你贊成或反對立場對立者的論點？立場對立情境之論點贊否模式(CSAAM)

Do You Agree with the Arguments of Counterpositional Communicators? An Arguments Agreement/Disagreement Model of a Counterpositional Situation (CSAAM)

10.6129/CJP.2008.5003.07

劉政宏(Cheng-Hong Liu)；張文哲(Wen-Jer Chang)；陳學志(Hsueh-Chih Chen)；黃博聖(Po-Sheng Huang)

立場對立情境之論點贊否模式CSAAM ； 自動化處理 ； 意識處理 ； 論點立場 ； 論點品質 ； arguments agreement/disagreement model of a counterpositional situation CSAAM ； argument position ； argument quality ； automatic processing ； conscious processing

中華心理學刊

50卷3期（2008 / 09 / 01）

327 - 346

繁體中文

本研究提出「立場對立情境之論點贊否模式」(CSAAM)，來探討「人們會贊成或反對立場對立者所提出論點」的相關問題。CSAAM認為有兩條路徑會同時影響個體贊成或反對所接收的論點：第一條路徑中，若對立者提出的論點「與個體自身立場一致」或「有道理」，較會引發贊成傾向，反之較會引發反對傾向，而此條路徑屬於較意識層面的處理。第二條路徑中，立場對立訊息會經由反感情緒，引發個體對對立者的反對傾向，而此條路徑屬於較自動化的處理。本研究設計三個實驗來對CSAAM進行檢驗。實驗一以48名高中生為參與者，結果發現立場對立訊息會透過反感情緒引發個體的反對傾向，影響個體對對立者相片的贊否反應。實驗二以48名高中生為參與者，結果發現立場對立訊息的影響會減弱意識處理的影響，支持此種影響屬於較自動化的處理。實驗三以32名高中生為參與者，結果發現論點立場與品質等兩類論點性質均會影響論點贊否反應，且此種影響會與立場對立訊息的自動化影響並存。三個實驗結果大致支持了CSAAM。

This study proposed an Arguments Agreement/Disagreement Model of a Counterpositional Situation (CSAAM) to clarify whether people would agree with the arguments of counterpositional communicators? The CSAAM argues that when people make agreement/disagreement judgments about a counterpositional communicator's arguments, the responses would be influenced through two routes simultaneously. The first route is a more conscious process. In this route, when the counterpositional communicator's arguments are propositional or strong, an agreement tendency would be elicited. On the contrary, a disagreement tendency would be elicited. The second route is a more automatic process. In this route, the counterpositional message could directly elicit disagreement tendency through emotional reactance. The CSAAM was tested by 3 experiments. Experiment 1 taking 48 high school students as subjects demonstrated that counterpositional message could elicit reactance and a disagreement tendency, and thus influenced agreement/disagreement responses on the communicator's photo. Experiment 2 taking 48 high school students as subjects further supported the influence of counterpositional message is a more automatic one by showing the understanding of counterposition per se could attenuate the influence from conscious processing. Experiment 3 taking 32 high school students as subjects showed argument position and quality could influence argument agreement/disagreement responses, and the influences would co-occur with the automatic influence of counterpositional message. In conclusion, the concepts of CSAAM were generally supported.

