Message Sidedness

Health communication is often persuasive in that it attempts to teach new attitudes and behavior, reinforce existing positive or functional attitudes [Page 865]and behavior, or change existing negative health attitudes and behaviors. Important aspects of persuasion are message structure, such as the number and order of arguments in a message or the use of explicit versus implicit conclusions, and message content, such as the use of evidence. One aspect of message content is the style of argumentation within the message. A common approach to varying message content as a means to enhance persuasiveness is through message sidedness.

Message sidedness refers to the content of the propositions within a persuasive appeal. Traditionally, there are three types of message sidedness: one-sided, two-sided nonrefutational, and two-sided refutational messages. One-sided messages are messages that present only those arguments in favor of a given position. Alternatively, a two-sided message presents the arguments in favor of a given position but also offers the opposing perspectives and arguments. The two-sided messages can further be divided into nonrefutational and refutational messages. Two-sided nonrefutational messages present both sides of the argument without discrediting or arguing against counter-persuasive appeals. Conversely, two-sided refutational messages introduce counter-persuasive arguments and dispel them. The intent in addressing counter-persuasive stances is to highlight why they are inferior to the stance being argued by the communicator.

For example, in an exercise campaign messages that only focus on the benefits of exercise are one-sided, as they provide only the propositions in favor of the position. Messages that emphasize the benefits, but also acknowledge limitations or barriers such as limited time, ability, or monetary resources to carry out the exercise program would be considered two-sided nonrefutational messages. The two-sided messages that refute the acknowledged barriers by identifying their limited impact on the behavior or state how to overcome such barriers (i.e., increase efficacy or control) would be considered two-sided refutational appeals.

It might seem counterintuitive to present opinions or negative aspects of the position advocated. Certain researchers have claimed that two-sided refutational arguments should be presented only to those who are likely to hear the opposing arguments in the future, who are likely to have done so in the past, or who are initially opposed to the proposal. These researchers also maintain that one-sided messages should be used with audiences who are less educated or well informed about the topic and those who are initially in favor of the proposal.

However, presenting two-sided arguments has been useful in eliciting positive outcomes, and this is especially the case when negative attributes are well known. In a meta-analysis, two-sided refutational messages were demonstrated to be the most persuasive across topics and contexts, while one-sided messages were more persuasive than two-sided nonrefutational messages. Thus, addressing opposing arguments by refuting them enhances the persuasive appeal of the message in general. However, the process of addressing counterarguments without refuting them attenuates the effectiveness of the persuasive appeal, such that the appeal would be stronger without recognizing the opposing perspectives.