CrabHao火雲豪

★本著作權為原譯者所有，請尊重智慧財產權! ★

譯者:盧守謙

THIS CHAPTER REVIEWS research concerning the effects that selected mes­sage variations have on persuasion. The message factors discussed are grouped into three broad categories: message structure, message content, and sequential­ request strategies.

壹、前言：

本章研究探討關於選擇性訊息的不同對於說服的影響，探討訊息因素可以歸類訊息結構、訊息內容以及連續請求的策略等三大部分。

MESSAGE STRUCTURE

Two structural features of persuasive messages have been investigated for Their possible effects on persuasive outcomes. One concerns the order of arguments in the message; the other concerns the nature of the message's Conclusion.

貳、訊息結構：

說服性的訊息有兩個關於說服性結果可能影響的結構特色，一部份討論訊息中論點的順序，另一部份關注於訊息結論的特性。

CLIMAX VERSUS ANTI-CLIMAX ORDER OF ARGUMENTS

Where should a persuader put the message's most important arguments? One possibility is to save them for last, thereby building to a strong finish; but another possibility is to put the most important arguments first, to be sure they aren't missed. There have been several studies of the relative effectiveness of these two ways of ordering arguments in a message - the climax order (most important arguments last) and the anticlimax order (most important arguments first). In these investigations, the relative importance of different arguments was assessed in pretests (by obtaining ratings of argument importance), and the experimental messages devoted relatively more time or space to the more important arguments than to less important ones.

一、倒吃甘蔗(上坡式climax)與開門見山(下坡式anti-climax)等兩種呈現論點的方式

勸說者應該把最重要的訊息爭論點放在那裡？一種可能是將它置於最後面，如此可以建立一個強而有力的結尾，另一種可能性就是將它放在起點處，以確保不被忽略；有許多關於前後呈現論證效果的研究-將重點置於最後面以及將重點置於最前面，在這些調查的過程中，可以在前測中藉由論點重要性的認定估算不同論述的相對重要性，比起較不重要的論述，在實驗的訊息中，對於較為重要的論述相對提供更多的時間與空間。

As it turns out, the choice between these two ways of arranging the argu­ments in a message seems to be of little consequence; varying the order makes very little difference indeed to overall persuasive effectiveness (Gilkinson, Paulson, & Sikkink, 1954; Gulley & BerIo, 1956; Sikkink, 1956; Sponberg, 1946; for a related study, see Cromwell, 1950, Experiment 2). In the one report of a statistically significant difference between the two orders (Gilkinson et a1. 1954, Experiment 2), the climax order was more persuasive; and where nonsig­nificant differences have been found the direction of effect has generally (but not always) favored the climax order, but in every case the observed differences are quite small. Perhaps the most sensible conclusion to draw is that there might, on average, be some extremely small benefit to be obtained from arranging arguments in a climax order, but this benefit is so small as to be negligible.

結果在這兩種安排論述順序的模式的之間的選擇，似乎尚未有定論，改變論述重點的順序，對於整體說服效果並未有明顯的影響；在一份關於兩種順序不同重要性的統計報告中證明，上坡式的論述方式較具說服性；對於整體的說服效果言，改變論述順序僅造成一些影響，通常重要論述放置最前方較具說服力，但是其效果的差異性並不十分顯著；因此，合理的結論就是，就平均數而言，以上坡式的方式安置重要論述的位置將獲得小量的影響，而這影響小到幾乎可以被忽略。

It will be useful to bear in mind, however, that the particulars of a persuasive circumstance may suggest that one or another way of arranging arguments will be greatly superior. Consider, for example, appellate oral argument in U.S. courts (e.g., the Supreme Court). An attorney will commonly have a specified amount of time (perhaps 20 or 30 minutes) in which to present arguments. However, the judges are free to break in at any time with questions and counterarguments, and experienced attorneys know that they are not likely to be able to make an uninterrupted presentation. As should be plain, an attorney who plans on saving the most important arguments for last may never get the chance to present those arguments. In this' setting, then, an advocate should employ an anticlimax order - placing the most important arguments at the beginning of the presentation - rather than a climax order.

