促發論點數量線索之不同意涵對說服的影響

EFFECTS OF PRIMING ALTERNATE MEANINGS OF ARGUMENT QUANTITY CUES ON PERSUASION

本研究的主要目的在試圖提供直覺化歷程的證據，並且探討在不同情境下，邊緣性說服線索是否會具有不同的意涵而發揮不同的說服效果。本研究先請受試者進行情境促發作業，然後在受試者閱讀含有不同論點數量線索的說服訊息時，轉移受試者處理訊息的目標並給予認知負荷作業以減低受試者深入處理訊息的可能性。實驗一選用電子雞促銷廣告作為態度對象物，實驗二則採用呼叫器及其促銷廣告作為態度對象物。兩個實驗均採情境促發作業（「越多越好」、「越少越好」、控制組）×論點數量線索（三點、九點）之二因子受試者間設計，所得結果相當一致，在主要依變項上均得到情境促發作業與論點數量線索之交互作用。在情境促發「越多越好」下，論點數量線索為九點組的說服效果大於三點組，而在情境促發「越少越好」下，則是三點組的說服效果大過九點組，在控制組中，兩組受試者的態度未出現顯著差異。論點數量線索為三點組時，情境促發「越少越好」的說服效果顯著大於情境促發「越多越好」，但在九點組之下則沒有組間差異。本研究結果顯示受試者確實使用直覺化的歷程處理訊息，而且邊緣性說服線索的說服效果受到之前情境促發作業的影響，而在受試者的訊息處理歷程中發揮了不同的說服作用。

Two studies were conducted to provide evidence for heuristic processing of persuasive messages, and to examine the hypothesis that peripheral persuasion cues have alternate meanings under different contexts and may have different persuasive impacts. A 3 (situational priming tasks) × 2 (3 or 9 argument quantity cue) factorial design was used. Participants first performed different priming tasks designed to enhance the temporary accessibility of the length-strength or the scarcity heuristic, and were then exposed to an electronic pet ad (study 1) or a beeper ad (study 2) that contained the same arguments for the product. To increase the possibility that subjects rely on a heuristic strategy, the processing goal was directed to proof-reading in the first study, and directed to the layout design of the ad in 2nd study. In addition, subjects performed a cognitive loading task while reading the ad. Results showed a significant two-way interaction between situational priming and argument quantity cue on the attitude measures. After priming 'the more the better' heuristic, subjects liked the product better when the argument quantity cue was nine rather than three. But after priming 'the less the better' heuristic, the persuasive effect was larger when the argument quantity cue was three rather than nine. There was no significant differences between argument quantity cues in the control group where no particular heuristics had been primed. When the argument quantity cue was three, different situational priming resulted in different persuasive effects. However, when the argument quantity cue was nine, different situational priming had little differential impacts. These results indicate that subjects used a heuristic strategy to process the ad, and the effects of peripheral persuasion cues were influenced by the accessibility of the heuristic.