Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
説得のコミュニケーション
コミュニケーション学概論論
Lecture 7 (Dec 12, 2016)
Definitions of Persuasion
Features of Persuasion
¤ ¤ ¤
Freedom
¤ Measure of Freedom ¤ Free will ¤ Free choice ¤ Voluntary action
2
Communication
¤ The effects are achieved through communication
¤ Medium of language ¤ Medium of nonverbal language
Attitude Change
p Persuasion is ordinary conceived of as involving influencing others by influencing their mental states (rather than by somehow influencing their conduct directly)
p The aim is to change what people think (and then what they do)
What is influenced?
¤ ¤ ¤
What is the real target of persuasion?
¤
¤
3
Three Dimensions of Persuasion Process
① Response Process ② Response Process ③ Response Process
Persuasion Competence?
¤
¤ 説得者として:⼈人間関係を壊さずに、できればあさらに発展させながら、相⼿手に⾃自分の考え⽅方を受け⼊入れてもらったり、希望する⾏行行動を起こしてもらったりする能⼒力力
¤ 説得される側として:相⼿手の勢いや、不不誠実な⽬目的、あうりは誇張、歪曲されたメッセージに屈することなく、後悔する必要のない、説得メッセージの賢い受け⼿手となる能⼒力力 (pp.119-120)
Motivation & Persuasion
¤ Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (要求階層理理論論)
4
Motivation & Persuasion
¤ Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (要求階層理理論論)
¤ 満たされていない要求のうち、最も基本的(底に近い)要求が動機としての機能する。
説得のコミュニケーションとは?? ~三つの影響~
• 対人的影響 (Interpersonal Influence): – Compliance Gaining Strategies
• 社会的影響 (Social Influence)
• 論証 (Argumentation)
人が「応諾」される プロセス
人を「納得」させる 技法
対人的影響 (Interpersonal Influence)
① Sequential Request Strategies(段階的要請法)
– Foot-in-the-Door – Door-in-the-Face – Low-ball Techniques
(Freedman and Fraser, 1966)
Foot-in-the-Door
今日は契約は結構ですから、 お話だけでも聞いて頂けませんか?
5
Foot-in-the-Door
じゃぁ、一ヶ月だけ、 契約いただけませんか??
30分後・・・・
Door-in-the-Face
お母さん、この5万円のコート、 超かわいくない??
買って買って、ね?? お願い!!
Door-in-the-Face
じゃあ、この5千円のコートで 我慢するよ。
これならいいでしょ?
Low-Ball Technique
今回手伝ってくれた人には、
ステーキとデザートセット、 先生がごちそうするぞ!
6
Low-Ball Technique
おっと、予算が足りない・・・。
ごめん、デザートセット だけね!
対人的影響 (Interpersonal Influence) ②
• Cialdini’s 6 Compliance Gaining Strategies
– 返報性 (Reciprocity) – コミットメントと一貫性
(Commitment and Consistency) – 社会的承認 (Social Proof) – 好意 (Liking) – 権威 (Authority) – 希少性 (Scarcity)
(Cialdini, 1993)
対人的影響 (Interpersonal Influence) ② • Marwell & Schmitt’s 16 Compliance Gaining
Strategies – 約束 – 脅迫 – 好結果に関する経験 – 悪い結果に関する経験 – 好感 – 事前の厚意 – 制裁 – 過去の借り – 道徳観 – 満足度/不満足度の示唆 – プラス/マイナスのロール・モデル – 懇願 – 好人物評価/不良人物評価の示唆
社会的影響 (Social Influence)
• 社会心理学的研究 – 態度−行動理論 (Attitude-Behavior Relationship) – 合理的行動理論 (Theory of Reasoned Action) – 精査可能性モデル (Elaboration Likelihood Model) – 社会的判断理論 (Social Judgment Theories) – 認知的一貫性理論群 (Theories of Cognitive Consistency) – 認知不整合理論 (Cognitive Dissonance Theories) – 接種理論 (Inoculation Theory) – 恐怖心訴求理論 (Fear Appeal Model) – Etc. etc.