然而，不可忘記的是，說服環境的特殊情況認為，另一種安排論點的方式將會是最好的；例如，在美國最高法庭上的口語辯論，律師通常會有一定的時間(大約20到30分鐘)來陳述其論點；然而，法官隨時有可能打斷而提出質疑或不同的看法，因此，一個有經驗的律師明白自己沒有機會不受干擾而自由陳述意見。所以，律師如果打算將最重要的論點保留到最後面，那麼他將很有可能根本沒有機會陳述那些重要的論點；因此，就有人認為「下坡式 (anti-climax)」的陳述順序是較好的方式，也就是一開始就陳述最為重要的論點會比「上坡式 (climax)」較為適宜。

EXPLICIT CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Obviously, persuasive messages have some point-some opinion or belief that the communicator hopes the audience will accept, some recommended course of action that the communicator wishes to have adopted. Should the message explicitly make that point-explicitly state the conclusion or recom­mendation - or should the message leave the point implicit, and let the receivers figure the conclusion out themselves. Intuitively, there look to be good reasons for each alternative. For instance, one might think making the conclusion explicit would be superior, because receivers would then be less likely to misunderstand the point of the message. On the other hand, it might be that if the communicator simply supplies the premise,and the audience reasons its own way to the conclusion, then perhaps the audience will be more persuaded than if the Communicator had presented the desired conclusion (more persuaded, because they reached the conclusion on their own).

二、明確的結論與建議

明顯的，說服性的訊息中含有勸服者希望受眾接納一些概念、意見或信仰是或是採用一些行動的步驟。然而，說服性的訊息要清楚的下結論或陳述建議，還是並留下一些暗喻，可以導引受眾自行下結論。初步看來，每一項都是好選擇，例如，一般人可能認為下結論者將是管理者，如此的話，接收者也較不容易誤會訊息的重點；另一方面，如果僅由勸服者提岀一些假設，而由受眾以自己的方式推想出結論，會比勸服者明確提出結論較具說服性。(因為這結論是由受眾所提出)

There have been a number or investigations of this question, where an explicit conclusion/recommendation is either included in the message or omit­ted from it. The overwhelmingly predominant finding is that messages that include explicit conclusions or recommendations are more persuasive than messages without such elements (Biddle, 1966; Cope & Richardson, 1972; Fine, 1957; Hovland & Mandell, 1952; Leventhal, Watts, & Pagano, 1967; Ttubbs, 1968; Weiss & Steenbock, 1965; see also E. Cooper & Dinerman, 1951; Feingold & Knapp, 1977; Geller, 1975; Irwin & Brockhaus, 1963). In one other investigation, explicit conclusions led to significantly greater comprehension of the communicator's point, but not to significantly greater attitude change (Thistlethwaite, de Haan, & Kamenetzky, 1955), Notably, however, among receivers with equally good comprehension, there were no significant differ­ences in attitude change as a function of the type of conclusion; that is, conclusions deduced independently by the audience were no more persuasive than conclusions explicitly drawn out by the communicator.

對於這個問題有一些研究或數據，其中有一個明確結論(建議)，是否含有明確建議因素的影響，非常清楚的發現包括明確結論(建議)的訊息比沒有這樣的要素的訊息更有說服力的；在另外一次調查中，顯示明確的結論使受眾非常清楚的理解勸服者的論點，但並不表示有重大的態度改變。然而，值得一提的是，在一群擁有相同良好理解力的受眾，形成結論類別的不同並未造成明顯的差異性；那就是，僅由受眾自行推想出的結論並不比由勸服者所做的結論來的更有效果。

There has often been speculation that the apparent advantage of explicit conclusions/recommendations may be moderated by such factors as audience education, intelligence, familiarity with the topic, and topic complexity (e.g., Hovland & Mandell, 1952). For instance, it is sometimes suggested that as the audience becomes more intelligent or better educated, the advantage of explicit conclusions will be smaller (since such audiences will be able to infer the message's point correctly even though the message leaves the conclusion unstated), and indeed may disappear entirely, with implicit conclusions becom­ing the preferred technique (since-the speculation goes-the intelligent, edu­cated audience could be insulted by the communicator drawing the conclusion for them). Despite the plausibility of such suggestions, there is scant evidence in any of these studies to show that such factors actually do influence the persuasive advantage of explicit conclusions.1

有些推論指出，結論或建議明確的好處，可能會因為受眾的教育程度、理解力、對於主題的熟悉程度以及主題的複雜程度等變項而有所影響；例如，當受眾是較有理解力或教育程度較高時，明確結論的優點則較少(因為這類的受眾即使在未清楚陳述結論的情況下，也有能力正確的推論出訊息的重點)，甚至完全沒有優勢。這時，隱晦不明的陳述結論就成為了一種較好的技巧(如果這種立論成立，表示明確的作出結論對於高理解力及受良好教育的受眾而言，是一種汙辱)，姑且不論這看似有理的建議，這類的研究中仍缺乏十足的證據，確認這類的變項是否真的影響明確結論的好處。

It is worth noting that in several extant studies, the audience was compara­tively intelligent and well educated (college students), and even so there was a significant advantage for messages with explicit recommendations or conclu­sions (e.g., Fine, 1957; Hovland & Mandell, 1952). Obviously, these studies don't show that intelligence or education makes no difference to the amount of persuasive advantage enjoyed by explicit conclusions (it might still be true that the advantage of explicit recommendations would be even larger if the audience were not so well educated). But these studies do indicate that even if increases in receiver education and intelligence are associated with a smaller advantage for explicit conclusions, that advantage is nevertheless sufficiently great to recommend the use of explicit conclusions even with an intelligent, well­-educated audience.

