立場對立情境之論點贊否模式

Arguments Agreement/Disagreement Model of Counterpositional Situation

劉政宏(Cheng-Hong Liu)

指導教授 ： 張文哲 ； 陳學志

國立臺灣師範大學/教育學院/教育心理與輔導學系/博士(2006年)

摘要

現代社會中，經常可以見到立場對立的意見討論情境。而人在這種情境中，似乎很難進行客觀理性的討論，甚至這種情境也容易引發人際緊張。因此，本研究目的在釐清「立場對立情境中，個體在對另一方提出的論點做贊成或反對判斷時，存在的傾向、影響因素與認知歷程」等相關問題，並希望能依據研究結果提供一些啟示與建議，協助人成為更客觀理性的討論者。
為達成目的，本研究提出「立場對立情境之論點贊否模式」（CSAAM）。在CSAAM中，認為當個體在針對切身相關的議題，與立場對立者進行意見討論時，共有兩條路徑的因素，會影響個體對另一方論點所做出贊成或反對的判斷（論點贊否反應）。第一條路徑是屬於意識層面的處理路徑，指的是論點立場與論點品質等兩類論點性質的影響。在這條路徑中，說明當立場對立者所提出的論點是屬於和個體自身立場一致的「順論點」或是有道理的「強論點」時，皆較會引發個體對論點的贊成傾向；然而若提出的論點是屬於和個體自身立場不一致的「逆論點」或是沒道理的「弱論點」時，則皆較會引發個體對論點的反對傾向。第二條路徑則是屬於自動化的處理路徑，指的是傳送者立場訊息的影響。在這條路徑中，說明立場對立訊息一方面可能透過反感情緒的中介，引發個體對傳送者的反對傾向，而直接影響個體的論點贊否反應；另一方面，立場對立訊息亦可能透過反感情緒的中介，干擾個體對論點品質的處理，使個體傾向把所接收到的論點知覺得較沒有道理，而間接影響論點贊否反應。
整體而言，在過去有關社會判斷與說服的雙路徑模式中，普遍較未強調「自動化處理會與意識處理同時產生影響」以及「自動化處理會對意識處理產生干擾」這樣的概念。然而CSAAM則採取平行路徑取向的觀點，認為就「立場對立情境的論點贊否反應」而言，「立場對立訊息對論點贊否反應的影響」這種自動化處理，會與「論點性質對論點贊否反應的影響」這種意識處理同時並存，而且立場對立訊息亦會自動化對論點品質的處理產生干擾（干擾意識處理）。
本研究透過七個實驗驗證CSAAM。在實驗一中，操弄「論點立場」與「論點品質」兩個受試者內變項。結果發現，這兩類論點性質確實會同時影響受試者的論點贊否反應（即受試者對論點判斷贊成或反對的個數與時間）。此外，後續的調查顯示，受試者對於論點立場的影響，普遍有相當的覺察。
在實驗二與實驗三中，操弄「立場對立」這個受試者間變項。實驗二發現，立場對立訊息確實會引發個體對傳送者產生反感情緒與反對傾向，而對贊否反應產生直接影響。在實驗三中，則進一步透過讓這種影響與意識處理力量彼此對立的實驗設計，驗證了這種影響屬於自動化的處理。
實驗四延續先前實驗的探討，操弄「論點立場」與「論點品質」兩個受試者內變項，以及「立場對立」這個受試者間變項。結果發現，論點性質與立場對立訊息對論點贊否反應的影響確實會同時並存，而且立場對立訊息亦會對論點品質處理產生干擾，間接對論點贊否反應產生影響。
實驗五、實驗六與實驗七則延續實驗四，除了操弄「論點立場」與「論點品質」兩個受試者內變項以及「立場對立」這個受試者間變項之外，更分別操弄「監控提醒」、「分心作業」與「時間壓力」等三個受試者間變項，目的在由CSAAM整體的角度，進一步驗證論點性質的影響確實屬於意識處理，而立場對立訊息的直接與間接影響則屬於自動化處理。實驗五發現，論點立場的影響屬於意識處理，因此也較會受到監控提醒的修正，而立場對立訊息的直接與間接影響則屬於自動化處理，因此也較不容易受到監控提醒的修正。然而實驗五並未發現監控提醒有促進論點品質影響的效果。實驗六與實驗七則發現，雖然細部結果未完全符合預測，但大致仍支持論點性質的影響屬於意識處理，因此也較會被分心作業或時間壓力所干擾，而立場對立訊息的影響則屬於自動化處理，因此也較不會受到分心作業或時間壓力的干擾，而產生變化。
整體來說，CSAAM的概念大致獲得了實驗資料的支持。本研究依據研究發現，提出結果應用與未來研究的建議。

