作为态度抵抗技巧的反争论和源减损的感知

IF 2.3 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology Pub Date : 2020-09-19 DOI:10.1002/jts5.74
Geoffrey D. Munro, Joseph A. Lesko, Zakary Clements, Antonia Santoro, Jeffrey Tsai
{"title":"作为态度抵抗技巧的反争论和源减损的感知","authors":"Geoffrey D. Munro,&nbsp;Joseph A. Lesko,&nbsp;Zakary Clements,&nbsp;Antonia Santoro,&nbsp;Jeffrey Tsai","doi":"10.1002/jts5.74","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>People often remotely observe when others resist and reject persuasive messages. Two studies examined participants' perceptions of two strategies, counterarguing and source derogation that people commonly use when resisting persuasive attempts. Additionally, the target resisted a message with which the participants either agreed or disagreed (Studies 1 and 2) and one which contained either strong or weak logic (Study 2). In both studies the strategy of source derogation was evaluated more negatively than counterarguing. Additionally, participants evaluated the target more negatively when he resisted a message with which the participants agreed, even when the target resisted using counterarguing or strong logic. The implications of these different perceptions of attitude resistance techniques is discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":36271,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology","volume":"4 4","pages":"194-204"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/jts5.74","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perceptions of counterarguing and source derogation as attitude resistance techniques\",\"authors\":\"Geoffrey D. Munro,&nbsp;Joseph A. Lesko,&nbsp;Zakary Clements,&nbsp;Antonia Santoro,&nbsp;Jeffrey Tsai\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jts5.74\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>People often remotely observe when others resist and reject persuasive messages. Two studies examined participants' perceptions of two strategies, counterarguing and source derogation that people commonly use when resisting persuasive attempts. Additionally, the target resisted a message with which the participants either agreed or disagreed (Studies 1 and 2) and one which contained either strong or weak logic (Study 2). In both studies the strategy of source derogation was evaluated more negatively than counterarguing. Additionally, participants evaluated the target more negatively when he resisted a message with which the participants agreed, even when the target resisted using counterarguing or strong logic. The implications of these different perceptions of attitude resistance techniques is discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36271,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology\",\"volume\":\"4 4\",\"pages\":\"194-204\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/jts5.74\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jts5.74\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jts5.74","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

人们经常远程观察别人何时抵制和拒绝有说服力的信息。两项研究调查了参与者对两种策略的看法,即反驳和来源减损,人们在抵制说服性尝试时通常使用这两种策略。此外,目标拒绝参与者同意或不同意的信息(研究1和2),以及包含强或弱逻辑的信息(研究2)。在这两项研究中,源贬损策略的评价比反驳策略更消极。此外,当被试拒绝被试同意的信息时,即使被试拒绝使用反驳或强有力的逻辑,被试对被试的评价也会更消极。讨论了这些对态度抵抗技巧的不同看法的含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Perceptions of counterarguing and source derogation as attitude resistance techniques

People often remotely observe when others resist and reject persuasive messages. Two studies examined participants' perceptions of two strategies, counterarguing and source derogation that people commonly use when resisting persuasive attempts. Additionally, the target resisted a message with which the participants either agreed or disagreed (Studies 1 and 2) and one which contained either strong or weak logic (Study 2). In both studies the strategy of source derogation was evaluated more negatively than counterarguing. Additionally, participants evaluated the target more negatively when he resisted a message with which the participants agreed, even when the target resisted using counterarguing or strong logic. The implications of these different perceptions of attitude resistance techniques is discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology
Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology Psychology-Social Psychology
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
期刊最新文献
Differential Pattern of Consequences of Self-Compassion Across Gender Individual and Contextual Factors Associated With the Prevention of Corruption: A Qualitative Study Among Iranian Public Employees Navigating the Role of Emotional Health and Positive Life Outlook on Work-Life Balance in Professional Married Women Atmosphere at Briefing Sessions and Its Influence on Local Residents’ Intention to Participate in Discussion Exploring the (Mal)adaptive Consequences of Self-Deceptive Enhancement: A Narrative Review
×
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