or personal selling (e.g., lowballing technique: offering a low price to create commitment in the negotiation process and then increasing the price for different excuses). Finally, the persuasion tactics that are used in different domains are not mutually exclusive (e.g., popularity and scarcity claims are frequently used in both advertising and personal selling). The multi-dimensional and domain-based nature of PK is evident partly in the existing scales that have been developed to measure consumers’ PK (for a detailed discussion of the existing measures and scales of PK, see Ham et al., 2015 ).

Consumers acquire PK from the available sources of information through a “change-of-meaning” process (Friestad & Wright, 1994 ). This is a process in which perceptions about an agent’s behavior change from “non-persuasion-related” to a “persuasion attempt” (Friestad & Wright, 1994 ). For example, imagine consumers who lack the PK that product placement is a form of advertising. If they read in an online article that one of the episodes of their favorite TV show was a type of advertising (e.g., “The One with the Apothecary Table” episode in the American sitcom, “Friends”), through the change-of-meaning process, they will start recognizing the product placement as a form of advertising.

There is ample evidence in the literature that cognitive learning may facilitate the acquisition process of PK. Cognitive learning entails the transfer of new information from the sensory store to working memory (short-term memory) to long-term memory through attention, encoding, rehearsal, and retrieval methods (Schiffman et al., 2012 , p. 134). Consumers may acquire PK via cognitive learning through numerous means including when they read articles, books, news stories, or customer reviews that entail PK-related information. The evidence for the efficacy of cognitive learning in the change-of-meaning process is presented in several empirical studies that have provided their participants with PK-related information (usually disguised as a news story or an academic article) and subsequently reported attitudinal/ behavioral changes that were associated with the newly acquired PK (Ham et al., 2015 ; Ham & Kim, 2019 ; Kachersky & Kim, 2011 ; Morales, 2005 ; Nelson, 2016 ; Nelson et al., 2009 ; Scott et al., 2013 ; Wei et al., 2008 ; Williams et al., 2004 ; Xie & Johnson, 2015 ). In summary, the following proposition is presented:

Consumers can acquire PK through the “change-of-meaning” process from the relevant sources of information through the cognitive learning process (A 1 →A 2 ).

The effect of age on the acquisition process of PK (A m |A 1 →A 2 )

The existing literature suggests that as a result of the development of the Theory of Mind (Lapierre, 2015 ), people start learning about persuasion at an early age (Wright et al., 2005 ). Theory of mind refers to a type of social development that includes the ability to distinguish between the mental states (e.g., emotions, desires, and intentions) of self and the mental states of others (Moses & Baldwin, 2005 ). To be able to detect persuasive motives, children must first be able to recognize that their mental states could be different from others (McAlister & Cornwell, 2009 ). Children’s theory of mind develops significantly between ages 3 to 5; however, PK (measured as children’s ability to recognize advertisers’ persuasion intentions) is not advanced at age 5 (McAlister & Cornwell, 2009 ). Children aged 7 to 12 remain highly susceptible to the persuasion attempts of agents (e.g., advergames created by brands like Lay’s potato chips; Panic et al., 2013 ; Van Reijmersdal et al., 2012 ). Nevertheless, children’s ability to understand advertising tactics increases progressively between the ages of 8 and 12 (Rozendaal et al., 2011 ; Vanwesenbeeck et al., 2016 ). Teenagers, between the ages of 14 and 15, tend to defensively react to any counter-attitudinal persuasion attempts (Pechmann & Wang, 2010 ). The acquisition of PK continues through adulthood (Carlson et al., 2007 ; Hamby & Brinberg, 2018 ; Kirmani & Campbell, 2004 ). For example, based on an empirical study, Kirmani and Campbell ( 2004 ) concluded that more experienced adults (average age = 32.5) had acquired a greater amount of PK (measured by the number of coping strategies that they used in a persuasion episode) than less experienced adults (average age = 20.8) had. Therefore, the following proposition is suggested:

Age positively influences the acquisition of PK from relevant sources of information, and consumers continue to acquire PK as they get older (A m |A 1 →A 2 ).

The activation process of persuasion knowledge (B 1 →B 2 )

The activation process of PK refers to the psychological mechanisms in a target’s mind that lead to valenced perceptions about an agent’s underlying motives in a persuasion episode. Although PK is frequently treated as a variable that results in negative consumer responses in the literature (see Eisend & Tarrahi, 2022 ), in this article, it is argued that PK may result in both positive and negative effects. Previous studies have demonstrated that consumers tend to make negative perceptions about an agent’s underlying motives in persuasion episodes that include slogans (Laran et al., 2011 ), flattery (Campbell & Kirmani, 2000 ; Main et al., 2007 ), banner ads (Tutaj & Van Reijmersdal, 2012 ), price gouging (Ferguson et al., 2011 ), demand related scarcity ad appeals (Aguirre-Rodriguez, 2013 ), and fast end-of-advertisement disclaimers (Herbst et al., 2012 ).

Nevertheless, recent empirical evidence suggests that consumers’ perceptions of agents’ underlying motives are not invariably negative (Isaac & Grayson, 2017 , 2020 ). For example, Isaac and Grayson ( 2017 ) directly measured consumers’ perceptions of 20 marketing tactics that ranged from everyday low price (EDLP) to bogus “limited time” sales events. Their findings showed that people’s perceptions of the 20 widely used marketing tactics were mostly mixed (six were positive, six were negative, and 12 were mixed). Other studies have shown that consumers do not readily associate the following marketing tactics with negative underlying motives: supply-related scarcity ad appeals (Aguirre-Rodriguez, 2013 ), product placement (Campbell et al., 2013 ; Tessitore & Geuens, 2019 ), video news releases (Nelson et al., 2009 ; Nelson & Park, 2015 ), celebrity endorsement (Boerman et al., 2017 ), advergames (Van Reijmersdal et al., 2015 ), publicity (Skard & Thorbjørnsen, 2014 ), cause-related marketing (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013 ), and narrative-based ad formats (Wentzel et al., 2010 ). Therefore, the following proposition is presented:

A persuasion episode is likely to activate valenced perceptions of the underlying motives of an agent in the mind of a target, which can be either positive or negative (B 1 →B 2 ).

Factors influencing the activation process of PK

Accessibility of ulterior motives (b m |b 1 →b 2 ).

Existing literature provides empirical evidence that interventions that increase the accessibility of ulterior motives negatively influence targets’ perceptions of agents’ underlying motives. For example, subtle product placement does not automatically activate negative perceptions of underlying motives (Campbell et al., 2013 ). However, sponsor disclosures tend to positively affect the accessibility of ulterior motives and result in negative perceptions (e.g., product placement is manipulative) and negative reactions (Boerman et al., 2014 ; Campbell et al., 2013 ; Matthes & Naderer, 2016 ). Similar sponsor disclosure effects have been reported for celebrity product placement (Boerman et al., 2017 ) and advergames (Van Reijmersdal et al., 2015 ). Other factors that influence the accessibility of ulterior motives and may result in negative perceptions include the following: Consumers assuming that salespeople work on commission (DeCarlo, 2005 ), incongruent ambient stimuli (e.g., the aroma of freshly cooked bread with no sign of the source of scent; Lunardo & Mbengue, 2013 ), and high frequency of rhetorical questions appearing in an ad (e.g., “Did you know that Tide has been the best-selling laundry detergent in the U.S. for 68 years?”; Ahluwalia & Burnkrant, 2004 ). Similarly, a high number of positive claims that companies make about their products may negatively influence their consumers’ judgments (Shu & Carlson, 2014 ). More specifically, in four experiments, Shu and Carlson ( 2014 ) reported that the ideal number of positive claims about a product is 3, and beyond that point, any new claims will increase the perceptions of manipulative intent.

