Stanford University, 655 Knight Way, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2013 Sep;39(9):1214-26. doi: 10.1177/0146167213492430. Epub 2013 Jun 24.
When people seek support for a cause, they typically present the strongest case they can muster. The present research suggests that under some conditions, the opposite strategy may be superior-in particular, presenting weak rather than strong arguments might stimulate greater advocacy and action. Across four studies, we show that when individuals already agree with a cause (i.e., it is pro-attitudinal), receiving weak arguments in its favor can prompt them into advocating more on its behalf. Perceived argumentation efficacy mediates this effect such that people exposed to weak arguments are more likely to think they have something valuable to contribute. Moreover, consistent with the notion that it is driven by feelings of increased efficacy, the effect is more likely to emerge when initial argumentation efficacy and attitude certainty are moderate or low. Individuals with high argumentation efficacy and high certainty generally advocate more, regardless of the strength of arguments received.
当人们为某个事业寻求支持时，他们通常会提出自己最有力的论据。本研究表明，在某些情况下，相反的策略可能更优——特别是，提出薄弱而非有力的论点可能会激发更多的支持和行动。在四项研究中，我们表明，当个人已经认同某个事业（即，对其持赞成态度）时，收到支持该事业的薄弱论点可能会促使他们更多地为之辩护。感知的论证效能中介了这种效应，即接触到薄弱论点的人更有可能认为他们有有价值的东西可以贡献。此外，与增强效能感驱动的观点一致，当初始论证效能和态度确定性适中或较低时，这种效应更有可能出现。论证效能和确定性高的个体通常会更积极地辩护，而不论他们收到的论点强弱如何。