在現存的幾個研究中，當受眾相對為具有理解力並接受良好的教育(大學生)，即使在明確的建議或結論的條件下有一些好處；非常清楚的，這些研究顯示出理解力與受教育對於由明確的結論所造成說服上的優勢確有影響(如果受眾的教育程度較差，明確的建議或結論所產生說服上的優勢將更清楚)。但是，這些研究更清楚的指出，如果受眾的教育程度與理解力更佳，與明確結論的優勢更小的關係具相關性，由於明確結論的優勢仍然夠充足，因此，即使是面對理解力高或受良好教育的受眾，還是建議使用明確結論的方式。

What all of this suggests is that persuaders commonly have little to gain (and much to lose) by leaving the message's conclusion implicit. Ordinarily, mes­sages containing explicit statements of the conclusion or desired action will be more effective than messages that omit such statements.

總之，所有對於勸服者普遍有一些建議，就是藉由運用一些暗喻性的結論可以有些好處(但是壞處更多)，通常結論中陳述包含一些明確的結論或行為，將比忽略這樣的陳述的更有效。

MESSAGE CONTENT

This section reviews research concerning the persuasive effects of certain variations in the contents of messages. LiteralIy dozens of different content variables have received at least some empirical attention, but for the most part this attention consists of an isolated study or two. This review mainly focuses on selected message content factors for which the empirical evidence is some­what more extensive.

參、訊息內容：

這部分回顧關於某些變項在訊息內容的說服效果之的研究。字義上，數十個不同的內容變項都至少獲得一些實證上的注意，但是關注的絕大多數的僅由一、兩個研究所組成，如此的回顧主要聚焦於選擇性的訊息內容因素，其實証經驗的證據更加廣泛。

HANDLING OPPOSING ARGUMENTS: ONE-SIDED VERSUS TWO-SIDED MESSAGES

How should a persuader handle opposing arguments? In most circum­stances, a persuader will at least be aware of some possible arguments support­ing the opposing point of view. What should a persuader do about these, so far as the persuader's own message is concerned?

一、處理反對論點(片面或兩面俱呈訊息)：

勸說者如何處理反對論點？在多數的情形下，勸說者至少應該知道一些可能支撐反方觀點的論述，當勸說者自己的訊息被關切時，他該對這些做什麼？

IGNORING VERSUS REFUTING OPPOSING ARGUMENTS

One possibility, of course, is simply to ignore the opposing arguments, and not mention them at all. The persuader would offer only constructive (supporting) arguments, that is, arguments supporting the persuader's position. Alternatively, the persuader might (in addition to providing supporting arguments) attempt to refute those opposing arguments - attack them directly, expose their weaknesses and defects, and so on. Substantial research has compared the persuasive effective­ness of these two message types - a "one-sided" message (that simply offers arguments supporting the advocated position) and a "two-sided" message (that, in addition to making supporting arguments, refutes opposing arguments).3 Perhaps not surprisingly, two-sided persuasive messages are, as a rule, more effective than one-sided messages (for a review, see Jackson & Allen, 1987). Persuaders ordinarily gain some advantage if, in addition to providing construc­tive arguments supporting their views, they also attack opposing considerations directly.

(一)忽視或反駁對方的言論

當然，其中一種簡單方式，就是不理反對的言論，完全不要提起，勸說者只要提一些支持自己且具建設性的論點；除此之外，勸說者可以藉由凸顯對方的弱點和缺失來直接反駁對立的言論。學者也曾做過關於片面(僅提供支持立場的言論)或兩面俱呈(除了支持的言論還有駁斥對方的言論)訊息何者較具效果的研究。沒有出人意外的，結論是兩面俱呈的訊息較片面訊息較具效果；除了提出一些建設性的論點支撐自己的觀點外，也直接攻擊反對的論點，如此勸服者通常較能達到目的。

