It
is difficult to make progress in discussions if neither side wants to
listen. As political and ideological divisions grow more entrenched, the
quality of public debate appears to spiral downward. Radio and TV talk
shows tend to present one point of view or another, while social media
attracts people to sites where they can share opinions with the
likeminded, rather than discuss views thoughtfully with others who
disagree. It seems that everyone wants to talk, and few want to listen
to those who disagree with them.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNBBrXA1_Zk0VCEx93gfBimqXjr5Y3vLwZf-veFtGbFXgJVq3GmHDwFqkeTLsFHnEWX1EgReLS8b6wodANRilGs4CejFZMk7gJRJdIjXakkehJHl2ghhMWIgcei3rLBGKziaIZ1slX98g/s640/Q315_noun_36122_ccLucianDinu_speak.svg.png)
If we are to begin to escape the polarizing influence
of this trend,
one important step (among many) entails discovering ways to measure the
extent to which people are trying to persuade rather than listen. People
often claim to be openminded and nonjudgmental when describing their
views, and they may sincerely believe this. Yet, listeners may suspect
that the expressed views are more dogmatic and predetermined than the
speakers admit. How can we know whether such suspicions are correct or
unfounded?
An interesting telltale sign of intent to persuade has been
documented in innovative social psychological research by Matthew
Rocklage and colleagues at Northwestern University. In one of their
experiments, these social psychologists asked just over 1,200
participants to write “5-star” reviews for a selected product. The
scientists randomly determined whether the participants were also asked
to persuade readers to buy the product (high intent to persuade) or
simply to summarize the product’s positive aspects (low intent to
persuade).
The researchers then coded the participants’ reviews for emotional
language, using a text coding system developed by Rocklage and Fazio
(2015). In fact, we mentioned this coding system in a post three years
ago: “What can we learn from reading online reviews?” In their past
research, Rocklage and Fazio found that this “Evaluative Lexicon” can
distinguish words that are emotional and positive (e.g., wonderful) from
those that are nonemotional and positive (e.g., perfect).
As expected, participants who had been asked to persuade used more
emotional words than participants who had been asked only to summarize.
Also, a subsequent experiment found that this effect occurred even when
participants were simultaneously asked to memorize a random eight-digit
number, suggesting that the change to an emotive style when trying to
persuade happens spontaneously without much cognitive effort.
To us, this evidence is very helpful to research programs trying to develop interventions to increase open-mindedness in dialogue (link is external). The findings suggest that some words are more indicative of persuasion
than of open-minded listening. By looking at such text, we can better
track the back-and-forth interplay of persuading and being persuaded,
and whether dialogue is as open as the interlocutors imagine.
ABOUT AUTHORS
Geoff Haddock, Ph.D., is a Professor of Social Psychology at Cardiff University, UK.
Gregory R. Maio, Ph.D., is a professor of social psychology at Cardiff University, and has published on the topics of social values, attitudes, and behavior.
No comments:
Post a Comment