Weak > Strong: the Ironic Effect of Argument Strength on Supportive Advocacy

Omair Akhtar, Stanford University, USA
David Paunesku, Stanford University, USA
Zakary L. Tormala, Stanford University, USA
When people seek support for a cause, they typically present the strongest arguments possible. The current research departs, however, in identifying the conditions under which (and processes through which) presenting weak arguments can motivate greater advocacy and action. Three experiments explore this effect and its parameters.
[ to cite ]:
Omair Akhtar, David Paunesku, and Zakary L. Tormala (2013) ,"Weak > Strong: the Ironic Effect of Argument Strength on Supportive Advocacy", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 41, eds. Simona Botti and Aparna Labroo, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research.