看到這些口水,不禁想起前幾日在11月份哈佛商業評論(Harvard Business Review)中所看到,
一份由Todd Rogers和Michael I.Norton所做的有趣研究”雄辯勝於實話“.
(以下內容引述自People Often Trust Eloquence More Than Honesty – Harvard Business Review)
…..Rogers: In our study, subjects found the candidate answering a similar but different question
just as trustworthy and likable as when he answered the original question. What’s more,
after hearing an artful dodge, subjects had much lower recall of the question asked;
in some of our studies, less than half could remember it accurately…..
…..Norton: But you had to be good at it, and you couldn’t be obvious.
When the candidate answered a completely different question,
he was penalized heavily and rated less likable and trustworthy. Interestingly, people were much
better at recalling the actual question in those cases…..
…..Norton: The ratings are affected by these other factors. And that’s just the point.
Once we’re in an audience situation, many social cues start competing for our attention.
In these audiovisual presentations, substance tends to get underweighted…..
…..Rogers: There are ways to counteract these effects. A simple way to increase recall of
questions and punish dodgers is to post the question on the TV screen while the person answers it.
Unfortunately, the networks don’t always do this well. They may ask a question like
“What will you do to create jobs in the domestic manufacturing sector?” and put “The Economy”
as a summary line on the screen. We speculate that this enables dodging…..
…..Norton: It’s important to recognize transition devices.
The first 10 words of an answer are key to creating an artful dodge. You’ll hear phrases like
“That’s a good question” or “I’m glad you asked that.” We think these help prime the listener to
accept what comes next as relevant, but we still have to test that.
Rogers: We humans have finite attention. The more words there are in a transition,
the harder it is to make the cognitive link between the question and the answer.
That’s the mechanism we think underlies this…..
雖然像說服的中央路徑(central route to persuasion)&周邊路徑(peripheral route to persuasion)、
認知需求(need for cognition)或訊息貶損假說(discounting cue hypothesis)等一類研究,
在〈「依法行政,謝謝指教」〉中有 2 則留言