Events that decrease the accessibility of ulterior motives, on the other hand, may result in positive perceptions of underlying motives. For example, research shows that the following mediations will result in positive perceptions of underlying motives (and positive reactions): Informing consumers that salespeople do not receive a commission (DeCarlo, 2005 ), mixing flattery with negative remarks (e.g., this jacket does not look good on you, that other one does; Basso et al., 2014 ), and salespeople exhibiting atypical behavior (e.g., a computer salesperson complimenting a customer on his/her looks; Sujan et al., 1986 ) or defying expectations (e.g., a waiter suggesting a cheap dessert instead of a more expensive one; Cialdini, 2006 ; Priester & Petty, 1995 ). Therefore, it is proposed here that:

In a persuasion episode, marketing strategies that have a positive (negative) effect on the accessibility of ulterior motives will result in negative (positive) perceptions of underlying motives in the minds of the customers (B m |B 1 →B 2 ).

As discussed below, regulatory focus and cognitive capacity moderate the effect of accessibility of ulterior motives in the activation process of PK.

Regulatory Focus (B mm1 |[B m |B 1 →B 2 ])

According to the regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997 ), people could be categorized as promotion-focused or prevention-focused individuals. Promotion-focused people are motivated by their “ideal self-guides” (hopes and wishes), whereas prevention-focused people are motivated by their “ought to self-guides” (a feeling of duty and responsibility; Higgins et al., 1994 ). Kirmani and Zhu ( 2007 ) investigated the interaction between regulatory focus and the accessibility of ulterior motives on consumers’ reactions in a persuasion scenario. The results of three studies showed that when the ulterior motives were moderately accessible, prevention-focused targets were significantly more likely than promotion-focused targets to report negative perceptions of the ad’s underlying motives, and subsequently reported negative attitudes toward the brand. However, in conditions where ulterior motives were highly accessible (i.e., biased source and ambiguous claims in the ad) or not accessible (i.e., unbiased source and clear claims in the ad) the regulatory focus did not influence targets’ perceptions and reactions. In summary:

In persuasion episodes where the ulterior motives are moderately accessible, prevention-focused consumers are more likely than promotion-focused consumers to perceive negative underlying motives (B mm1 |[B m |B 1 →B 2 ]).

Cognitive Load (B mm2 |[B m |B 1 →B 2 ])

Research shows that moderately deceptive ads promote the greatest brain activity (measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging [fMRI]) compared to believable and highly deceptive ads (Craig et al., 2012 ). Consistent with this finding, other studies have shown that in persuasion episodes where the ulterior motives are highly accessible or not accessible at all, cognitive capacity does not influence consumers’ perceptions; whereas, in persuasion episodes where ulterior motives are moderately accessible, high cognitive load (i.e., low available cognitive capacity) significantly decreases consumers’ ability to accurately identify marketers’ underlying motives (Campbell & Kirmani, 2000 ; Shu & Carlson, 2014 ; Wentzel et al., 2010 ; Williams et al., 2004 ). For example, the results of four experiments conducted by Campbell and Kirmani ( 2000 ) suggested that in persuasion episodes where ulterior motives were moderately accessible, cognitively busy targets were more likely to have a positive perception of the agent’s underlying motives than cognitively unbusy targets. However, when the ulterior motives were highly accessible, the cognitive load did not influence targets’ perceptions and reactions. Therefore:

In persuasion episodes, where the ulterior motives are moderately accessible, cognitively unbusy targets are significantly more likely than cognitively busy consumers to perceive negative underlying motives (B mm2 |[B m |B 1 →B 2 ]).

Persuasion knowledge (A 2 |B 1 →B 2 )

One of the main tenets of PKF is the postulation that the acquisition of PK will directly affect the activation process of PK and subsequently will influence consumers’ coping behavior. The existing empirical evidence shows that the acquisition of PK will change consumers’ perceptions of an agent’s underlying motives in the following persuasion scenarios: asking intention questions (e.g., are you planning on making a donation this month?; Williams et al., 2004 ), salespeople showing effort (e.g., a salesperson who makes an effort to go and find the requested size of the shoe for a customer; Morales, 2005 ), product placement (Boerman et al., 2018 ), cause-related marketing (Hamby & Brinberg, 2018 ), and video news releases (Nelson et al., 2009 ; Nelson & Park, 2015 ). The common characteristic of these studies is that they provided the targets with the opportunity to acquire PK and investigated their subsequent responses. For example, Williams and colleagues ( 2004 ) reported that as the result of the “mere-measurement effect,” answering intention questions later provoked answer-consistent behavior (e.g., are you going to brush your teeth tonight?). However, when targets acquired PK by reading a research abstract about the “mere-measurement effect,” their perceptions and subsequent reactions significantly changed. Thus, the following proposition is presented:

The acquisition of PK influences the activation process of PK by making thoughts of an agent’s underlying motives more accessible in the target’s mind (A 2 |B 1 →B 2 ).

The reaction process of persuasion knowledge (C 1 →C 2 )

The reaction process of PK describes the psychological mechanisms that are involved when perceptions of underlying motives prompt consumers to engage in various coping behavior to achieve their salient goals. Numerous studies have investigated the coping strategies that people may employ to alleviate stress and reduce negative emotions (e.g., Folkman & Lazarus 1988 ; Lazarus, 1991 ; Luce, 1998 ). In the consumer behavior domain, Duhachek ( 2005 ) synthesized the existing literature and identified 85 dimensions of coping strategies (composed of 250 items) that consumers may use against stressors. He then provided empirical evidence that consumers’ coping strategies could be reduced to eight dimensions and grouped into three categories that he named “Active Coping,” “Expressive Support Seeking,” and “Avoidance.”

In the PKM literature, coping refers to the response strategies that consumers may utilize to resist persuasion and achieve their goals (Friestad & Wright, 1994 ; Kirmani & Campbell, 2004 ). For example, based on a comprehensive review of the literature and three qualitative datasets, Kirmani and Campbell ( 2004 ) identified 15 unique response strategies that consumers tend to adopt in a persuasion scenario to resist persuasion and/or achieve their salient goals. In this paper, “coping behavior” is conceptualized as a broad term that includes response strategies that consumers may utilize to resist agents’ persuasion attempts as well as their behavioral and attitudinal reactions to marketers’ offerings. Consequently, in PKF, coping behavior may include postponing a purchase decision or forming a positive/negative attitude toward the advertisement, brand, or company.

It is contended in this paper that consumers tend to tap into the repository of the coping strategies which they have accumulated as part of their PK (Kirmani & Campbell, 2004 ) to achieve their salient goals in a persuasion episode. Salient goals are defined as objectives and/or psychological outcomes that consumers strive to attain in a persuasion scenario. A comprehensive typology of all the potential salient goals that consumers may adopt in a persuasion scenario is beyond the scope of this paper. Consequently, building on a synthesis of the social influence literature by Cialdini and Goldstein ( 2004 ), only the interplay between consumers’ coping behavior and three socially oriented goals of accuracy, affiliation, and maintaining a positive self-concept is briefly explored below.

The goal of accuracy refers to consumers’ desires to hold valid attitudes toward products and agents (Friestad & Wright, 1994 ). For example, when a consumer notices a Geico commercial that claims “fifteen minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance,” the subsequent coping behavior could be linked to the salient “accuracy” goal of selecting a car insurance that offers the best deal.

Goal of affiliation refers to the fundamental human tendency “to create and maintain meaningful social relationships with others” (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004 , p. 598). For example, perceived similarities between a target and an agent may increase the salience of affiliation goals in the targets’ minds. This process could explain the effectiveness of the “liking technique” in sales, using which an agent attempts to find and highlight similarities between himself/herself and the customer (e.g., starting a conversation about golf, when the salesperson notices golf clubs in the customer’s car; Cialdini, 2006 ).