There has often been speculation that this advantage of two-sided messages might depend upon other factors; commonly suggested possible factors include the audience's educational level, the audience's familiarity with the issue, and the audience's initial opinion on the topic (whether the audience is initially favorable or unfavorable to the position advocated). In fact, the only one of these that appears to influence the size of the two-sided advantage is the audience's familiarity with the issue. For both familiar and unfamiliar persuasive(P161) topics, two-sided messages are more effective than one-sided messages, but the advantage is greater for familiar issues than for unfamiliar ones (Jackson & Alien, 1987). Thus it appears that persuaders are well advised to employ two-sided messages rather generally (even on issues unfamiliar to the audience)

經常有一種推論說兩面俱呈的訊息的優勢需要依靠幾個其他的因素來配合，一般建議可能的因素包含有受眾的教育程度、受眾對於主題的熟悉程度、受眾對於主題最初始的態度(不管受眾起初對於主題贊成與否)等。事實上，在這些可能影響兩面俱呈效果程度的因素中，以受眾對於主題熟悉的程度最為重要；不論是熟悉或是不熟悉的主題，兩面俱呈的方式均較片面訊息的方式來的有效，但對於受眾熟悉的主題，兩面俱呈方式的優勢更大，因此通常都會建議說服者運用兩面俱呈的方式(即使對於受眾不熟悉的主題)。

Researchers have also varied the ways in which the two-sided message is organized There are three basic organizational patterns possible for two-sided messages. The message can first present the supporting arguments, and then undertake the refutation of opposing arguments (support-then-refute); the message can first refute the opposing considerations, and then introduce the supporting arguments (refute-then-support); or the supportive and refutational materials can be interspersed (interwoven) There is some evidence suggesting that the support-then-refute order and the interwoven order are more effective than the refute-then-support order (Jackson & Allen,1987).

研究者也將兩面俱呈的訊息以組成方式的不同予以分類，兩面俱呈的訊息有三種基本的組織型態，第一種是先呈現支持的論點，然後在呈現反對的論點(先支持再反駁)，第二種是先陳述反對的論點，然後在呈現支持的論點(先反駁再支持)，第三種是正、反面論點交叉運用的方式，實證研究證實第二、三種的方式比第一種方式來的有效。

THE IMPORTANCE OF ADDRESSING RELEVANT OBSTACLES

Of course, refuting possible objections is likely to enhance persuasion only when the objections that are refuted are objections actually relevant for the audience. A persuader who refutes objections not held by the audience isn't likely to find enhanced effectiveness from the use of a two-sided message. A useful example here is provided by studies of messages aimed at persuading people to make contributions to a particular charitable cause or organization (e.g., the American Cancer Society) There are (at least)two potential obstacles to successful persuasion in this circumstance One is that people don't contribute at all (and hence getting people to give something is a possible aim for the persuader); the other is that people who do give may not give very much (and so getting those who donate to give a larger amount may be the persuader's aim). And these two obstacles can be addressed separately; a persuader could do some things designed to boost the percentage of people donating, and other things to try to boost the average donation per donor.

(二)運用適當障礙的重要性

當然，只有在當反對的事務與受眾相關的時候，駁斥一些反對的聲浪才極有可能強化說服力。一個駁斥並非由受眾所持反對意見的說服者，無法藉由運用兩面俱呈的訊息以強化效果。這裡舉一個關於說服人們捐款給公益團體(美國癌症協會)相關訊息的研究案例。在這種環境之下，至少有兩個對於成功說服的障礙，其中一個障礙是人們根本就不捐款(對於說服者言，強化人們捐款的動機為其可能的目標)；另外一個障礙是人們的捐款金額太小(此時說服者的目標，就是鼓勵人們提高捐款金額)。而這兩種障礙可以分開處理，說服者可作一些可以提升捐款率的事，另外在做一些可以提升每一筆捐款金額的事。

Several studies have examined the effectiveness of one particular strategy designed to improve charitable solicitation: the ”even a penny helps" (EAPH) technique (Cialdini & Schroeder, 1976). In the typical research design, communicators engage in face-to-face (e.g., door-to-door) solicitation for a particular charitable organization. In the control condition, the standard solicitation is given. In the experimental (EAPH) condition, the communicator simply adds the sentence "Even a penny will help. Obviously, the EAPH technique is aimed at addressing the obstacle of people not donating at all. That is, it is primarily designed to increase the percentage of people who donate, by legitimizing small contributions In a sense, it risks getting a lower average donation per donor in the hopes of boosting the percentage donating so much as to yield an overall gain (in average donation per contact).

