Narrative warmth and quantitative competence: Message type affects impressions of a speaker
Autoři:
Jenna L. Clark aff001; Melanie C. Green aff002; Joseph J. P. Simons aff003
Působiště autorů:
Center for Advanced Hindsight, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America
aff001; Department of Communication, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, United States of America
aff002; Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America
aff003; Institute of High Performance Computing, Singapore, Singapore
aff004
Vyšlo v časopise:
PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie:
Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226713
Souhrn
Persuasion research often focuses on how source characteristics affect attitude change in response to a message; however, message characteristics may also alter perceptions of the source. The Message-Based Impression Formation effect (M-BIF) suggests that perceivers use features of messages to infer characteristics of the source, and that such inferences may have a variety of consequential outcomes. In particular, the choice of narrative versus statistical evidence may have implications for the perceived warmth and competence of a source. In five experiments, narrative arguments led to greater perceptions of source warmth and statistical arguments led to greater perceptions of source competence. Across the two behavioral studies, a matching effect emerged: participants preferred to work on cooperative tasks with partners who had provided narratives, and competitive tasks with partners who had provided statistical evidence. These results suggest that the evidence type chosen for everyday communications may affect person perception and interpersonal interaction.
Klíčová slova:
Learning – Human learning – Communications – Finance – Cognition – Decision making – Psychological attitudes – Numeracy
Zdroje
1. Bruner JS. Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press; 1986.
2. Asch SE. Forming impressions of personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1946;41(3):258–90.
3. Rosenberg S, Nelson C, Vivekananthan PS. A multidimensional approach to the structure of personality impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1968;9(4):283–94. doi: 10.1037/h0026086 5670821
4. Fiske ST, Cuddy AJC, Glick P. Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2007 Feb;11(2):77–83. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005 17188552
5. Judd CM, James-Hawkins L, Yzerbyt V, Kashima Y. Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005;89(6):899–913. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.899 16393023
6. Abele AE, Wojciszke B. Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2007;93(5):751–63. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.751 17983298
7. Aaker JL, Garbinsky EN, Vohs KD. Cultivating admiration in brands: Warmth, competence, and landing in the “golden quadrant.” Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2012 Apr;22(2):191–4.
8. Bochner S, Insko CA. Communicator discrepancy, source credibility, and opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1966;4(6):614–21.
9. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. New York: Routledge; 1996.
10. Cialdini RB, Sagarin BJ. Principles of Interpersonal Influence. In Brock TC and Green MC, editors. Persuasion: Psychological Insights and Perspectives, Second Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2005. p. 143–170.
11. Berscheid E, Walster E. Physical Attractiveness. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Elsevier; 1974. p. 157–215. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0065260108600374
12. Chaiken S. Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1979;37(8):1387–97.
13. Byrne D. The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press; 1971.
14. Sherif M, Sherif CW. Groups in harmony and tension; an integration of studies of intergroup relations. Oxford: Harper & Brothers; 1953.
15. Priester JR, Petty RE. Source attributions and persuasion: Perceived honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1995 Jun;21(6):637–54.
16. Eagly AH, Wood W, Chaiken S. Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and social Psychology. 1978 Apr;36(4):424–435.
17. Kreuter MW, Green MC, Cappella JN, Slater MD, Wise ME, Storey D, et al. Narrative communication in cancer prevention and control: A framework to guide research and application. Ann Behav Med. 2007 Sep;33(3):221–35. doi: 10.1007/bf02879904 17600449
18. Taylor SE, Thompson SC. Stalking the elusive “vividness” effect. Psychological Review. 1982;89(2):155–81.
19. Reinard JC. The Empirical Study of the Persuasive Effects of Evidence The Status After Fifty Years of Research. Human Comm Res. 1988 Sep;15(1):3–59.
20. Baesler EJ, Burgoon JK. The Temporal Effects of Story and Statistical Evidence on Belief Change. Communication Research. 1994 Oct;21(5):582–602.
