CrabHao火雲豪

One demonstration of this effect can be seen in variations in inquiries at breast cancer detection clinics. For a number of years there has been widespread dissemination of the relevant statistical information concerning the importance of early detection, the cure rates associated with early detection, the desirability of regular mammograms, and the like. However (as noticed by Nisbett, Borgida, Crandall, & Reed, 1976), it takes the occurrence of well-publicized individual cases demonstrating the importance of early detection (e.g., Betty Ford, Nancy Reagan) for inquiries at detection clinics to be increased sub­stantially.

關於這種效果的論證，可被視為在乳癌探測診所中詢問的變數，經過幾年的時間，早期檢測乳癌的重要性已經廣為流傳，早期檢測、定期x光乳房攝影等項目與治癒率有相關聯性。然而，卻需要做一些個案案例的妥適宣傳以顯現早期檢測的重要性，後來在乳癌探測診所中詢問的人數獲得提昇。

Examples seem to have particularly robust effects on persuasion. Bridges and Reinard (1974), for instance, found that, of various types of argument, argument by example proved the least vulnerable to subsequent refutation; Koballa (1986) found that attitudes induced by case history information were less susceptible to decay (were more stable over time) than were attitudes induced by data summary information; and it seems that case history informa­tion can have a substantial impact even if receivers are told that the example is an atypical, unrepresentative one (Hamill, Wilson, & Nisbett, 1980). In short, the example seems to be a particularly powerful form of information, especially when compared to information in statistical summary form.

案例顯示在說服上的強力的效果，例如Bridges and Reinard (1974)發現不同類型的論點，由實例來證實隨後最完整無缺的反駁。Koballa (1986)發現被病歷資料所誘導的態度比起被資料摘要所誘導的態度較不易動搖(經過一些時間會更加堅定)，即使告訴受眾相關的病歷資料是非常態且不具代表性，受眾仍然會受影響。簡單來說，案例是一種有特別強而有力的資訊模式，尤其是與統計數據相比較的時候。

SEQUENTIAL-REQUEST STRATEGIES

Substantial research has been conducted concerning the effectiveness of two sequential-request influence strategies, the" foot-in-the-door" strategy and the "door-in-the-face" strategy. In each strategy, the request that the communicator is primarily interested in (commonly termed the "critical" request) is preceded by some other request; the question of interest is how compliance with the critical request is affected by the presence of the preceding request.

肆、連續請求策略

接下來的研究是有關於兩種連續請求策略的效力，那就是“FOOT-IN-THE-DOOR”策略及“DOOR-IN-THE-FACE”策略。在每一項策略裡，溝通者最感興趣的請求(通常叫做最關鍵的請求)都置於其他請求之後，至於關鍵性的問題如何受到關注，端視其它先前的問題為如何呈現而定。

FOOT-IN- THE-DOOR

THE STRATEGY The foot-in-the-door (FITD) strategy consists of initially making a small request of the receiver, which the receiver grants, and then making the (larger) critical request. The hope is that, having gotten one's foot in the door, the second (critical) request will be looked on more favorably by the receiver. The question is, then: Will receivers be more likely to grant a second request if they've already granted an initial, smaller request? And if so, under what conditions will this occur?

一、FOOT-IN-THE-DOOR(得寸進尺)

(一)               策略：

指的是先對受眾提出小的請求，當受眾答應後再提出關鍵性(大的)的請求，他的原理就是，當你先踏進別人的家裡後，要再提出第二個(關鍵性)的請求就更加容易了；問題是當受眾接受最初較小的請求後，他是不是就更容易答應隨後的(關鍵的)請求。如果是的話，在什麼樣的條件下，這樣的情形會發生呢？

THE RESEARCH EVIDENCE The research evidence suggests that this FITD strategy will, at least sometimes, enhance compliance with the second (critical) request. For example, in Freedman and Fraser's (1966, Experiment 2) FITD condition, homeowners were initially approached by a member of the "Com­munity Committee for Traffic Safety" or the "Keep California Beautiful Com­mittee." The requester either asked that the receiver display a very small sign in his or her front window ("Be a safe driver" or "Keep California beautiful") or (P169) asked that the receiver sign a petition supporting appropriate legislation (legis­lation that would promote either safer driving or keeping California beautiful). Two weeks later, a different requester (from "Citizens for Safe Driving") approached the receiver, asking if the receiver would be willing to have a large, unattractive "Drive Carefully" sign installed in the front yard for a week. In the control condition, where receivers heard only the large request, fewer than 20% agreed to put the sign in the yard. But in the FITD conditions, over 55% agreed.6 This effect was obtained no matter whether the same topic area was involved in the two requests (safe driving or beautification), and no matter whether the same sort of action was involved (displaying a sign or signing a petition): Even receivers who initially signed the "keep California beautiful" petition were more likely to agree to display the large safe-driving yard sign. As these results suggest, the FITD strategy can have very powerful effects.