1. Albarracín, D.,Kumkale, G. T.(2003).Affect as information in persuasion: A model of affect identification and discounting.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,84,453-469.
2. Aronson, E.,Wilson, T. D.,Akert, R. M.(1994).Social psychology: The heart and the mind.New York:HarperCollins.
3. Baron, R. M.,Kenny, D. A.(1986).The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51,1173-1182.
4. Brehm, J. W.(1966).A theory of psychological reactance.New York:Academic press.
5. Brehm, S. S.,Brehm, J. W.(1981).Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control.New York:Academic Press.
6. Burgoon, M.,Alvaro, E.,Grandpre, J.,Voulodakis, M.,J. P. Dillard,M. Pfau (Eds.)(2002).The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
7. Carter, R. F.,Simpson, R.,P. Clarke (Ed.)(1970).New models for mass communication research.Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.
8. Chaiken, S.(1980).Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuaion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,39,752-766.
9. Chaiken, S.,Maheswaran, D.(1994).Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,66,460-473.
10. Covington, M. V.(1984).The self-worth theory of achievement motivation: Findings and implications.Elementary School Learning,85,5-20.
11. Covington, M. V.,S. G. Paris,G. M. Olson,H. W. Stenvenson (Eds.)(1983).Learning and Motivation in the Classroom.Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
12. Dunning, D.,Leuenberger, A.,Sherman, D. A.(1995).A new look at motivated inference: Are self-serving theories of success a product of motivational forces?.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,57,1082-1090.
13. Fein, S.,Spencer, S. J.(1997).Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,73,31-44.
14. Gass, R. H.,Seiter, J. S.(1999).Persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining.Needham Heights, MA:Allyn and Bacon.
15. Heider, F.(1958).The psychology of interpersonal relations.New York:Wiley.
16. Jack, J. Z.,O`Brien, M. E.,E. S. Knowles,J. A. Linn (Eds.)(2003).Resistance and persuasion.Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
17. Jones, S. C.(1973).Self-and interpersonal evaluations: Esteem theories versus consistency theories.Psychological Bulletin,79,185-199.
18. Knowles, E. S.,Linn, J. A. (Eds.)(2003).Resistance and persuasion.Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
19. Kruglanski, A. W.(1975).The endogenous-exogenous partition in attribution theory.Psychological Review,82,387-406.
20. Kunda, Z.(1999).Social cognition: Making sense of people.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
21. LeDoux, J.(1996).The emotion brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life.New York:Simon and Schuster.
22. Meyers-Levy, J.,Maheswaran, D.(2004).Exploring message framing outcomes when systematic, heuristic, or both types of processing occur.Journal of Consumer Psychology,14,159-167.
23. O`Keefe, D. J.(2003).Persuasion: Theory and research.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
24. Pennington, D. C.(2000).Social cognition.London:Routledge.
25. Perloff, R. M.(2003).The dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the 21st century.Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
26. Petty, R. E.,Cacioppo, J. T.(1986).Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change.New York:Springer-Verlag.
27. Petty, R. E.,Cacioppo, J. T.(1990).Involvement and persuasion: Tradition versus intergration.Psychological Bulletin,107,367-374.
28. Petty, R. E.,Cacioppo, J. T.(1979).Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,37,1915-1926.
29. Petty, R. E.,Cacioppo, J. T.(1996).Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches.Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
30. Quinn, J. M.,Wood, W.,E. S. Knowles,J. A. Linn (Eds.)(2003).Resistance and persuasion.Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
31. Reeder, G. D.,Pryor, J. B.,Wohl, M. J. A.,Griswell, M. L.(2005).On attributing negative motives to others who disagree with our opinions.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,31,1498-1510.
32. Ross, L.,Ward, A.,E. S. Reed,E. Turiel,T. Brown (Eds.)(1996).Values and knowledge.Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
33. Simon, H. A.(1955).A behavioral model of rational choice.Quarterly Journal of Economics,69,99-118.
34. Simons, H. W.,Morreale, J.,Gronbeck, B.(2001).Persuasion in society.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
35. Stiff, J. B.,Mongeau, P. A.(2003).Persuasive communication.New York:Guilford Press.
36. Taylor, S. E.,Peplau, L. A.,Sears, D. O.(1997).Social psychology.Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.
37. Wegener, D. T.,Petty, R. E.,Smoak, N. D.,Fabrigar, L. R.,E. S. Knowles,J. A. Linn (Eds.)(2003).Resistance and persuasion.Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
38. Wood, W.,Kallgren, C. A.,Preisler, R. M.(1985).Access to attitude-relevant information in memory as a determinant of persuasion: The role of message attributes.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,21,73-85.
39. Zajonc, R. B.(1980).Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences.American Psychologist,35,151-175.
40. Zuwerink, J. R.,Devine, P. G.(1996).Attitude importance and resistance to persuasion: It`s not just the thought that counts.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,70,931-944.
41. 陳友琦、孫蒨如(1999)。心情、訊息架構與論點品質對說服效果的影響。應用心理學報，7，41-55。

1. 黃惠萍(2016)。公民團體倡議策略與論述分析：以臺灣動物社會研究會反海豹油個案為例。傳播研究與實踐，6(2)，243-283。
2. 黃金蘭,林以正,仲傳仁(2022)。觀點取替對態度極化的緩解作用：中介及遷移效果分析。教育心理學報，54(2)，283-306。
3. 劉政宏(2009)。對學習行為最有影響力的動機成分？雙核心動機模式之初探。教育心理學報，41(2)，361-383。
4. 劉政宏(2012)。雙核心動機模式測量指標的建立及跨年級的檢驗。教育心理學報，43(3)，633-656。
5. 劉政宏、陳學志、張文哲、張仁和(2011)。論點立場與品質對高中生論點贊否反應影響的意識處理機制。教育心理學報，42(3)，491-516。