Counterarguing and attitude accessibility were shown to be distinct tracks en route to resistance but, to an even greater extent, they embody overlapping processes in that threat enhances base involvement levels, which fuels counterarguing, and both threat and elicited involvement contribute directly (and involvement indirectly through attitude certainty) to attitude accessibility.

Michael Pfau, Josh Compton, Kimberly Parker, Elaine Wittenberg, Chasu An, et al.

https://academic.oup.com/hcr/article-abstract/30/3/329/4331502?redirectedFrom=fulltext

This investigation compared the traditional explanation for the way inoculation confers resistance to influence with an alternative rationale for resistance based on attitude accessibility. Four hundred forty-three participants took part in the investigation in four phases spanning 54 days. The combined multiple regression and structural equation modeling results suggest that the traditional and alternative explanations for the way that inoculation confers resistance involve separate processes; counterarguing and accessibility appear to be distinct tracks en route to resistance, but the two explanations also are overlapping processes in which elicited threat plays an integral role.

Pfau, M., Compton, J., Parker, K. A., Wittenberg, E. M., An, C., Ferguson, M., Horton, H., & Malyshev, Y. (2004). The traditional explanation for resistance versus attitude accessibility: Do they trigger distinct or overlapping processes of resistance? Human Communication Research, 30(3), 329-360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00735.x