(二)研究顯示：

研究資料顯示“FITD策略”至少有些時候，可以強化隨後的(關鍵的)請求被接受的機會，例如Freedman and Fraser's (1966, Experiment 2)對於“FITD策略”的實驗中，「交通安全委員會」或「確保加州美麗委員會」會先行派專員與屋主接觸，專員會提出在屋主前窗貼上「小心駕駛」或「確保加州美麗」的小牌子的要求，或者邀請屋主簽署支持推動相關法案(相關於「小心駕駛」或「確保加州美麗」的法條)。兩個星期後，來自「交通安全委員會」的另一個專員，詢問屋主是否願意在屋前設立一個寫著「小心駕駛」大型但不醒目的牌子一個星期。在控制的情形下，直接提出豎立大型「小心駕駛」宣導牌而成功的機會小於20%，若經運用“FITD”的策略則有55%機會成功。不論是在「小心駕駛」或「確保加州美麗」的主題抑或是在「設立宣導牌」與「簽署支持同意書」都可以獲得這樣的效果。

However, subsequent research has identified several factors that influence just how effective the strategy is (i.e., the size of the effect that the strategy has). First, if the FITD strategy is to be successful, there must be no obvious external justification for complying with the initial request (Dillard, Hunter, & Burgoon, 1984). For example, if receivers are given some financial reward in exchange for complying with the first request, then the FITD strategy isn't very success­ful. Second, the larger the first request (presuming it is agreed to by the receiver), the more successful the FITD strategy (Fern, Monroe, & Avila, 1986). Third, the FITD strategy appears to be more successful if the receiver actually performs the action requested in the initial request, as opposed to simply agreeing to perform the action (Beaman, Cole, Preston, KIentz, & Steblay, 1983; Fern et aI., 1986; compare Dillard et aI., 1984). Fourth, the FITD strategy is more effective when the requests come from institutions that might provide some benefit to the community at large (e.g., civic or environmental groups) as opposed to profit-seeking organizations (Dillard et al., 1984).

然而，以下的研究確認了幾個影響這種策略效果的因素。首先，如果要“FITD策略”成功，關鍵性的請求與之前較小的請求之間不可以有過於明顯的關聯；例如，如果受眾因為先前的允諾而接受金錢上的餽贈，則“FITD策略”可能就不會很成功；再來，第一個請求愈大(假設受眾同意)，則“FITD策略”就可能愈成功；第三，如果受眾真的履行第一次請求的承諾，則“FITD策略” 就很可能成功；第四，如果這個請求是來自於當對大眾有益的公共機構在對抗營利事業時，則“FITD策略”會愈有效。

Notably, there are several factors that apparently do not affect the success of the FITD strategy. The time interval between the two requests appears not to make a difference (Beaman et al., 1983; Dillard et al., 1984; Fern et aI., 1986); for example, Cann, Sherman, and Elkes (1975) obtained equivalent FITD effects with no delay between the two requests and with a delay of 7-10 days. Similarly, it doesn't appear to matter whether the same person makes the two requests (Fern et al., 1986).

另外，有一些因素是無法影響 “FITD策略”的效果；例如兩個請求間的時間間隔長短是不會影響“FITD策略”的效果， Cann, Sherman, and Elkes (1975)發現在兩個請求之間完全沒有時間間隔與間隔7-10天，兩種之間“FITD策略”的效果並沒有差別。相同的，是否由同一個人所做的兩個請求也並不影響“FITD策略”的效果。

EXPLAINING FITD EFFECTS

The most popular explanation for FITD effects is based on self-perception processes (for a brief statement, see Freed­man & Fraser, 1966; a more extensive discussion is provided by Dejong, 1979). Briefly, the explanation is that compliance with the first request leads receivers to make inferences about themselves; in particular, initial compliance is taken to enhance receivers' conceptions of their helpfulness, cooperativeness, and the like. These enhanced self-perceptions, in turn, are thought to increase the probability that the second request will be agreed to.

