DOC

Testing the Moderating Effect of Message Sidedness on Explicit ...

By Emma Clark,2014-01-07 06:40
7 views 0
Testing the Moderating Effect of Message Sidedness on Explicit ...

    Testing the Moderating Effect of Message Sidedness on

     Explicit Conclusion and Implicit Conclusion: A cross-cultural study

    Rie Ohashi

Explicit/Implicit Conclusion

    ; Definition

    Explicit conclusion message = A message containing a sentence stating clearly

    what the message is advocating.

    Implicit conclusion message = A message lacking a sentence which state what the

    message is advocating.

    ; Meta-analysis

    Explicit conclusion messages are more persuasive than implicit conclusion messages

    cf. meta-analysis = statistical integration of the results of different studies on

    the same topic, using the results of each study (rather than the responses

    of individual participant) as the unit of analysis

Message Sidedness

    ; Definition

    One-sided message = Only the message source‟s position on the advocated issue is

    presented in the message.

    Two-sided refutational message = The possibility of another position on the

    advocated issue is raised, and refuted.

    Two-sided nonrefutational message = The existence of another position on the

    advocated issue is acknowledged and noted to be undesirable, but no attempt is

    made to demonstrate why it is undesirable.

    ; Meta-analyses

    When the topic is not an advertisement, two-sided refutational messages are more

    persuasive than one-sided messages, which are more persuasive than two-sided

    nonrefutational message

Possible cultural bias in the previous research in the two area

    ; Only a few studies conducted outside the U.S.

    ; High value placed on explicitness and unambiguousness in the U.S.

Communication style differences between the U.S. and Japan

    ; U.S. American communication style = problem-oriented, direct, explicit

    (low-context communication style)

    ; Japanese communication style = harmony-oriented, indirect, implicit

    (high-context communication style)

    cf. high-context communication = little information is coded in the explicitly

    transmitted part of the message; i.e., most information is coded in the physical

    context or internalized in the person

Objectives of the study

    ; Examine explicit/implicit conclusion and message sidedness at the same time (interaction)

    ; Compare the persuasive message structures between the U.S. and Japan

Hypotheses

    ; In the U.S., explicit conclusion message will be more persuasive than implicit conclusion

    message in all message-sidedness conditions.

    ; In Japan, implicit conclusion message will be just as persuasive as explicit conclusion

    message in two-sided refutational and one-sided conditions. Explicit conclusion message

    will be more persuasive in two-sided nonrefutational condition.

Research Design

    ; 23 factorial, pre-post design

    [(explicit/implicit conclusion) (message sidedness)]

    ; Dependent variable - the “attitude measure score”

    difference of the „message perception indicator‟ score between the pre-test and

    post-test [ (post-test score) (pre-test score) ]

    ; Message topic increasing the number of classes required for graduation

    ; Separate analyses for the U.S. and Japan

Results

Table 1

    Attitude Measure Score in Each Condition

    Country Messages mean SD N t df p min max U.S. Two-sided refutational,

    explicit conclusion 3.50 4.95 24 3.46 23 0.002** -5 15

    implicit conclusion 2.67 6.87 30 2.13 29 0.042* -9 18

    Two-sided nonrefutational

    explicit conclusion 2.54 6.75 28 1.99 27 0.057 -11 15

    implicit conclusion 1.84 5.06 25 1.82 24 0.082 -5 15

    One-sided

    explicit conclusion 4.56 6.71 25 3.40 24 0.002** -11 18

    implicit conclusion 4.04 7.92 24 2.50 23 0.020* -10 20

    Japan Two-sided refutational

    explicit conclusion 3.57 5.23 23 3.27 22 0.004** -3 17

    implicit conclusion 1.54 7.50 24 1.01 23 0.324 -13 15

    Two-sided nonrefutational

    explicit conclusion 3.05 6.37 22 2.24 21 0.036* -8 14

    implicit conclusion 3.95 5.66 20 3.12 19 0.006** -6 15

    One-sided

    explicit conclusion 5.41 5.96 22 4.26 21 0.000** -5 16

    implicit conclusion 2.52 8.67 23 1.40 22 0.177 -19 15

    Note. * significant at p < 0.05 level ** significant at p < 0.01 level The t-tests are for the comparing each cell mean against 0.

Table 2

     ANOVA Result of Cell Means

    Country Effect Source Sum of df Mean F

    Squares Square U.S. Main effects