關鍵字

立場對立情境之論點贊否模式 ； 自動化處理 ； 意識處理 ； 論點立場 ； 論點品質

並列摘要

The purpose of this study was to clarify the response tendency, influencing factors, and cognitive processes in people who make agreement/disagreement judgments on other’s arguments in a counterpositional situation.
An Arguments Agreement/Disagreement Model in Counterpositional Situation (CSAAM) was proposed. This model argues that when an individual discusses with a counterpositional communicator on some relevant issues, this person’s argument agreement/disagreement responses could be influenced via two routes. The first route is a conscious process, which involves the influences of two argument properties: the argument position and argument quality. When the counterpositional communicator’ arguments are propositional or strong, an agreement tendency would be elicited. When the arguments are counterpositional or weak, on the other hand, a disagreement tendency would be elicited. The second route is an automatic process, which involves the influence of the counterpositional message of the communicator. In this route the counterpositional message could directly elicit disagreement tendency through emotional reactance. In addition, the counterpositional message could interfere with the message recipient’s processing of argument quality, making him perceive the arguments as weaker and thus influencing his agreement/disagreement responses indirectly.
The dual-process models of social judgment and persuasion in the past seldom emphasized the possibility of co-occurrence of automatic and conscious processing. Neither did they point out that the automatic processing might interfere with the conscious processing. The CSAAM proposed in the present study adopted an approach of parallel routes, claiming that the automatic processing of the counterpositional message of communicators and the conscious processing of the argument property could co-occur and that the counterpositional message of communicators could interfere with the processing of the argument quality automatically.
The CSAAM was tested with seven experiments. In Experiment 1, the factors of argument position and argument quality were manipulated. The results showed that the two argument properties could influence the argument agreement/disagreement responses simultaneously. Further survey also showed that subjects were aware of the influence of argument position.
In Experiment 2 and 3, the counterposition of communicators was manipulated. The results of Experiment 2 demonstrated that counterpositional message of communicators could elicit reactance and a disagreement tendency. The results of Experiment 3 further supported the prediction that the influence of counterpositional message is automatic and this influence could attenuate the influence from conscious processing.
Experiment 4 extended the foregoing experiments and manipulated argument position, argument quality, and counterposition of communicator simultaneously. The results showed that the counterpositional message and the argument property could affect the recipient’s argument agreement /disagreement responses at the same time. Besides, the counterpositional message of communicators could interfere with the recipient’s judgment of the argument quality.
Experiment 5, 6, and 7 extended the findings of Experiment 4 by manipulating the three variables in Experiment 4 and monitoring reminding, distraction task or pressure of time. These experiments aimed at examining whether the influence of the argument property was conscious and whether the direct and indirect influences of counterpositional message of communicator were automatic. Experiment 5 found that the influence of argument position was conscious, so the influence could be corrected by monitoring reminding. It was also found that the influence of counterpositional message of communicators was automatic, so the direct and indirect influences could not be completely corrected. Nevertheless, Experiment 5 did not show the facilitating effect of monitoring reminding on the influence of argument quality. Although the results in Experiment 6 and 7 did not fully support the predictions, it was demonstrated that the influence of argument property was conscious, so the influence would be interfered by distraction task and pressure of time. It was also demonstrated that the influences of counterpositional message of communicators were automatic, so the influences would not change by distraction task and pressure of time.
In conclusion, the concepts of CSAAM were generally supported by the empirical data. Some suggestions for possible applications and future research were provided on the basis of the findings.

並列關鍵字

arguments agreement/disagreement model of counterpositional situation (CSAAM) ； automatic processing ； conscious processing ； argument position ； argument quality

參考文獻

楊正平（民93）：排名文化何時滅？關於排名的社會觀察，人本教育札記，177期，32-37頁。

Ross, L., & Ward, A. (1996). Na?ve realism in everyday life: Implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. In E. S. Reed, E. Turiel, & T. Brown (Eds.), Values and knowledge (pp. 103-135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Carter, R. F., & Simpson, R. (1970). Cited in P. Clarke (Ed.), New models for mass communication research (pp. 27-28). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Albarrac?n, 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.

Allyn, J., & Festinger, L. (1961). The effectiveness unanticipated persuasive communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 35-40.