21. Allen M, Preiss RW. Comparing the persuasiveness of narrative and statistical evidence using meta‐analysis. Communication Research Reports. 1997 Mar;14(2):125–31.
22. Kopfman JE, Smith SW, Ah Yun JK, Hodges A. Affective and cognitive reactions to narrative versus statistical evidence organ donation messages. Journal of Applied Communication Research. 1998 Aug;26(3):279–300.
23. Mazzocco PJ, Green MC, Sasota JA, Jones NW. This Story Is Not for Everyone: Transportability and Narrative Persuasion. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2010 Oct;1(4):361–8.
24. Zebregs S, van den Putte B, Neijens P, de Graaf A. The Differential Impact of Statistical and Narrative Evidence on Beliefs, Attitude, and Intention: A Meta-Analysis. Health Communication. 2015 Mar 4;30(3):282–9. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2013.842528 24836931
25. De Wit JBF, Das E, Vet R. What works best: Objective statistics or a personal testimonial? An assessment of the persuasive effects of different types of message evidence on risk perception. Health Psychology. 2008;27(1):110–5. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.27.1.110 18230021
26. Limon MS, Kazoleas DC. A comparison of exemplar and statistical evidence in reducing counter‐arguments and responses to a message. Communication Research Reports. 2004 Jun 1;21(3):291–8.
27. Green MC, Brock TC. The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of personality and social psychology. 2000 Nov;79(5):701. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.701 11079236
28. Aquino A, Haddock G, Maio GR, Wolf LJ, Alparone FR. The Role of Affective and Cognitive Individual Differences in Social Perception. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2016 Jun;42(6):798–810. doi: 10.1177/0146167216643936 27460272
29. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Derry HA, Smith DM. Measuring Numeracy without a Math Test: Development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale. Med Decis Making. 2007 Sep;27(5):672–80. doi: 10.1177/0272989X07304449 17641137
30. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011 Jan;6(1):3–5. doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980 26162106
31. Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A.-G., & Buchner A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146 17695343
32. Fiske ST, Cuddy AJC, Glick P, Xu J. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2002 Jun;82(6):878–902. 12051578
33. Cacioppo JT, Petty RE, Feng Kao C. The Efficient Assessment of Need for Cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment. 1984 Jun;48(3):306–7. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13 16367530
34. Appel M, Gnambs T, Maio GR. A Short Measure of the Need for Affect. Journal of Personality Assessment. 2012 Jul;94(4):418–26. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2012.666921 22439655
35. Cottrell CA, Neuberg SL, Li NP. What do people desire in others? A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of different valued characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2007;92(2):208–31. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.208 17279846
36. Fiske ST, Dupree C. Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2014 Sep 16;111(Supplement 4):13593–7.
37. Donahue JK, Green MC. A good story: Men's storytelling ability affects their attractiveness and perceived status. Personal Relationships. 2016;23(2):199–213.
38. Eckes T. Paternalistic and envious gender stereotypes: Testing predictions from the Stereotype Content Model. Sex Roles. 2002;47(3/4):99–114.
Článok vyšiel v časopise
PLOS One
2019 Číslo 12
- Metamizol jako analgetikum první volby: kdy, pro koho, jak a proč?
- Nejasný stín na plicích – kazuistika
- Masturbační chování žen v ČR − dotazníková studie
- Těžké menstruační krvácení může značit poruchu krevní srážlivosti. Jaký management vyšetření a léčby je v takovém případě vhodný?
- Fixní kombinace paracetamol/kodein nabízí synergické analgetické účinky
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Methylsulfonylmethane increases osteogenesis and regulates the mineralization of the matrix by transglutaminase 2 in SHED cells
- Oregano powder reduces Streptococcus and increases SCFA concentration in a mixed bacterial culture assay
- The characteristic of patulous eustachian tube patients diagnosed by the JOS diagnostic criteria
- Parametric CAD modeling for open source scientific hardware: Comparing OpenSCAD and FreeCAD Python scripts