7
TRA Central Route Peripheral Route
(Message Elaboration) (No Message Elaboration)
HIGH MENTAL EFFORT LOW
Persuasive Communication
MOTIVATED TO PROCESS? Personal Relevance / Need for Cognition
ABLE TO PROCESS? Free from distraction / Sufficient knowledge
TYPE OF COGNITIVE PROCESSING Argument Quality / Initial Attitude
STRONG POSITIVE ATTITUDE CHANGE
Enduring, resisting, predicts behavior
STRONG NEGATIVE ATTITUDE CHANGE
Enduring, resisting, predicts behavior
WEAK ATTITUDE CHANGE
Temporary, vulnerable, does not predict behavior
NO Change
Yes
Yes
Favorable Case Unfavorable Case Neutral Case
PERIPHERAL CUES
Speaker credibility, Reaction of others, External rewards
No
No
No Yes
ELM
Cog Diss Theory
Amount of Incentive
Am
ount of Dissonance
When a person (is forced/induced) to comply (Counter Attitudinal Action)
Fear Appeal: Protection Motivation Theory
Message Acceptance
8
3. 説得の理理論論
¤ 説得研究の歴史的背景 (p.128) ¤ ⻄西洋の伝統
¤ 古代ギリシャ哲学(アリストテレス他) ¤ Rhetoric, Argumentation ¤ スピーチ、弁論論術
¤ ⽇日本の伝統 ¤ ??
¤ 近代の社会科学的アプローチ ¤ ⽶米国が中⼼心 ¤ ⼼心理理学、社会⼼心理理学
説得の(社会)⼼心理理学モデル
¤ 態度度/⾏行行動変化の社会⼼心理理学 (Social Influence)
¤ 「⼈人を説得する場合もされる場合も、⼈人間がどのような⼼心理理状態で⾏行行動、態度度を変化させようとするのか(p.128)」を、⼼心理理的、社会的な観点から科学的に解明しようとするアプローチ。
代表的な(社会⼼心理理学)説得理理論論
¤ Theory of Reasoned Action(合理理的⾏行行動理理論論)
¤ Theories of Cognitive Consistency(認知的一貫性理論群) ¤ Theories of Cognitive Dissonance(認知的不不⼀一致理理論論群)
¤ Inoculation Theory(接種理論) ¤ Social Judgment Theory(社会判断理理論論)
¤ Elaboration Likelihood Model(精緻可能性理論) ¤ Fear Appeal Models(恐怖訴求モデル)
Cognitive Consistency Theories (認知的⼀一貫性理理論論群)
9
認知不不協和理理論論の前提(1) 知識識、考え⽅方、態度度、⾏行行動などの間で⽣生じる⽭矛盾、不不⼀一致は不不安・不不快を与える。
(2) 不不安や不不快を感じたら、⼈人間は普通それを解消したい、という衝動を覚える。
(3) 不不安を解消、あるいは減少させる⼀一つの⼿手段が⾃自らの態度度、⾏行行動の変化である
(p.129)
説得の⼿手段: 認知的不不協和の創造 → ⾃自⼰己説得の誘導
Balance Theory (Heider, 1946, 1958)
¤ Cognitive Unit ¤ P: perceiver / reference person ¤ O: other person ¤ X: impersonal entity/thing
¤ Sentiment relation (Attitude) ¤ Positive/Like ¤ Negative/Dislike
POX Relationship Cognitive Triads P
O X
P
O X
P
O X
P
O X
10
Cognitive Triads P
O X
P
O X
P
O X
P
O X
認知不不協和を解消する三つの⽅方法
¤
¤
¤
(教科書p.131ではこのうちの「態度度変化」の説明しかないので注意)
Attitude Change
¤ Changing the p-o or p-x relations Attitude Change
( P ) Jason
Kathy ( O ) ( X ) Smoking
Initial Imbalanced Situation
Attitude Change ( P ) J
K ( O ) ( X ) S
( P ) J
K ( O ) ( X ) S
11
否認 ¤ changing the o-x relation (belief
distortion)
Denial ( P ) Jason
Kathy ( O ) ( X ) Smoking
Initial Imbalanced Situation
Denial
( P ) J
K ( O ) ( X ) S
分化 ¤ balancing the whole units by
differentiating aspects of o or x and holding different attitudes toward different aspects
Differentiation ( P ) Jason
Kathy ( O ) ( X ) Smoking
Initial Imbalanced Situation
Cognitive Differentiation ( P ) J
K’s background ( O ) ( X ) S K’s personal attribute ( O )
12
態度度の重み Attitude Extremity and Inequality
P
O X
+3 +3
Incongruity = 6
P
O X
+1 +3
Incongruity = 4 P
O X
+3 +1
Incongruity = 4
Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger, 1957)
“Can changes in behavior affect subsequent attitudes?
The answer is most definitely yes, under certain circumstances.
“Try it, you’ll like it !”
