Persuasion by numbers: How does numeral marking of arguments in bad news letters influence persuasion?

IF 1.7 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Writing Research Pub Date : 2018-06-01 DOI:10.17239/JOWR-2018.10.01.03
Daniël Janssen, F. Jansen
{"title":"Persuasion by numbers: How does numeral marking of arguments in bad news letters influence persuasion?","authors":"Daniël Janssen, F. Jansen","doi":"10.17239/JOWR-2018.10.01.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To what extent does numbering the reasons for a negative decision influence the persuasive force of the text? That is the focus of this study, in which we report an experiment (with 265 participants) wherein the direct effects and the indirect effects of numeral markings are analyzed in two linguistic contexts: in the introduction of the upcoming enumeration of reasons (the so-called ‘trigger’) and in the lead-ins of the successive reasons of the enumeration itself. The experiment was conducted within the framework of the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty and Cacioppo, 1984) and the Schematic Text Structural Expectations Hypothesis (Sanders and Noordman, 2000; Mulder, 2008). Adding numeral markers in both trigger and lead-ins turns out to enhance the persuasiveness of the text in several ways. It stimulates readers to elaborate more on the content of the reasons. It helps readers to scrutinize the reasons and stimulates recall, which contributes to a more balanced judgment. The markings also have a direct positive effect on persuasiveness, which points to an effect on low elaborating readers. Furthermore, inconsistent implementation of numeral markings (the combination of a numeral trigger with non-numeral lead-ins or a non-numeral trigger with numeral lead-ins) has a negative indirect effect on persuasiveness via text evaluation. This effect is explained by assuming that the Schematic Text Structural Expectations Hypothesis not only applies to text processing, but to text evaluation as well.","PeriodicalId":45632,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Writing Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.17239/JOWR-2018.10.01.03","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Writing Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17239/JOWR-2018.10.01.03","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To what extent does numbering the reasons for a negative decision influence the persuasive force of the text? That is the focus of this study, in which we report an experiment (with 265 participants) wherein the direct effects and the indirect effects of numeral markings are analyzed in two linguistic contexts: in the introduction of the upcoming enumeration of reasons (the so-called ‘trigger’) and in the lead-ins of the successive reasons of the enumeration itself. The experiment was conducted within the framework of the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty and Cacioppo, 1984) and the Schematic Text Structural Expectations Hypothesis (Sanders and Noordman, 2000; Mulder, 2008). Adding numeral markers in both trigger and lead-ins turns out to enhance the persuasiveness of the text in several ways. It stimulates readers to elaborate more on the content of the reasons. It helps readers to scrutinize the reasons and stimulates recall, which contributes to a more balanced judgment. The markings also have a direct positive effect on persuasiveness, which points to an effect on low elaborating readers. Furthermore, inconsistent implementation of numeral markings (the combination of a numeral trigger with non-numeral lead-ins or a non-numeral trigger with numeral lead-ins) has a negative indirect effect on persuasiveness via text evaluation. This effect is explained by assuming that the Schematic Text Structural Expectations Hypothesis not only applies to text processing, but to text evaluation as well.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
数字说服:坏消息信件中论点的数字标记如何影响说服?
对否定决定的原因进行编号在多大程度上影响了文本的说服力?这就是本研究的重点,在该研究中,我们报告了一项实验(有265名参与者),其中数字标记的直接影响和间接影响在两种语言背景下进行了分析:引入即将到来的原因列举(所谓的“触发”)和列举本身的连续原因。该实验是在精化可能性模型(Petty和Cacioppo,1984)和图解文本结构预期假设(Sanders和Noordman,2000;Mulder,2008)的框架内进行的。在触发语和引导语中添加数字标记可以从几个方面增强文本的说服力。它刺激读者对原因的内容进行更多的阐述。它有助于读者仔细审查原因,并激发回忆,这有助于更平衡的判断。标记对说服力也有直接的积极影响,这表明对低细节读者的影响。此外,数字标记的不一致实现(数字触发器与非数字前导的组合或非数字触发器与数字前导的结合)通过文本评估对说服力产生了负面的间接影响。假设图式文本结构期望假说不仅适用于文本处理,也适用于文本评价,可以解释这种效应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Writing Research
Journal of Writing Research EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
16
审稿时长
40 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Writing Research is an international peer reviewed journal that publishes high quality theoretical, empirical, and review papers covering the broad spectrum of writing research. The Journal primarily publishes papers that describe scientific studies of the processes by which writing is produced or the means by which writing can be effectively taught. The journal is inherently cross-disciplinary, publishing original research in the different domains of writing research. The Journal of Writing Research is an open access journal (no reader fee - no author fee).
期刊最新文献
Book review | Technology in second language writing: Advances in composing, translation, writing pedagogy and data-driven learning Fleshing out your text: How elaboration and contextualization moves differentially predict writing quality Thinking outside the box: Senior scientists’ metacognitive strategy knowledge and self-regulation of writing for science communication Synthesis Writing in Science Orientation Classes: An Instructional Design Studio Advancing Civics-specific Disciplinary Writing in the Elementary Grades issue
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1