Goal of maintaining a positive self-concept describes people’s desire “to enhance their self-concepts by behaving consistently with their actions, statements, commitments, beliefs, and self-ascribed traits” (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004 , p. 602). The effectiveness of several well-known persuasion tactics has been linked to consumers’ desire to satisfy the goal of maintaining a positive self-concept. These persuasion tactics include the door-in-the-face technique (e.g., “can you make a $200 donation?” When the answer is no, “how about a $10 donation?”), lowballing technique, and foot-in-the-door technique (i.e., a small request which is likely to be accepted is followed by a larger request; Cialdini, 2006 ; Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004 ; Solomon, 2017 ).

One of the premises of PKF is the contention that a persuasion attempt may result in dissimilar coping behavior in targets who pursue different salient goals. For example, the “liking” technique in a sales encounter could result in positive (negative/ambivalent) coping behavior if the target (consciously or subconsciously) strives to attain the affiliation (accuracy/self-concept) goal(s). Therefore, the effectiveness of the liking technique in eliciting the desired behavior (e.g., customer satisfaction, sales) is likely to rely on the accessibility of the affiliation goal (versus accuracy or self-concept goals) in the target’s minds. Thus, the coping behavior that targets of persuasion utilize may depend on the salient goals which are accessible in their minds in a persuasion scenario. Thus, the following proposition is presented:

Targets tend to deploy coping behavior, including coping strategies and attitudinal/behavioral reactions, which are consistent with the salient goals that they aim to achieve in a persuasion scenario (C 1 →C 2 ).

Factors influencing the reaction process of PK and the subsequent coping behavior

Valenced perceptions of underlying motives (b2| c1→c2).

Numerous studies have investigated the effect of the activation of PK on targets’ reactions. For brevity’s sake, these findings are reported in Tables  1 and 2 . Accordingly, Table  1 offers a summary of papers that have empirically investigated the effect of the activation of PK on consumers’ coping behavior in response to companies’ promotional strategies. These findings reveal that consumers’ reactions to various promotional tactics are not homogenous. For example, publicity (Skard & Thorbjørnsen, 2014 ), cause-related marketing (Hamby & Brinberg, 2018 ), educational placements (Pechmann & Wang, 2010 ), in-game advertising (Lorenzon & Russell, 2012 ), and supply-related scarcity ad appeals (Aguirre-Rodriguez, 2013 ) result in positive reactions including purchase decisions and positive attitude toward the brand. Promotional tactics that are perceived as deceptive, on the other hand, result in negative reactions including negative word-of-mouth and negative attitude toward the ad/brand. These strategies include mystery ads (Campbell, 1995 ), banner ads (Tutaj & Van Reijmersdal, 2012 ), provoking guilt in advertising (Cotte et al., 2005 ), demand-related scarcity ad appeals (Aguirre-Rodriguez, 2013 ), and ambiguous ad claims (Kirmani & Zhu, 2007 ). As discussed in the previous sections, the positive (negative) effect of the activation of PK on consumers’ reactions toward various promotional strategies is likely to be the result of consumers’ positive (negative) perceptions of the underlying motives of those promotional strategies.

Table  2 offers a summary of the papers that have examined the effect of PK on consumers’ reactions in the domains of personal selling, pricing, retailing, branding, digital marketing, and corporate social responsibility. The findings reported in Table  2 offer two substantive conclusions: (1) When the activation of PK involves negative perceptions of underlying motives, targets engage in negative (defensive) coping responses that include negative attitudes toward agents (e.g., salesperson, firm), brands, and marketing tactics as well as lower purchase intentions. (2) When the activation of PK includes positive perceptions of underlying motives, targets’ coping behavior may include positive reactions. More specifically, Table  2 offers the following insights:

Flattery is usually an effective persuasion tool (especially) when the accessibility of ulterior motives is low (Basso et al., 2014 ; Campbell & Kirmani, 2000 ; Henrie & Taylor, 2009 ). Furthermore, salespeople can lower the accessibility of ulterior motives and increase purchase intentions by uttering mixed remarks (e.g., that shirt does not look good on you, but the first one looked great; Basso et al., 2014 ), exhibiting atypical behavior (e.g., utilizing a weak sales message [this TV is too expensive, but if you want the best picture quality, right now it is the only option available]; DeCarlo, 2005 ), and avoiding hard sell negotiation techniques (Holmes et al., 2017 ).

Pricing strategies, including partitioned pricing (e.g., price: $200 + $50 shipping and taxes), tensile claims (e.g., everything up to 90% off), quantity surcharge (e.g., single-unit: $1.25, pack of twelve units: $15.99), and content reduction (i.e., lowering the net weight of the product while keeping the price and the package size the same) are effective only when consumers possess lower levels of PK (Das et al., 2020 ; Hardesty et al., 2007 ; Kachersky, 2011 ; Kachersky & Kim, 2011 ).

The activation of PK may result in skepticism toward Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR; Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013 ) and lower the efficacy of companies’ CSR initiatives when they are in crisis (Ham & Kim, 2019 ). Based on these findings, the following proposition is presented:

Positive (negative) perceptions of underlying motives result in positive (negative) coping behavior including positive (negative) attitudes toward the ad, attitude toward the brand, attitude toward the agent (e.g., salesperson, company), and higher (lower) purchase intentions (B2| C 1 →C 2 ).

Self-esteem (B2→[C m |(C 1 →C 2 )])

The potential effect of self-esteem has received little attention in the PK literature. Nevertheless, in this paper, it is argued that self-esteem plays a key role in mediating the relationship between the activation and reaction processes of PK. This postulation is based on the existing empirical evidence that the activation of PK may prompt targets to engage in various coping behaviors that are not in their best interest (e.g., higher intentions for smoking (Pechmann & Wang, 2010 ); lower tendency to floss (Williams et al., 2004 )). An overly negative reaction in a persuasion episode may be the result of a perceived threat to one’s self-esteem, which in turn, makes the goal of maintaining a positive self-concept more salient. Consequently, events that threaten (enhance) a target’s self-esteem may result in more (less) negative reactions (e.g., Campbell et al., 2013 ; Darke & Ritchie, 2007 ; Pechmann & Wang, 2010 ). For example, Darke and Ritchie ( 2007 ) reported in four experiments that after targets were exposed to an overtly deceptive ad, they showed negative attitudes not only toward the deceptive ad but also toward other ads from non-related sources portraying non-related products. Furthermore, their findings suggested that the negative reactions were significantly higher if the ego involvement was high rather than low. Alternatively, Chan and Sengupta ( 2010 ) reported that although flattery resulted in negative short-term responses in targets, it had a positive long-term effect. Furthermore, the positive effects of flattery significantly decreased (increased) when self-esteem was threatened (affirmed) via a priming condition that required the targets to write about aspects of themselves that they found undesirable (desirable). Therefore, the following proposition is presented:

The activation process of PK could threaten/affirm targets’ self-esteem, and in turn, influence the salient goals that targets pursue and the coping behavior that they utilize to achieve those goals (B2→[C m |(C 1 →C 2 )]).