(三)解釋“FITD策略”的效果

對於“FITD策略”效果的解釋，最被接受的解釋是基於「自我期許過程」；簡單的說，當你承諾了第一個請求時會導引受眾去推論自己，特別是先前的承諾是去強化自己是樂於助人的、樂意合作的等特質；當強化這類「自我期許過程」的特質後，就大幅增加隨後的(關鍵的)請求成功的機會。

In some ways, the observed limiting conditions (on the FITD effect) are quite consistent with this self-perception explanation. For example, the presence of an external justification for initial compliance obviously undermines enhance­ment of the relevant self-perceptions: If you're being paid money in exchange for agreeing to the initial request, it's more difficult to conclude that you're especially cooperative and helpful just because you agreed. Similarly, the larger the request initially agreed to, the more one's self-perceptions of helpfulness and cooperativeness should be enhanced ("If I'm going along with this big request, without any obvious external justification, then I must really be a pretty nice person, the sort of person who does this sort of thing"). And it's easier to think of oneself as being a helpful, socially minded person when one agrees to requests from civic groups as opposed to marketing firms, or when one actually performs the requested action (as opposed to merely saying one will perform it).

在某些時候，當觀察“FITD策略”效果的限定條件下，和自我期許的解釋完全是前後一致的；例如，對於同意先前請求是基於外在因素，明顯的破壞自我期許的強度。如果一個人因為金錢而交換先前的承諾，那麼就很困難因為他的承諾，而認定他是樂於合作與助人的人了。同樣的，初次的承諾愈大，就愈會強化樂於合作與助人的自我期許(如果我同意了這項大的請求，而沒有外在因素，那麼我必定是一個非常好的人，就是一個會做這類好事的人)；而且，當一個人同意公益機構的請求，以對抗營利事業，或一個人說每一個人都應該去做這一件事，而確實履行承諾時，那就容易認定自己是一個樂於助人、關懷社會的人。

The lack of an effect for the time interval between the requests is sometimes seen as inconsistent with the self-perception explanation (e.g., Dillard et al., 1984). Unfortunately, it's not clear what predictions the self-perception expla­nation would make here. On the one hand, it might be expected that with increasing delay between the two requests, the FITD effect would weaken (because there would be many opportunities, during the time interval, for other events to undermine the self-attributions of helpfulness and cooperativeness). On the other hand, it might be predicted that with increasing delay between the requests, the FITD effect would become stronger (because it takes time for receivers to reflect on the causes of their behavior, and so to make the required self-attributions). Or (as Beaman et aI., 1983, note) it might be that both these processes are at work, and cancel each other out.

兩個請求不同的時間差所形成的缺乏效果，有時候可以被視為是自我期許原因的不一致。不幸地，關於自我期許在此的解釋並不是十分清楚，一方面它可能被認為兩個請求間的時間差愈長，“FITD策略” 的效果愈弱(因為時間一長，會很有機會讓其他事件來破壞樂於助人與樂於合作的自我歸屬)；另一方面，它可能被認為兩個請求間的時間差愈長，“FITD策略”的效果愈強(因為受眾需要時間去仔細考慮，他們之所以做這件事的原因，如此才會形成這必要的自我歸屬)；或者兩者都有其道理，也都互相排擠對方。

To be sure, there are some loose ends for the self-perception explanation of FITD effects. For instance, there have been relatively few efforts at directly assessing receivers' self-perceptions of helpfulness (e.g., Rittle, 1981). At present, however, the self-perception explanation appears to be the best available.

可以確認的是，對於以自我期許來解釋“FITD策略” 的效果，有些尚未努力的地方；例如，很少關於直接評估受眾對於樂於助人的自我期許的相關研究。直到目前為止，自我期許的解釋應該是最為合宜的。

DOOR-IN- THE-FACE

THE STRATEGY The door-in-the-face (DITF) strategy turns the foot-in-the-door strategy on its head. The DITF strategy consists of initially making a large request, which the receiver turns down, and then making the smaller critical request. The question is whether initially having the door closed in one's face will enhance the receiver's compliance with the second request.

