Zhao Xiaoquan, Strasser Andrew, Cappella Joseph N, Lerman Caryn, Fishbein Martin
George Mason University.
University of Pennsylvania.
Commun Methods Meas. 2011 Mar 4;5(1):48-75. doi: 10.1080/19312458.2010.547822.
Studies of the content of persuasive messages in which the central arguments of the message are scrutinized have traditionally relied on the technique of thought-listing to assess argument strength. Although the validity of the thought-listing procedure is well documented, its utility can be limited in situations involving non-adult populations and sensitive topics. In this paper we present a self-reported scale that can be used to assess perceived argument strength in contexts where thought-listing may be less appropriate. This scale taps into perceived argument strength from multiple points of view, including but also extending beyond the potential of the argument to elicit positive and negative thoughts. Reliability and validity of this scale were assessed in health communication contexts involving anti-drug PSAs directed at adolescents and anti-smoking PSAs targeting adults. Evidence of convergence between this scale and the thought-listing technique was also obtained using the classical comprehensive exam arguments.
对说服性信息内容的研究，其中会仔细审查信息的核心论点，传统上依赖于思维列举技术来评估论点强度。尽管思维列举程序的有效性有充分记录，但在涉及非成人人群和敏感话题的情况下，其效用可能会受到限制。在本文中，我们提出了一种自我报告量表，可用于在思维列举可能不太合适的情境中评估感知到的论点强度。该量表从多个角度挖掘感知到的论点强度，包括但不限于论点引发积极和消极想法的潜力。在针对青少年的禁毒公益广告和针对成年人的禁烟公益广告的健康传播背景下，评估了该量表的信度和效度。使用经典的综合考试论点，还获得了该量表与思维列举技术之间趋同的证据。