Persuasion knowledge (A 2 |C 1 →C 1 )

In this paper, it is theorized that targets’ PK both directly and indirectly affects their coping behavior. As discussed in the previous sections, the indirect effect is established through the effect of PK on the activation process of PK (i.e., P7) and subsequently the effect of the activation process on the reaction process of PK (i.e., P9). The direct effect of the PK on the reaction process is manifested in the repository of the coping strategies that are accessible in a target’s mind. These coping strategies are an integral part of the targets’ PK that they have acquired throughout their lives (Friestad & Wright, 1994 ). Furthermore, as discussed in the previous sections, the choice of which coping strategy to be utilized to maximize the likelihood of achieving one’s salient goals in a persuasion scenario occurs during the reaction process. Therefore, a higher level of PK increases the likelihood that targets of persuasion could utilize the right coping strategy to achieve their salient goals in a persuasion episode. Therefore:

A higher level of PK will increase the likelihood that targets will be able to utilize the correct coping behavior to achieve their salient goals in a persuasion episode (A 2 |C 1 →C 1 ).

The effect of the reaction process on the acquisition process of PK (C 2 |A 1 →A 2 )

One of the most important tenets of PKF is the assertion that the reaction process of PK directly affects the acquisition process, creating a positive feedback loop between the acquisition, activation, and reaction processes of PK. The effect of the reaction process on the acquisition process of PK is theorized based on the cognitive dissonance theory (CDT; Festinger, 1962 ) categorization research (Loken, 2006 ; Loken et al., 2002 ), and analogical learning theory (Gregan-Paxton & John, 1997 ). CDT is one of the most influential classical theories in social psychology that has sparked decades of academic interest (Morvan & O’Connor, 2017 ; Wood, 2000 ). CDT entails that freely chosen behavior that result in negative outcomes (Cooper & Fazio, 1984 ) or events that threaten self-concept (Thibodeau & Aronson, 1992 ) will result in cognitive dissonance and psychological discomfort and prompt corrective actions. Therefore, coping responses that fail to achieve targets’ salient goals are likely to result in cognitive dissonance and prompt targets to engage in corrective measures. These corrective measures could include a reexamination of the beliefs, ideas, and events that led to the negative outcome. The result of this process could be a change in the perceived effectiveness of coping strategies that were deployed in the reaction process. As a result of the categorization process and analogical learning, these new insights will then be assimilated into the existing body of the PK stored in targets’ memories and become accessible in other similar scenarios. For example, imagine a persuasion scenario in which a consumer, named Linda, is persuaded by a salesperson to take a loan and buy a car that she finds expensive. In this scenario, the post-purchase financial burdens of repaying the car loan may result in cognitive dissonance and prompt Lynda to reexamine the purchase experience. Consequently, Linda may change her perceptions of the underlying motives of the salesperson (e.g., I should not have trusted that person), or she may change her perceptions about the coping strategies that she used during the purchase experience (e.g., I should have walked out of the door when I felt pressured). As a result of the categorization process and analogical learning, these new insights will automatically be assimilated into the existing mental schema of “salespeople” in Linda’s mind, and she will be able to use that information in future similar scenarios. To summarize, the following proposition is offered:

The coping behavior and strategies that fail in achieving the desired outcomes from a target’s perspective will result in cognitive dissonance. Subsequently, new coping behavior and strategies will be devised and assimilated into a target’s existing body of PK (C 2 |A 1 →A 2 ).

This paper explored the existing literature on PK and proposed an integrative, process-based framework of consumers’ persuasion knowledge (PKF; Fig.  1 ). The developed model delineates three distinct stages of the acquisition process, activation process, and reaction process of PK in a positive feedback loop. Furthermore, the extended PKF (Fig.  2 ) provides several important insights: (1) PK continuously evolves and is periodically recalibrated in a self-reinforcing cycle, (2) PK positively correlates with age, (3) a persuasion episode activates valenced perceptions of underlying motives that are not consistently accurate, (4) factors that influence the accessibility of ulterior motives negatively influence targets’ perceptions of agents’ underlying motives, (5) the activation of PK prompts targets to engage in coping behavior aimed at the attainment of the salient goals, and (6) self-esteem plays an important role in influencing targets’ coping behavior and the salient goals that they strive to achieve. These findings have important theoretical and practical implications that are presented next.

Theoretical, methodological, and managerial implications

Guidelines for future research.

Despite the wealth of research in the PK literature, the potential effects of several critical factors on consumers’ ability to resist marketers’ persuasion attempts have not been investigated. As depicted in Fig.  3 , these variables include emotions (intensity and valence), depth and direction of information processing, and the motivation/ability of consumers to process the information. As Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986 ) and Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM; Chaiken et al., 1989 ) suggest, to identify marketers’ subtle manipulative intentions, consumers need to have the motivation and the ability to pay attention to details and process the information at a greater depth (D 1,2 |[B m |B 1 →B 2 ]). This conclusion is also consistent with decision field theory (Busemeyer & Townsend, 1993 ) that indicates consumers’ preferences are dynamic (instead of predetermined) and they could change based on the length of deliberation on a decision task.

The proposition that the depth of information processing may influence consumers’ PK (D 3 |A 1 →A 2 ) is based on the following arguments: First, as discussed before, many consumers acquire PK through the cognitive learning processes, and cognitive learning entails effortful thinking. Therefore, a lack of cognitive resources may hinder consumers’ ability to acquire PK from available sources of information (e.g., reading online reviews). Second, in many cases, the available PK information is not homogenous or consistent. For example, the available online reviews for products are usually mixed. Research shows that analyzing inconsistent information is a cognitively demanding process and requires both motivational and cognitive resources (Petty et al., 1997 ). Third, empirical evidence suggests that when people are presented with new information, even if the information is clearly false, they automatically believe the information and subsequently utilize their cognitive resources to unbelieve the believed false information; consequently, lack of cognitive capacity hinders peoples’ ability to reject (unbelieve) the false-information (Gilbert, 1991 ; Gilbert et al., 1990 ). Therefore, for example, when people are faced with manipulative advertising claims, they automatically believe the information, and they will need to subsequently process the information to identify the manipulative intentions and modify their primary judgments.

The direction of information processing could also influence consumers’ ability to identify marketers’ persuasion tactics (D 4 |[B m |B 1 →B 2 ]). When presented with mixed evidence, consumers could focus on positive or negative information. Focusing on negative information facilitates the activation of persuasion knowledge because such information could activate the memory nodes in consumers’ associative memory network and subsequently make similar memories more accessible for retrieval (Kahneman, 2011 ). This postulation is consistent with the query theory (Johnson et al., 2007 ), which indicates that initial thoughts could influence the accessibility of similar subsequent thoughts.

The relationship between persuasion knowledge and emotions is twofold: On the one hand, consumers’ persuasion knowledge should enable them to cope with emotional appeals (Hibbert et al., 2007 ). On the other hand, emotions and mood affect preference (Lee et al., 2009 ), memory, evaluation, and information processing (Bagozzi et al., 1999 ), and subsequently, they affect persuasion knowledge by influencing both direction and depth of information processing.

Future studies should empirically investigate the effect of emotions, depth/direction of information processing, and consumers’ motivation/ability to process the information on their ability to acquire PK (D 1,2,3,4 |[A 1 →A 2 ]), make accurate judgments (D 1,2,3,4 |[B 1 →B 2 ]), and react to marketers’ persuasion attempts (D 1,2,3,4 |[C 1 →C 2 ]). Moreover, future research should address the following gaps in the literature:

First, there is a gap in the literature concerning the factors that influence the acquisition process of PK (D 1,2,3,4 |[A 1 →A 2 ]). Based on the existing evidence in ELM and HSM literature, potential factors influencing the acquisition process may include demographics (e.g., gender, income), personality traits (e.g., need for cognition, risk-evasiveness, regulator focus), cultural factors (e.g., interdependence vs. independence), situational factors (e.g., involvement), agent knowledge (e.g., company reputation), and topic knowledge (e.g., brand loyalty).