二、DOOR-IN-THE-FACE (隱藏企圖)

(一)策略：

DOOR-IN-THE-FACE (隱藏企圖)與FOOT-IN-THE-DOOR(得寸進尺)剛好相反，指的是先對受眾提出大的請求，當受眾拒絕後再提出進一步小的(關鍵性的)請求，重點是不管受眾是否拒絕了第一個請求，都強化受眾答應第二次請求的機會。

THE RESEARCH EVIDENCE

The research indicates that the DITF strategy can, at least sometimes, enhance compliance. That is, receivers will be more likely to agree to a second, smaller request if they have initially turned down a larger first request. For example, in a study reported by Cialdini et al. (1975, Experiment 1), individuals on campus sidewalks were approached by a student who indicated he or she represented the county youth counseling program. In the DITF condition, persons were initially asked to volunteer to spend two hours a week for a minimum or two years as an unpaid counselor at a local juvenile detention center; no One agreed his request. The requester then asked if the person would volunteer to chaperon a group of juveniles from the detention center on a two-hour trip to zoo. Among those in the control condition, who received only the second request, only 17% agreed to chaperone the zoo trip; but among those in the DITF condition, who initially turned down the large request, 50% agreed.

(二)研究顯示

DITF至少有些時候，可以強化成功率，也就是說如果受眾拒絕了第一個較大的請求，比較有可能接受隨後的(關鍵的)請求的機會。例如，Cialdini et al. (1975, Experiment 1)在校園對學生所做的研究，在“DITF(隱藏企圖)”的條件下，徵詢學生擔任為期兩年、每週兩小時的地區少年機構義務諮詢員之意願，結果是沒有人有意願；而後詢問是否有人願意花兩個小時陪伴那些青少年由中心到動物園；在控制的情形下，有17%的人允諾第二個請求；但是經由“DITF(隱藏企圖)”的程序，則有50%的人拒絕第一項而允諾第二項請求。

But the research evidence also suggests that there are some limiting condi­tions on the success of the DITF strategy. One important limiting condition is the size of the time interval between the requests. For DITF strategy to be effective, there must be little or no delay between the two requests (Dillard et aI., 1984; Fern et aI.,1986).For instance, Cann et al. ( 1975) found that the DITF strategy enhanced compliance when the second request immediately followed the first, but not when there was a delay of 7-10 days between the requests. There are also indications that DTTF effects are larger when the same requester makes the two requests (Fern et aI., 1986) and when the requests come from community organizations (e.g., civic groups) rather than from for-profit institutions (Dillard et a1., 1984)

但是研究證據也建議關於“DITF(隱藏企圖)”策略的成功有一些限制的條件，其中有一個重要的限制條件，就是兩個請求之間的時間間隔的大小，如果想要奏效，兩個請求之間最好沒有時間間隔，或間隔很小。例如，Cann et al. ( 1975)發現如果第二個請求緊接著第一個請求，“DITF(隱藏企圖)” 的策略就能成功，但如果間隔7-10天，就不能成功。另外也顯示由同一個請求者做兩次的請求，或當請求來自於社區團體而非營利事業時，“DITF(隱藏企圖)”的效果更大。

EXPLAINING DITF EFFECTs

There have been popular explanations of DITF effects. One is the "reciprocal concessions" explanation (see Cialdini et aI., 1975). This explanation proposes that the successive requests make the situation appear to be one involving bargaining or negotiation--that is, a situation in which a concession by one side is supposed to be reciprocated by the other. Hence, this explanation suggests, when the smaller second request is made, it represents a concession by the requester-and the receiver thus reciprocates ("Okay, you gave in a little bit by making a smaller request, so I'll concede and go along with it").

(三)解釋“DITF(隱藏企圖)”的效果

有兩個對於“DITF(隱藏企圖)”的合理解釋，第一個合理解釋是「相互讓步」，這個解釋認為連續的請求會使得情況像討價還價或是談判的過程，當一方在讓步時另一方也應該在其他地方回報；因此，當請求者提出第二個較小的請求時，也就是受眾因為第一次的拒絕行為在回報的時候(好吧！既然你以提出較小的請求作為讓步的方式，我就答應了)。

A second explanation is the "perceptual contrast" explanation (see R. L. Miller, Seligman, Clark, & Bush, 1976). This explanation suggests that the second request is perceived as smaller than it actually is, because of the "perceptual contrast" with the larger first request. That is, the second request doesn't seem so burdensome as it otherwise might, because it's compared to the larger initial request.

