Standpoint Explicitness and Persuasive Effect: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effects of Varying Conclusion Articulation in Persuasive Messages

Abstract

Argumentative explicitness is normatively good, because it opens viewpoints to critical scrutiny. But advocates might justifiably fear that such explicitness will compromise persuasive effectiveness. This meta-analytic review discusses research evidence concerning the persuasive effects of two variations in the articulation of a message's conclusion: one contrasts messages with explicit conclusions against messages from which the conclusion has been omitted; the other contrasts messages providing only a general description of the advocated action against messages providing a more detailed recommendation. Both kinds of conclusion explicitness appear to significantly enhance persuasive effectiveness, which suggests that, insofar as conclusion articulation is concerned, normative and instrumental considerations do not conflict.