Second, there is a gap in the literature concerning the demographic and psychographic variables that may influence the activation process of PK (D 1,2,3,4 |[B 1 →B 2 ]). As depicted in Fig.  3 , these factors may include positive/negative emotions with various degrees of intensity (i.e., D 2 ; e.g., provoking positive emotions in a retail environment via playing music in the store) and product involvement (i.e., D 3 ; e.g., purchasing a car may incline consumers to be more vigilant against persuasion than purchasing a pair of shoes).

Third, there is a gap in the literature concerning the effects of emotion/affect/mood on the acquisition, activation, and reaction processes of PK (D 2 |[A 1 →A 2 ], [B 1 →B 2 ], and [C 1 →C 2 ]). This gap is surprising for three reasons: (1) there has been a surge in academic interest in the field of emotion and decision-making in recent years (Lerner et al., 2015 ), (2) marketing tactics that entail provoking positive/negative emotional responses are ubiquitous (e.g., emotional ad appeals), and (3) investigating the effect of emotions on PK could have substantial practical implications. Future empirical studies should investigate the potential role of emotions on consumers’ PK.

Fourth, as stated in section (A1→A2), several papers have investigated the cognitively taxing processes that may lead to the acquisition of PK (e.g., Ham & Kim, 2019 ; Nelson, 2016 ; Xie & Johnson, 2015 ). Nevertheless, there is a dearth of empirical research shedding light on the automatic modes of learning that may facilitate PK acquisition. It is conceivable that consumers may acquire PK automatically through behavioral learning processes including Classical Conditioning (Staats & Staats, 1958 ) and Instrumental Conditioning (Dickinson, 1994 ). The automatic modes of the acquisition process of PK may warrant the attention of PK scholars.

Fifth, the interplay between consumers’ salient goals and their coping strategies has received very little attention in the PKM literature. As it was argued in section (C1→C2), depending on their salient goals, consumers may exhibit opposite responses to marketers’ offerings. Future studies can make a significant contribution to the literature by exploring various goals that may be salient in consumers’ minds in a persuasion scenario and shedding light on how those goals may determine consumers’ coping behavior.

Sixth, based on the existing literature, P2 (Am|A1→A2) projected a linear relationship between age and PK acquisition. However, this may not capture the complexity of how people learn about persuasion in different domains and contexts. For instance, children and older adults may have less PK in technology-based persuasion than others, due to their lower exposure or familiarity with digital media and online communication. This suggests that there may be an inverted U-shaped relationship between age and PK acquisition. Future research should examine how digital literacy moderates the effect of age on PK development and application.

Seventh, the potential effects of PK on consumers’ online shopping behavior have not been fully explored in the PK literature. Existing evidence suggests that if consumers are led to believe that a review is not trustworthy, the review could have a “boomerang effect” and prompt consumers to react in the opposite way (Allard et al., 2020 ; Reimer & Benkenstein, 2016 ). Nevertheless, consumers have little PK in the context of online reviews (Bambauer-Sachse & Mangold, 2013 ; de Langhe et al., 2016 ) while review manipulation is a common practice (Zhuang et al., 2018 ). Consequently, online reviews tend to be effective in influencing behavioral intent (Hamby et al., 2015 ). PKF predicts that an increase in PK or the accessibility of ulterior motives may enable consumers to identify the underlying motives of deceptive online reviews more accurately and engage in corrective coping behavior. Future studies should examine the acquisition, activation, and reaction processes of PK that may influence consumer behavior in an online shopping context.

Finally, as stated previously, there is a dearth of research investigating the effects of agent PK on consumers’ coping behavior in a persuasion scenario. As discussed before, consumers are not passive participants in a persuasion scenario, and they may deploy a battery of coping strategies to achieve their salient goals. Furthermore, consumers’ coping behavior is directly influenced by their valenced perceptions of an agent’s underlying motives as well as their existing body of PK. Recognizing the dynamics of consumer PK may enable agents to utilize various strategies to build trust and positively influence targets’ responses.

For example, recent empirical evidence suggests that in a persuasion scenario where thoughts of an agent’s ulterior motives are highly accessible, messages and ads that are consistent with targets’ beliefs (i.e., targets find themselves agreeing with the salesperson or the ad) have a positive effect on trustworthiness judgments (Grillo & Pizzutti, 2021 ). A persuasion agent who is equipped with this knowledge may be able to design a communication strategy (e.g., a sales pitch or an advertisement) that can bypass the target PK. Future studies should investigate the acquisition, activation, and reaction processes involved in agent PK and shed light on the potential interactions between agent PK and target PK. These studies will have the potential to help companies to create more effective training programs for their salespeople as well as more persuasive ad campaigns.

Methodological issues negatively impacting the existing persuasion knowledge literature

Table  3 depicts the existing established and/or frequently used scales in the PK literature. Nevertheless, the need for a general scale to measure PK remains (Ham et al., 2015 ). As a result, several studies have used Consumer Self-Confidence in PK (Bearden et al., 2001 ) and Ad skepticism (SKEP; Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998 ) scales to measure consumer PK. However, neither one of these two scales is a valid measurement of PK.

As depicted in Table  3 , the Self-Confidence in PK scale is part of a larger scale to measure consumers’ overall self-confidence instead of their objective PK (Bearden et al., 2001 ). Current research shows that people are biased about their own abilities and believe that they are more immune to persuasion than other people are (Eisend, 2015 ; Xie & Johnson, 2015 ). Furthermore, research shows that the correlation between self-confidence in PK and objective PK (in the context of pricing) is only 0.317 (Carlson et al., 2007 ). In other words, people’s confidence in their PK predicted only about 10% of the variation in the objective PK that they possessed. Therefore, the Self-Confidence in PK scale is not a measurement of the objective PK that consumers possess. The same logic applies against using the SKEP scale as its authors have eloquently articulated the clear difference that exists between SKEP and PKM (Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998 , pp 163–164). Consequently, caution must be advised in interpreting the findings of the several papers that have used Consumer Self-Confidence in PK (Bearden et al., 2001 ) and Ad skepticism (SKEP; Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998 ) as a measurement of objective PK.

One of the biggest methodological challenges that has negatively influenced the existing PK literature is the common practice of priming PK by making targets suspicious about marketing in general. As recent evidence shows this method could result in biased responses (Isaac & Grayson, 2017 , 2020 ). Furthermore, according to PKF, studies that have primed suspicion (by heightening deceptive or manipulative persuasion tactics) to activate PK may have inadvertently threatened targets’ self-esteem, causing an endogeneity problem. In other words, a study that has made its targets suspicious, to investigate the effect of PK on their reactions, might have inadvertently primed targets to engage in biased ego-defensive coping behavior that were not caused by PK. Therefore, the conclusion that a higher level of PK resulted in the observed change in the dependent variable of the study could be erroneous. To remedy this problem, future studies should prime PK by encouraging targets to think about their experiences as an agent in a persuasion scenario (e.g., thinking about a time that they tried to convince a friend to do them a favor; Campbell & Kirmani, 2000 ), provide unbiased information about marketing tactics (e.g., Morales, 2005 ; Nelson et al., 2009 ), or objectively elaborate on the potential underlying motives of the agents (e.g., Isaac & Grayson, 2017 , 2020 ). Furthermore, future studies should control for the confounding effect of suspicion and self-esteem in their analysis sections.

Managerial contributions

The current paper investigated the accuracy and efficacy of consumers’ PK. A synthesis of the existing literature suggested that PK is not always complete, accurate, or effective in terms of enabling consumers to achieve their salient goals. However, PK evolves and improves incessantly throughout the life of a consumer. Furthermore, the existing empirical evidence clearly suggests that when consumers identify a persuasion attempt as manipulative, they strongly react by showing coping responses that include negative attitudes toward the brand, product, or company as well as lower purchase intentions and negative word of mouth. Hence, the following suggestions are advised for marketing practitioners:

Children do not possess adequate PK to effectively defend themselves against the persuasion tactics of agents in most persuasion episodes. Furthermore, habits and beliefs that are formed at an early age are resistant to change later in life. Therefore, parents, companies, and policymakers have an ethical obligation to protect the children against any persuasion attempts which are not in their best interests (e.g., being exposed to commercials that promote unhealthy snacks or meals).

