論辯立場與個人立場一致性對證己偏好的影響

Abstract

本研究的目的在探討論辯時的立場與個人立場的一致性對證己偏好的影響。167位受試者被隨機分派到2 (個人立場，正方、反方) × 2 (論辯立場，正方、反方) + 控制組等五組實驗情境之中，閱讀兩個具有爭議性議題(器官買賣合法、博弈合法)的主張內容。在第一個議題時，論辯組被隨機指派以跟個人立場一致或不一致的立場進行論辯練習，無論辯組則僅對文章再加詳讀。受試者在論辯練習前、後皆須對主張的同意程度進行評量。論辯後，全部受試者皆須對文章內容進行自由回憶。接著，全體受試者閱讀第二個議題，並以個人立場提出論述，論述前、後需對主張的同意程度加以評量。結果發現受試者在對第一個議題的自由回憶中，與正方論辯者相比，採取反方論辯者能夠顯著的回憶出較多文本中的反對命題，有助於減少證己偏好，但與控制組的差異不顯著。到了第二個議題時，在第一個議題論辯練習時個人立場為正方但以反方論辯者比個人立場與論辯立場皆為正方者更能回憶出較多的反對性微觀命題；此外，在第一個議題論辯練習時個人立場為反方但以正方論辯者回憶的反對性微觀命題也顯著高於控制組；這些發現顯示先前論辯練習降低證己偏好的效果可遷移到第二個議題上。當以主張的同意程度來做為證己偏好的顯式衡量時，論辯練習前、後主張同意程度的改變上發現，使用反方論辯能夠幫助受試者顯著降低證己偏好，而正方論辯則反而會顯著的加深對主張的證己偏好，且反方論辯也比控制組更能顯著的降低證己偏好。但到了第二個議題時，受試者論述前、後的同意程度皆只受到其個人立場影響，顯示論辯練習對主張的同意程度的效果沒有遷移至不同的議題上。此外，受試者對第二個議題提出的個人論述內容也僅受到他在第二個議題上的個人立場影響，顯示與自由回憶的隱式測量比較之下，以顯式方式測量論辯練習降低證己偏好的效果比較不靈敏。但值得一提的是，在第一個議題時有論辯練習者在對第二個議題進行論述時能夠提出較多的證據作為其論證依據，顯示論辯練習讓受試者學到論證時須有證據為依據的思考方式。

One hundred and sixty-seven students were randomly assigned to the 2 (personal stance)× 2 (argument stance) + control group experimental conditions. After exposure to a claim (gambling issue or organ trading issue), subjects in argumentation conditions were asked to argue for or against the claim, which might be either congruent or incongruent with their personal stance, according to the argument structure provided by the experimenter. Subjects in non-argumentation condition were only asked to review the article. Subjects had to rate their support for the claim before and after argument practice. A free recall followed the argumentation practice. In the second issue, all subjects argued for their own position, followed by a free recall of the text. They also had to rate their support for the claim before and after argumentation. Results showed that compare to those argued for the claim, subjects argued against the claim recalled significantly more counterarguments in the text, an implicit measure of reduction in myside bias. But they did not differ significantly from the control group. In the second issue, subjects whose personal stance was positive and argument stance was negative in the first issue recalled significantly more counterarguments than those whose personal stance and argument stance were both positive. In addition, subjects whose personal stance was negative and argument stance was positive in the first issue recalled significantly more counterarguments than the control group. That means, the effect of incongruent argument stance on reducing myside bias can transfer to the second issue when assessed by an implicit measure. Subjects’ rating of their support for the 1st claim before and after the argument practice also showed that arguing against the claim might reduce myside bias, when compared to those taking positive stance or the control group. However, the ratings before and after argument for the 2nd issue were only affected by subjects’ personal stance. It appears that the transfer effect of argumentation practice on reducing myside bias cannot be effectively assessed by an explicit measure. Furthermore, the content of argumentation on the second issue was only influenced by subjects’ personal stance. Argumentation practice was effective only in the use of evidence on argumentation.