許多的研究也檢驗為了改善慈善募款所做的特殊策略的成效如何，就是「積沙成塔」策略，在一份典型的研究設計中，溝通者採用面對面 (例如一戶一戶) 的方式勸募；在控制的情形之下，設定標準的勸募額。實驗組僅用「積沙成塔」一句話；顯然實驗組設定目標在於那些從不捐獻的人，就某種意義而言，使得小額捐款受到認同，而其主要目的在增加捐獻人數的百分比，然同時冒者拉低捐獻金額百分比的危險，以提昇每一單次的勸募行為增加捐款比率的方式來提高整體獲捐金額。

But what if the disinclination to donate isn't a genuine obstacle? That is, what if people are already inclined to make a donation (e.g., the standard request already induces a high percentage of donations)? Obviously, in such a situation the EAPH technique probably won't be helpful - it is addressing an obstacle that isn't relevant -- and might even backfire (by worsening the obstacle that is there, the obstacle of donors not giving very much). It could end up inducing smaller contributions per donor, without substantially increasing the percentage of donors.

但是，難道不願意捐款不是一個障礙嗎？是的，那麼如果對於一些原本就願意捐款的人又如何呢 (標準的徵詢程序會誘導較高的捐款百分比) ？所以在上述的情形，「積沙成塔」的策略可能就無法奏效，反而引起其他的障礙，那就是容易造成反效果(使得捐款金額小的障礙更加嚴重)，結果可能使每一筆捐獻金額減少，卻又未能真正提昇捐款人數的比率。

In fact, sometimes the EAPH technique increases solicitation effectiveness (as assessed by average donation per contact), but sometimes it doesn't (indeed, sometimes it decreases effectiveness). Where the standard message is already relatively successful in inducing, people to make donations, the EAPH technique has led to decreased persuasive effectiveness (Mark & Shotland, 1983); by comparison, when the percentage of people donating in the control condition is relatively low, the technique commonly enhances effectiveness (e.g., Reeves,Macolini, & Martin,1987).

事實上，「積沙成塔」的策略有時增加勸募成效(以每一單次的勸募行為所獲得捐款數計算)，有時卻不然(有時卻大量減低成效)。當運用一般的用語就足以有效勸使人們捐款，「積沙成塔」的策略卻減少說服效果；藉由比較得知，當捐獻比率在控制於相對為較低的情況下，「積沙成塔」的策略通常會強化說服成效。

  The general point to be noticed is the importance of addressing relevant obstacles to persuasion. The tactic of legitimizing small contributions (EAPH) appears to enhance effectiveness only when persons are initially not inclined to give anything-- that is, only when the tactic addresses a relevant obstacle to persuasion. And similarly for the persuasive advantage of two-sided messages: Such advantage is likely to be obtained only when relevant opposing considerations are refuted.

引用對於說服相關障礙的重要性成為被注意到的通則，認同小額捐款的技巧，只有在受眾原本不想要捐任何款時可以強化成效，也就是說這種技巧遭遇了說服的相關障礙。有點像兩面俱呈的訊息內容的說服力，這樣的優勢也只有在當反對意見被駁斥時才能獲取。

DISCREPANCY

In many circumstances, persuaders have some opinion change they seek. A persuader might advocate a position only slightly discrepant from (different from) the receiver's point of view, or might advocate a highly discrepant position (or, of course, might advocate some moderately discrepant view). So, for example, if a given audience believes a 5% increase in state taxes is desirable, a persuader seeking a still larger increase might advocate a 7% increase, a 15% increase, or a 30% increase --with these various positions representing views successively more and more discrepant with the audience's initial position.

二、差異性：

在許多情形下，勸服者以一些意見去變更它們追求，勸服者守住與受眾觀點差異很小，或是與受眾觀點差異很大的原則(或是堅守與受眾觀點保持適當的差距)。例如，5%的稅收是大眾所能接受的，說服者嘗試追求7%稅收、15%稅收、30%稅收，如此不同的立場，造成與受眾初始的概念差距愈來愈大。

A number of investigations have examined the question of how such variations in discrepancy -- discrepancy between the receiver's position and the position advocated by the message -- influence persuasive outcomes. In a way, this research question can be seen as a matter of the relationship between the amount of change sought by the message (with greater discrepancy, more change is asked of the audience) and the amount of change obtained by the message (with greater discrepancy ,more change is asked of the audience)and the amount of change obtained by the message.

有一些調查已經檢驗關於在差異性中有多少變項的問題-指的是受眾與說服者之間的差異性-影響說服的結果。如此，這個研究問題可被視為是被訊息改變思維的數量(擁有愈多的差異性，受眾就會被要求改變愈多)與被訊息改變成功者的數量之間的關係。