In persuasion episodes where ulterior motives are highly accessible (e.g., a car dealership) even a sincere compliment could backfire. Nevertheless, companies can devise effective strategies to lower the accessibility of ulterior motives and promote trust. These strategies include salespeople working on fixed salaries instead of commissions and atypical or expectation-inconsistent behavior. In other words, consumers seem to have a negative mental category of a “typical salesperson” that tends to cause negative reactions. Any behavior or information that makes the salesperson look dissimilar to that category, could result in positive reactions.

Research shows that consumers may have alternative “naive theories” about marketing phenomena (Deval et al., 2013 ). Although as noted before, thoughts of manipulative intent seem to be highly accessible in some persuasion episodes, consumers are likely to entertain some positive perceptions about salespeople as well. In other words, a salesperson can be viewed as a manipulator or “a helper” (Kirmani & Campbell, 2004 ). Therefore, salespeople should strive to activate positive perceptions by avoiding any type of behavior that customers can readily associate with manipulative intent (e.g., flattery, hard sales). Instead, a sales strategy that includes a genuine concern for understanding and satisfying consumers’ needs could prove to be more successful.

Given the evolving nature of PK, the effectiveness of covert marketing tactics (e.g., product placement) are likely to decrease over time. Especially, companies that engage in covert marketing tactics that have a manipulative intent (e.g., advertorials: advertisements that disguise themselves as editorial content) are likely to experience significant negative reactions once consumers learn about those practices.

Negative perceptions of ulterior motives may be more accessible when consumers are prevention-focused rather than promotion-focused. External factors like the COVID-19 pandemic have the potential to prime a prevention-focused state of mind in consumers. Therefore, companies should exercise caution in devising their persuasive communications during the COVID-19 pandemic to minimize the risk of raising undue suspicion in the minds of their customers.

Self-esteem plays a key role in shaping the coping strategies that consumers utilize in a persuasion episode. Once consumers acquire the PK that allows them to identify previously unknown persuasion attempts, any perceived threat to their self-esteem is likely to result in intense negative reactions (e.g., a commitment to spread negative word-of-mouth about the brand or the company). Therefore, from a long-term perspective, to avoid provoking unfavorable behavior in consumers, companies must avoid deceptive persuasion attempts and be fully transparent in their marketing communications to minimize the risk of threatening their customers’ self-esteem.

In conclusion, this paper offers ample evidence that any persuasion tactic that consumers associate with a negative underlying motive will result in negative reactions. Especially, when the activation of PK threatens consumers’ self-esteem, these negative reactions could be intense and have a lasting effect. Furthermore, this paper delineates a self-reinforcing feedback loop in which consumers constantly improve their PK. Therefore, the ultimate managerial implication of this paper could be stated as follows: The long-term success of companies depends on their commitment to avoid manipulative and deceptive persuasion tactics: “Ethical business is good business!”

Advertising  & Marketing Services. (2022, January 31). Quarterly Update 1/31/2022 - ProQuest. Retrieved February 19, 2022, from  https://www.proquest.com/docview/2624175783/11678400D1F54F43PQ/1

Advertising Agencies. (2021, January 25). Quarterly Update 1/25/2021 - ProQuest. Retrieved February 19, 2022, from  https://www.proquest.com/docview/2480705155/B5936EAE27F54B0DPQ/1

Aguirre-Rodriguez, A. (2013). The effect of consumer persuasion knowledge on scarcity appeal persuasiveness. Journal of Advertising, 42 (4), 371–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.803186

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahluwalia, R., & Burnkrant, R. E. (2004). Answering questions about questions: A persuasion knowledge perspective for understanding the effects of rhetorical questions. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1086/383421

Allard, T., Dunn, L. H., & White, K. (2020). Negative reviews, positive impact: Consumer empathetic responding to unfair word of mouth. Journal of Marketing, 84 (4), 86–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242920924389

Artz, N., & Tybout, A. M. (1999). The moderating impact of quantitative information on the relationship between source credibility and persuasion: A persuasion knowledge model interpretation. Marketing Letters, 10 (1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008035107314

Bagozzi, R. P., Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P. U. (1999). The role of emotions in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27 (2), 184–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070399272005

Bambauer-Sachse, S., & Mangold, S. (2013). Do consumers still believe what is said in online product reviews? A persuasion knowledge approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20 (4), 373–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.03.004

Basso, K., dos Santos, C. P., & Albornoz Gonçalves, M. (2014). The impact of flattery: The role of negative remarks. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21 (2), 185–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.09.006

Bearden, W. O., Hardesty, D. M., & Rose, R. L. (2001). Consumer self-confidence: Refinements in conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (1), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1086/321951

Boerman, S. C., Van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2012). Sponsorship disclosure: Effects of duration on persuasion knowledge and brand responses. Journal of Communication, 62 (6), 1047–1064.

Boerman, S. C., Van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2014). Effects of sponsorship disclosure timing on the processing of sponsored content: A study on the effectiveness of european disclosure regulations. Psychology and Marketing, 31 (3), 214–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20688

Boerman, S. C., Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Rozendaal, E., & Dima, A. L. (2018). Development of the persuasion knowledge scales of sponsored content (PKS-SC). International Journal of Advertising, 37 (5), 671–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2018.1470485

Boerman, S. C., Willemsen, L. M., & van der Aa, E. P. (2017). This post is sponsored”: Effects of sponsorship disclosure on persuasion knowledge and electronic word of mouth in the context of Facebook. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 38 , 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2016.12.002

Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100 (3), 432. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.432

Campbell, M. C. (1995). When attention-getting advertising tactics elicit consumer inferences of manipulative intent: The importance of balancing benefits and investments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4 (3), 225–254. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0403_02

Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1086/314309

Campbell, M. C., Mohr, G. S., & Verlegh, P. W. J. (2013). Can disclosures lead consumers to resist covert persuasion? The important roles of disclosure timing and type of response. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23 (4), 483–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2012.10.012

Carlson, J. P., Bearden, W. O., & Hardesty, D. M. (2007). Influences on what consumers know and what they think they know regarding marketer pricing tactics. Psychology and Marketing, 24 (2), 117–142. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20155

Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. Unintentent Thought . https://doi.org/10.1002/env.670

Chan, E., & Sengupta, J. (2010). Insincere flattery actually works: A dual attitudes perspective. Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (1), 122–133.

Chen, Z. F., & Cheng, Y. (2019). Consumer response to fake news about brands on social media: The effects of self-efficacy, media trust, and persuasion knowledge on brand trust. Journal of Product and Brand Management . https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-12-2018-2145

Cialdini, R. B. (2006). Influence: The psychology of persuasion . HarperCollins.

Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55 , 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015

Cooper, J., & Fazio, R. H. (1984). A new look at dissonance theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology . https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60121-5

Cotte, J., Coulter, R. A., & Moore, M. (2005). Enhancing or disrupting guilt: The role of ad credibility and perceived manipulative intent. Journal of Business Research , 58 (3 SPEC. ISS.), 361–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00102-4

Cowley, E., & Barron, C. (2008). When product placement goes wrong: The effects of program liking and placement prominence. Journal of Advertising, 37 (1), 89–98.

