多数人与少数人对说服性信息的共识的大小与强度:从影响力的来源到接受者

IF 2 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL International Review of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2019-04-18 DOI:10.5334/IRSP.40
Stamos Papastamou, G. Prodromitis
{"title":"多数人与少数人对说服性信息的共识的大小与强度:从影响力的来源到接受者","authors":"Stamos Papastamou, G. Prodromitis","doi":"10.5334/IRSP.40","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study examines the effects of the evaluation of the majority or minority consensus attributed to a message on the influence the latter can exert, in a between subjects factorial design 2 (consensus status: majority vs minority) × 3 (orientation of the consensus evaluation: non-evaluation, size evaluation, intensity evaluation). Its innovative aspect consists in its explicit focus on participants’ evaluation of the intensity and size of the support allegedly attributed to the message of the source. The main results show that with regard to direct influence: a) in a non-evaluation condition, the majority consensus tends to be more influential than the minority consensus, whereas in the intensity evaluation condition, the minority consensus is the most influential; b) the impact of minority consensus increases when its intensity is evaluated compared to the non-evaluation condition. Regarding the indirect influence: a) the non-evaluation of the majority consensus favors its impact compared to that obtained by the minority consensus, but b) the evaluation conditions make this difference fade away, by decreasing the influence of majority consensus while increasing that of minority consensus. We discuss the significance and the limitations of these results, which seem to put aside the barriers usually encountered by the sources of influence (diminished direct influence for the minority and restricted indirect influence for the majority).","PeriodicalId":45461,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Size Versus Intensity of Majority and Minority Consensus to a Persuasive Message: From the Source of Influence to Its Recipients\",\"authors\":\"Stamos Papastamou, G. Prodromitis\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/IRSP.40\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study examines the effects of the evaluation of the majority or minority consensus attributed to a message on the influence the latter can exert, in a between subjects factorial design 2 (consensus status: majority vs minority) × 3 (orientation of the consensus evaluation: non-evaluation, size evaluation, intensity evaluation). Its innovative aspect consists in its explicit focus on participants’ evaluation of the intensity and size of the support allegedly attributed to the message of the source. The main results show that with regard to direct influence: a) in a non-evaluation condition, the majority consensus tends to be more influential than the minority consensus, whereas in the intensity evaluation condition, the minority consensus is the most influential; b) the impact of minority consensus increases when its intensity is evaluated compared to the non-evaluation condition. Regarding the indirect influence: a) the non-evaluation of the majority consensus favors its impact compared to that obtained by the minority consensus, but b) the evaluation conditions make this difference fade away, by decreasing the influence of majority consensus while increasing that of minority consensus. We discuss the significance and the limitations of these results, which seem to put aside the barriers usually encountered by the sources of influence (diminished direct influence for the minority and restricted indirect influence for the majority).\",\"PeriodicalId\":45461,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Review of Social Psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Review of Social Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/IRSP.40\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/IRSP.40","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究考察了在受试者之间的析因设计2(共识状态:多数与少数)×3(共识评估的方向:非评估、规模评估、强度评估)中,对归因于信息的多数或少数共识的评估对后者可能施加的影响的影响。它的创新之处在于,它明确侧重于参与者对据称归因于消息来源的支持的强度和规模的评估。主要结果表明,就直接影响而言:a)在非评价条件下,多数共识往往比少数共识更有影响力,而在强度评价条件下少数共识的影响力最大;b) 与非评估条件相比,当评估其强度时,少数群体共识的影响增加。关于间接影响:a)与少数人共识相比,不评估多数人共识有利于其影响,但b)评估条件通过减少多数人共识的影响,同时增加少数人共识的影响力,使这种差异逐渐消失。我们讨论了这些结果的意义和局限性,这些结果似乎抛开了影响力来源通常遇到的障碍(少数人的直接影响力减弱,多数人的间接影响力受限)。
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
Size Versus Intensity of Majority and Minority Consensus to a Persuasive Message: From the Source of Influence to Its Recipients
This study examines the effects of the evaluation of the majority or minority consensus attributed to a message on the influence the latter can exert, in a between subjects factorial design 2 (consensus status: majority vs minority) × 3 (orientation of the consensus evaluation: non-evaluation, size evaluation, intensity evaluation). Its innovative aspect consists in its explicit focus on participants’ evaluation of the intensity and size of the support allegedly attributed to the message of the source. The main results show that with regard to direct influence: a) in a non-evaluation condition, the majority consensus tends to be more influential than the minority consensus, whereas in the intensity evaluation condition, the minority consensus is the most influential; b) the impact of minority consensus increases when its intensity is evaluated compared to the non-evaluation condition. Regarding the indirect influence: a) the non-evaluation of the majority consensus favors its impact compared to that obtained by the minority consensus, but b) the evaluation conditions make this difference fade away, by decreasing the influence of majority consensus while increasing that of minority consensus. We discuss the significance and the limitations of these results, which seem to put aside the barriers usually encountered by the sources of influence (diminished direct influence for the minority and restricted indirect influence for the majority).
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
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Review of Social Psychology (IRSP) is supported by the Association pour la Diffusion de la Recherche Internationale en Psychologie Sociale (A.D.R.I.P.S.). The International Review of Social Psychology publishes empirical research and theoretical notes in all areas of social psychology. Articles are written preferably in English but can also be written in French. The journal was created to reflect research advances in a field where theoretical and fundamental questions inevitably convey social significance and implications. It emphasizes scientific quality of its publications in every area of social psychology. Any kind of research can be considered, as long as the results significantly enhance the understanding of a general social psychological phenomenon and the methodology is appropriate.
期刊最新文献
Sunk Cost Effects for Time Versus Money: Replication and Extensions Registered Report of Soman (2001) Collective Behaviours: Mediation Mechanisms Underlying the Influence of Descriptive and Injunctive Norms An Unfinished Chapter: The Impact of Belgians’ Social Representations of Colonialism on their Present-Day Attitudes Towards Congolese People Living in Belgium How Neoliberal are You? Development and Validation of the Neoliberal Orientation Questionnaire Group Dominance, System Justification, and Hostile Classism: The Ideological Roots of the Perceived Socioeconomic Humanity Gap That Upholds the Income Gap
×
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