¤ Post-decisional theory
¤ Influence of BEHAVIOR on ATTITUDE
¤ Counter Attitudinal Advocacy (CAA)
¤ Concerned with the relations among cognitive elements (also called “cognitions” = any belief, opinion, attitude, or piece of knowledge about anything)
¤ Three possible relations b/w any two cognitive elements: ¤ Irrelevant : have nothing to do with each other ¤ Consonant (consistent) : they might hang together,
form a package. ¤ Dissonant (inconsistent) : the opposite of one
elements follows from the other
Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger, 1957)
Relationships b/w cognitions
University tuition will increase next year (BELIEF)
I like Swiss chocolate (ATTITUDE)
Irrelevant
Golf is a noble game (BELIEF)
I like playing golf (ATTITUDE)
Consonant
Smoking causes cancer (BELIEF)
I smoke (ATTITUDE / BEHAVIOR)
Dissonant
13
三つの前提
(1) ⼈人は「認知的調和」を求める⽣生き物である(People have a need for cognitive consistency)
(2) 「認知的不不協和」が⽣生じると、⼈人は「⼼心理理的不不快」を感じる (When cognitive inconsistency exists, people experience psychological discomfort)
(3) 「⼼心理理的不不快感」は、これを解消して「認知的調和」を取り戻そうとする強い動機として働く (Psychological discomfort motivates people to resolve the inconsistency and restore cognitive balance.)
Factors influencing the Magnitude of Dissonance (1) Relative Proportion
• Reduces anxiety • Makes you appear cool
• Tastes good
• Causes cancer • Expensive
Consonant Cluster Dissonant Cluster
I smoke (ATTITUDE / BEHAVIOR)
Factors influencing the Magnitude of Dissonance (2) Importance of the element(s)
• Reduces anxiety • Makes you appear cool
• Tastes good
• Causes cancer • Expensive
Consonant Cluster Dissonant Cluster
I smoke (ATTITUDE / BEHAVIOR)
認知的不不協和の解消⼿手段
¤ ⾏行行動、認知変化(知識識、態度度、⾏行行動変化) ¤ ⾏行行動の正当化、是認(仲間探し) ¤ 否認(情報源の否認)
¤ 超越
14
ELM (Elaboration Likelihood Model)
Petty & Cacioppo (1986)
I. Alternative Paths to Persuasion
¤ Two basic routes for persuasion: ¤ Central Route(中⼼心的ルート) ¤ Peripheral Route(周辺的ルート)
- Central Route – (中⼼心的ルート)
¤ The Central Route involves Message Elaboration: ¤ Message Elaboration (情報精査)=
- Peripheral Route – (周辺的ルート)
¤ The Peripheral Route offers quick decisions(ヒューリスティックに基づく即決)
15
Factors influencing the process (精査を促進・抑制する要因)
¤ Motivation for elaboration (動機) ¤ Ability for elaboration (能⼒力力) ¤ Type of elaboration (精緻化のタイプ) ¤ Elaborated Messages types (メッセージタイプ)
¤ Peripheral cues (周辺的⼿手掛かり)
Central Route Peripheral Route
(Message Elaboration(精査)) (No Message Elaboration)
HIGH MENTAL EFFORT (認知的負荷) LOW
Persuasive Communication
MOTIVATED TO PROCESS?: 動機 Personal Relevance / Need for Cognition
ABLE TO PROCESS?: 能力 Free from distraction / Sufficient knowledge
議論の質の判定 Argument Quality / Initial Attitude
STRONG POSITIVE ATTITUDE CHANGE
Enduring, resisting, predicts behavior
STRONG NEGATIVE ATTITUDE CHANGE
Enduring, resisting, predicts behavior
WEAK ATTITUDE CHANGE Temporary, vulnerable, does not
predict behavior
NO Change
Yes
Yes
Favorable Case Unfavorable Case Neutral Case
PERIPHERAL CUES
Speaker credibility, Reaction of others, External rewards
No
No
No Yes
ELM
Factors influencing the process (精緻化を促進・抑制する要因)
¤ Motivation for elaboration (動機づけ)
¤ Ability for elaboration (精緻化能⼒力力)
¤ Type of elaboration (精緻化のタイプ)
¤ Elaborated Messages types (メッセージタイプ)
¤ Peripheral cues (周辺的⼿手掛かり)
Six Cues in PR (Peripheral Route) (CIaldini, 1988)
16
Other Cues
¤ Rewards(報酬)
¤ Source credibility(発信者の信頼性) ¤ Likability & Expertise ¤ Salient for those unmotivated or unable to elaborate
¤ Endorsements for highly popular or respected public figures
Implication
¤ Attitude Change(態度度変化) ¤ Peripheral route change can be either
positive or negative, but it won’t have the impact of message elaboration
¤ The attitude change won’t last long, stand up to attack, or affect their behavior.