Craig, A. W., Loureiro, Y. K., Wood, S., & Vendemia, J. M. C. (2012). Suspicious minds: Exploring neural processes during exposure to deceptive advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (3), 361–372. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.09.0007

Darke, P. R., Ashworth, L., & Ritchie, R. J. (2008). Damage from corrective advertising: Causes and cures. Journal of Marketing, 72 (6), 81–97.

Darke, P. R., & Ritchie, R. J. B. (2007). The defensive consumer: Advertising deception, defensive processing, and distrust. Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (1), 114–127. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.1.114

Das, G., Roy, R., & Naidoo, V. (2020). When do consumers prefer partitioned prices? The role of mood and pricing tactic persuasion knowledge. Journal of Business Research, 116 , 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.013

de Langhe, B., Fernbach, P. M., & Lichtenstein, D. R. (2016). Navigating by the stars: Investigating the actual and perceived validity of online user ratings. Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (6), 817–833. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv047

DeCarlo, T. E. (2005). The effects of sales message and suspicion of ulterior motives on salesperson evaluation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (3), 238–249. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1503_9

Deval, H., Mantel, S. P., Kardes, F. R., & Posavac, S. S. (2013). How naive theories drive opposing inferences from the same information. Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1185–1201. https://doi.org/10.1086/668086

Dickinson, A. (1994). Instrumental conditioning. Animal learning and cognition , 45–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-057169-0.50009-7

Dietvorst, R. C., Verbeke, W. J., Bagozzi, R. P., Yoon, C., Smits, M., & Van Der Lugt, A. (2009). A sales force–specific theory-of-mind scale: Tests of its validity by classical methods and functional magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (5), 653–668.

Duhachek, A. (2005). Coping: A multidimensional, hierarchical framework of responses to stressful consumption episodes. Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (1), 41–53.

Eisend, M. (2015). Persuasion knowledge and third-person perceptions in advertising: The moderating effect of regulatory competence. International Journal of Advertising, 34 (1), 54–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2014.993792

Eisend, M., & Tarrahi, F. (2022). Persuasion knowledge in the marketplace: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 32 (1), 3–22.

Ferguson, J. L., Ellen, P. S., & Piscopo, G. H. (2011). Suspicion and perceptions of price fairness in times of crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 98 (2), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0552-8

Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance (2 vol.). Stanford University Press.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Coping as a mediator of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (3), 466.

Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1086/209380

Germelmann, C. C., Herrmann, J. L., Kacha, M., & Darke, P. R. (2020). Congruence and incongruence in thematic advertisement–medium combinations: Role of awareness, fluency, and persuasion knowledge. Journal of Advertising, 49 (2), 141–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2020.1745110

Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46 (2), 107. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.2.107

Gilbert, D. T., Krull, D. S., & Malone, P. S. (1990). Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of false information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (4), 601–613. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.4.601

Gilblom, K. (2021). Marketers Embrace Product Placement in Streaming TV Shows - Bloomberg . Retrieved February 20, 2022, from  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-21/marketers-embrace-product-placement-in-streaming-tv-shows

Gottschalk, I. (2018). Consumer evaluation of ambient scent: The impact of pre-information, environment, and persuasion knowledge. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 46 (6), 530–544. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-04-2017-0085

Gregan-Paxton, J., & John, D. R. (1997). Consumer learning by analogy: A model of internal knowledge transfer. Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (3), 266–284. https://doi.org/10.1086/209509

Grillo, T. L. H., & Pizzutti, C. (2021). Recognizing and trusting persuasion agents: Attitudes bias trustworthiness judgments, but not persuasion detection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47 (5), 796–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220946197

Guttmann, A. (2021, December 10). Advertising spending in North America 2000–2024 . Retrieved February 20, 2022, from  https://www.statista.com/statistics/429036/advertising-expenditure-in-north-america/

Ham, C. D., & Kim, J. (2019). The role of CSR in crises: Integration of situational crisis communication theory and the persuasion knowledge model. Journal of Business Ethics, 158 (2), 353–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3706-0

Ham, C. D., Nelson, M. R., & Das, S. (2015). How to measure persuasion knowledge. International Journal of Advertising, 34 (1), 17–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2014.994730

Hamby, A., & Brinberg, D. (2018). Cause-related marketing persuasion knowledge: Measuring consumers’ knowledge and ability to interpret CRM promotions. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 52 (2), 373–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12167

Hamby, A., Daniloski, K., & Brinberg, D. (2015). How consumer reviews persuade through narratives. Journal of Business Research, 68 (6), 1242–1250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.004

Hardesty, D. M., Bearden, W. O., & Carlson, J. P. (2007). Persuasion knowledge and consumer reactions to pricing tactics. Journal of Retailing, 83 (2), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2006.06.003

Henrie, K. M., & Taylor, D. C. (2009). Use of persuasion knowledge by the millennial generation. Young Consumers, 10 (1), 71–81.

Herbst, K. C., Finkel, E. J., Allan, D., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2012). On the dangers of pulling a fast one: Advertisement disclaimer speed, brand trust, and purchase intention. Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (5), 909–919. https://doi.org/10.1086/660854

Hibbert, S., Smith, A., Davies, A., & Ireland, F. (2007). Guilt appeals: Persuasion knowledge and charitable giving. Psychology and Marketing, 24 (8), 723–742. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20181

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52 (12), 1280. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.52.12.1280

Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J. R., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance: Distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (2), 276. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.2.276

Holmes, Y. M., Beitelspacher, L. S., Hochstein, B., & Bolander, W. (2017). Let’s make a deal:” price outcomes and the interaction of customer persuasion knowledge and salesperson negotiation strategies. Journal of Business Research, 78 , 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.04.009

Hossain, M. T., & Saini, R. (2014). Suckers in the morning, skeptics in the evening: Time-of-day effects on consumers’ vigilance against manipulation. Marketing Letters, 25 (2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-013-9247-0

Isaac, M. S., & Grayson, K. (2017). Beyond skepticism: Can accessing persuasion knowledge bolster credibility? Journal of Consumer Research, ucw063 (6), 895–912. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw063

Isaac, M. S., & Grayson, K. (2020). Priming skepticism: Unintended consequences of one-sided persuasion knowledge access. Psychology and Marketing, 37 (3), 466–478. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21313

Jain, S. P., & Posavac, S. S. (2004). Valenced comparisons. Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (1), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.41.1.46.25080

Johnson, E. J., Häubl, G., & Keinan, A. (2007). Aspects of endowment: A query theory of value construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 33 (3), 461. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.461

Kachersky, L. (2011). Reduce content or raise price? The impact of persuasion knowledge and unit price increase tactics on retailer and product brand attitudes. Journal of Retailing, 87 (4), 479–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2011.08.001

Kachersky, L., & Kim, H. M. (Christian) (Eds.). (2011). When consumers cope with price-persuasion knowledge: The role of topic knowledge. Journal of Marketing Management , 27 (1–2), 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/02672571003647719

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow . Macmillan.

Kirmani, A., & Campbell, M. C. (2004). Goal seeker and persuasion sentry: How consumer targets respond to interpersonal marketing persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (3), 573–582. https://doi.org/10.1086/425092

Kirmani, A., & Zhu, R. (2007). Vigilant against manipulation: The effect of regulatory focus on the use of persuasion knowledge. Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (4), 688–701. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.4.688

Lapierre, M. A. (2015). Development and persuasion understanding: Predicting knowledge of persuasion/selling intent from children’s theory of mind. Journal of Communication, 65 (3), 423–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12155

Laran, J., Dalton, A. N., & Andrade, E. B. (2011). The curious case of behavioral backlash: Why brands produce priming effects and slogans produce reverse priming effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (6), 999–1014. https://doi.org/10.1086/656577

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46 (8), 819.