第二個解釋是「知覺的對比」，這個解釋認為第二項請求會讓受眾感覺比實際上來的小，那是因為與第一個請求對比，因為相對來說第一份請求，不是那麼地不堪負荷。

Notice that, for a persuader, it can be important which of these explanations is superior, because the two explanations suggest different points of emphasis in employing the DITF strategy (as pointed out by R. L. Miller et aI., 1976). If the reciprocal concessions explanation is true, the important element in the DITF strategy is the making of a concession. Thus this explanation implies that when using the DITF strategy, the requester should make a point of emphasizing the requester's concession ("Gee, I really wanted to get people for that counseling program. Well, there's this other project less important to me--that I'm also trying to get volunteers for. Would you be willing to chaperone ... "); this places emphasis on what is presumably the key element,namely, the making of a concession. But if the perceptual contrast explanation is true, the key process at work is the contrast between the sizes of the two requests. Hence this explanation suggests that a requester using the DITF strategy should emphasize the smaller size (lessened burden or cost to the receiver) of the second request ("Well, look, if you can't afford to volunteer that much time, how about this other project that will take a lot less of your time?").

值得注意的是，對於一個說服者而言，哪一種解釋最為優先是非常重要的，因為這兩種解釋對於這運用“DITF(隱藏企圖)”的策略有不同的重點。如果「相互讓步」的解釋是對的，那麼“DITF”策略的重點是造成讓步(看吧，我是真的是想要與人協商，對我而言這就是比較不重要的事；另外，我想要一個自願擔任伴護的義工，你願意嗎？)。在這裡置重點為被假設最重要的地方，也就是說，做一個讓步。但是，如果「知覺的對比」的解釋是對的，其中最為重要的過程就是兩個請求間大小的對比。因此，這種解釋認為運用“DITF”策略的請求者應該強調第二個較小的請求，對於受眾的負擔或耗損較小(好吧，如果你無法付出那麼多的時間，那麼另一個對你而言付出較少時間的請求可以嗎？)

Unhappily, neither explanation seems entirely satisfactory. For starters, neither explanation can easily accommodate the observed limiting conditions on DITF effects. From a reciprocal concessions point of view, the time interval between requests presumably shouldn't make much difference, but in fact it does; a perceptual contrast explanation would presumably predict that whether the same person makes the requests wouldn't matter, but in fact it does matter; and neither explanation easily encompasses the finding that DITF effects seem largely limited to requests for civic, humanitarian, or similar nonprofit causes. Moreover, what additional evidence there is (beyond the matter of these limit­ing conditions) doesn't decisively indicate the superiority of either explanation (see, e.g., Cantril] & Seibold, 1986; Goldman, McVeigh, & Richterkessing, 1984).

不幸的，兩種解釋都不夠完整，起初沒有一種解釋可以涵蓋在“DITF”效果所觀察到的限制條件。從「相互讓步」的觀點而言，在兩個請求時間間隔的長短，應該沒有什麼影響，但是實際上卻影響甚鉅；「知覺的對比」的觀點認為，是否由同一個人所做的兩個請求並不影響其效果，但是實際上卻影響甚鉅。另外，沒有一個說法可以完整說明“DITF”的效果似乎嚴重受限於公眾、人道等的非營利事務上；而且，也沒其它證據可以確認哪一種解釋較為合理。

In short, at present it's not clear just what might explain DTTF effects. It's possible that some variation of a reciprocal concessions model or a perceptual contrast model will be successful, or it may be that some other explanatory approach will be needed. But thus far there are not many attractive alternatives (for some possibilities, see Goldman et aI., 1984; Tybout, Sternthal, & Calder, 1983).

簡單來說，目前如何解說“DITF”的效果尚未定論，一些「相互讓步」或「知覺的對比」模式的變數將造成影響是可能的，還需要其它一些解釋的途徑，但是到目前為止，卻少有其它吸引人的替代用法。

CONCLUSION

Researchers have investigated a number of different message characteristics as possible influences on persuasive effectiveness. These message factors are quite varied, ranging from the details of internal message organization (climax versus anticlimax argument order) to the sequencing of multiple messages (as in FITD and DTTF strategies). Indeed, more message characteristics have been studied than could be discussed here, but those described are the more prominent lines of research.

伍、結論：