Lee, L., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2009). In search of homo economicus: Cognitive noise and the role of emotion in preference consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (2), 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/597160

Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66 (1), 799–823. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115043

Loken, B. (2006). Consumer psychology: Categorization, inferences, affect, and persuasion. Annual Review of Psychology, 57 (1), 453–485. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190136

Loken, B., Joiner, C., & Peck, J. (2002). Category attitude measures: Exemplars as inputs. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12 (2), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1207/153276602760078677

Lorenzon, K., & Russell, C. A. (2012). From apathy to ambivalence: How is persuasion knowledge reflected in consumers’ comments about in-game advertising? Journal of Marketing Communications, 18 (1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2011.620768

Luce, M. F. (1998). Choosing to avoid: Coping with negatively emotion-laden consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 409–433.

Lunardo, R., & Mbengue, A. (2013). When atmospherics lead to inferences of manipulative intent: Its effects on trust and attitude. Journal of Business Research, 66 (7), 823–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.06.007

Main, K. J., Dahl, D. W., & Darke, P. R. (2007). Deliberative and automatic bases of suspicion: Empirical evidence of the sinister attribution error. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17 (1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1701_9

Matthes, J., & Naderer, B. (2016). Product placement disclosures: Exploring the moderating effect of placement frequency on brand responses via persuasion knowledge. International Journal of Advertising, 35 (2), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2015.1071947

McAlister, A. R., & Cornwell, T. B. (2009). Preschool children’s persuasion knowledge: The contribution of theory of mind. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 28 (2), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.28.2.175

Morales, A. C. (2005). Giving firms an “E” for effort: Consumer responses to high-effort firms. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (4), 806–812. https://doi.org/10.1086/426615

Morvan, C., & O’Connor, A. J. (2017). An analysis of Leon Festinger’s a theory of cognitive dissonance. Macat Library . https://doi.org/10.4324/9781912282432

Moses, L. J., & Baldwin, D. A. (2005). What can the study of cognitive development reveal about children’s ability to appreciate and cope with advertising? Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 24 (2), 186–201. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.2005.24.2.186

Nelson, M. R. (2016). Developing persuasion knowledge by teaching advertising literacy in primary school. Journal of Advertising, 45 (2), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2015.1107871

Nelson, M. R., & Park, J. (2015). Publicity as covert marketing? The role of persuasion knowledge and ethical perceptions on beliefs and credibility in a video news release story. Journal of Business Ethics, 130 (2), 327–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2227-3

Nelson, M. R., Wood, M. L. M., & Paek, H. J. (2009). Increased persuasion knowledge of video news releases: Audience beliefs about news and support for source disclosure. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 24 (4), 220–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/08900520903332626

Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7 (2), 159–186. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0702_03

Panic, K., Cauberghe, V., & de Pelsmacker, P. (2013). Comparing TV ads and advergames targeting children: The impact of persuasion knowledge on behavioral responses. Journal of Advertising, 42 (2–3), 264–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.774605

Pechmann, C., & Wang, L. (2010). Effects of indirectly and directly competing reference group messages and persuasion knowledge: Implications for educational placements. Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (1), 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.1.134

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19 , 123–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2

Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 48 (1), 609–647. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.609

Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Source attributions and persuasion: Perceived honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21 (6), 637–654. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295216010

Reimer, T., & Benkenstein, M. (2016). When good WOM hurts and bad WOM gains: The effect of untrustworthy online reviews. Journal of Business Research, 69 (12), 5993–6001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.05.014

Rozendaal, E., Buijzen, M., & Valkenburg, P. (2011). Children’s understanding of advertisers’ persuasive tactics. International Journal of Advertising, 30 (2), 329–350. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-30-2-329-350

Schiffman, L. G., Kanuk, L. L., & Hansen, H. (2012). Consumer Behaviour: A European Outlook . Harlow.

Scott, M. L., Mende, M., & Bolton, L. E. (2013). Judging the book by its cover? How consumers decode conspicuous consumption cues in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (3), 334–347. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.11.0478

Shu, S. B., & Carlson, K. A. (2014). When three charms but four alarms: Identifying the optimal number of claims in persuasion settings. Journal of Marketing, 78 (1), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.11.0504

Skard, S., & Thorbjørnsen, H. (2014). Is publicity always better than advertising? The role of brand reputation in communicating corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 124 (1), 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1863-3

Skarmeas, D., & Leonidou, C. N. (2013). When consumers doubt, watch out! The role of CSR skepticism. Journal of Business Research, 66 (10), 1831–1838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.004

Solomon, M. R. (2017). Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being, global edition . Pearson.

Staats, A. W., & Staats, C. K. (1958). Attitudes established by classical conditioning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 57 (1), 37. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042782

Sujan, M., Bettman, J. R., & Sujan, H. (1986). Effects of consumer expectations on information processing in selling encounters. Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (4), 346–353. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151810

Tessitore, T., & Geuens, M. (2019). Arming consumers against product placement: A comparison of factual and evaluative educational interventions. Journal of Business Research, 95 , 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.09.016

Thibodeau, R., & Aronson, E. (1992). Taking a closer look: Reasserting the role of the self-concept in dissonance theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18 (5), 591–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292185010

Tutaj, K., & Van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2012). Effects of online advertising format and persuasion knowledge on audience reactions. Journal of Marketing Communications, 18 (1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2011.620765

Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Lammers, N., Rozendaal, E., & Buijzen, B. (2015). Disclosing the persuasive nature of advergames: Moderation effects of mood on brand responses via persuasion knowledge. International Journal of Advertising, 34 (1), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2014.993795

Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Rozendaal, E., & Buijzen, M. (2012). Effects of prominence, involvement, and persuasion knowledge on children’s cognitive and affective responses to advergames. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26 (1), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2011.04.005

Vanwesenbeeck, I., Ponnet, K., & Walrave, M. (2016). Go with the flow: How children’s persuasion knowledge is associated with their state of flow and emotions during advergame play. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 15 (1), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1529

Wei, M. L. L., Fischer, E., & Main, K. J. (2008). An examination of the effects of activating persuasion knowledge on consumer response to brands engaging in covert marketing. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 27 (1), 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.27.1.34

Wentzel, D., Tomczak, T., & Herrmann, A. (2010). The moderating effect of manipulative intent and cognitive resources on the evaluation of narrative ads. Psychology and Marketing, 27 (5), 510–530. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20341

Williams, P., Fitzsimons, G. J., & Block, L. G. (2004). When consumers do not recognize “benign” intention questions as persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (3), 540–550. https://doi.org/10.1086/425088

Wood, W. (2000). Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual Review of Psychology, 51 (1), 539–570. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.539

Wright, P., Friestad, M., & Boush, D. M. (2005). The development of marketplace persuasion knowledge in children, adolescents, and young adults. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 24 (2), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.2005.24.2.222

Xie, G. X., & Johnson, J. M. Q. (2015). Examining the third-person effect of baseline omission in numerical comparison: The role of consumer persuasion knowledge. Psychology and Marketing, 32 (4), 438–449. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20790

Zhuang, M., Cui, G., & Peng, L. (2018). Manufactured opinions: The effect of manipulating online product reviews. Journal of Business Research, 87 , 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.02.016

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Marketing & BIS, Rohrer College of Business, Rowan University, Business Hall, Room 367 201 Mullica Hill Rd, Glassboro, NJ, 08028, USA

Vahid Rahmani

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vahid Rahmani .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Rahmani, V. Persuasion knowledge framework: Toward a comprehensive model of consumers’ persuasion knowledge. AMS Rev 13 , 12–33 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-023-00254-6

Download citation

Received : 25 April 2022

Accepted : 20 March 2023

Published : 28 April 2023

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-023-00254-6