Relative Effectiveness of One-Sided and Two-Sided Communications in Courtroom Persuasion

Lawson, Robert G.

doi:10.1080/00221309.1970.9920613

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, we found a significant indirect effect for the counter-narrative through freedom threat and narrative involvement resulting in a significant positive shift of attitudes towards refugees -but not towards refugee policy (H4a). This is in line with research providing evidence for two-sided messages being perceived more helpful (Schlosser, 2011) and credible (Kamins et al, 1989) whereas one-sided narratives may appear inconsiderate and biased (Lawson, 1970;Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). In contrast to these studies, our study provides evidence for certain underlying psychological mechanisms.…”

Section: Expanding Research On the Effects Of Different C-/pve Narrativessupporting

confidence: 90%

“…However, early advertising and psychological research provide evidence dealing with the comparison of one-sided and two-sided messages regarding attitude change (e.g., Allen, 1991;Hovland, Lumsdaine, & Sheffield, 1949;Lawson, 1970;O'Keefe, 1999). Such research shows that messages including different perspectives seem to be more helpful (Schlosser, 2011) and credible (Kamins, Brand, Hoeke, & Moe, 1989) than one-sided messages.…”

Section: Message Sidedness As a Factor For Attitude Changementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such research shows that messages including different perspectives seem to be more helpful (Schlosser, 2011) and credible (Kamins, Brand, Hoeke, & Moe, 1989) than one-sided messages. The latter are even rather perceived as biased towards a certain opinion (Lawson, 1970;Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).…”

Section: Message Sidedness As a Factor For Attitude Changementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Two sides of the same coin? The persuasiveness of one-sided vs. two-sided narratives in the context of radicalization prevention

Schmitt¹,

Caspari²,

Wulf³

et al. 2021

SCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Societal organizations aim at challenging online extremist messages by counterposing with different narratives such as alternative narratives (one-sided narrative) and counter-narratives (two-sided narratives). The current study examined which type of narrative is more efficient in changing attitudes accounting for narrative involvement and reactance regarding the narrative. We employed a 2(one-sided vs. two-sided narrative) × 2 (ease of identification vs. no ease of identification) between-subjects design (N = 405) using a controversial topic: the ongoing debate about how to deal with the number of refugees in Germany. We found an indirect effect of the narrative on attitude change. People who read the two-sided narrative showed less reactance. The smaller the reactance, the more they felt involved in the narrative, which, in turn led to more positive attitudes towards refugees. We discuss these findings regarding their theoretical contribution to create customized narratives challenging extremist messages.

show abstract

Section: Expanding Research On the Effects Of Different C-/pve Narrativessupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Message Sidedness As a Factor For Attitude Changementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Two sides of the same coin? The persuasiveness of one-sided vs. two-sided narratives in the context of radicalization prevention

Schmitt¹,

Caspari²,

Wulf³

et al. 2021

SCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This suggests, consistent with the elaborative complexity = more effectiveness perspective, that providing independent dimensions pointing in the same direction (both refutations of opponent arguments and new arguments that build one's case are equally in favor of a single position) is more effective than providing a simpler one-sided argument. It is worth noting, however, that this effect is complicated and potentially qualified by multiple factors (for additional work, see, e.g., Allen, 1991;Crowley et al, 1994;Eisend, 2007;Lawson, 1970;Niederdeppe et al, 2012). Work in complexity has similarly suggested that integrative complexity effects are often situationally-specific (Conway et al, 2016).…”

Section: A Multiple Complexity Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the Role of Linguistic Complexity in Famous Trial Outcomes

Zubrod

Conway

et al. 2020

Journal of Language and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Famous trials not only generate immense popularity and intrigue, they also have the power to change history. Surprisingly, little research examines the use of complex language during these culturally-significant trial outcomes. In the present study, we helped fill in this gap by evaluating the relationship between attorneys’ use of integratively complex language and trial outcomes. Using the well-validated Automated Integrative Complexity scoring system, we analyzed the complexity of language in the opening and closing statements of famous trials. We found that higher levels of integrative complexity led to a significant increase in winning outcomes, but only for the prosecution. Further, this effect was driven by elaborative forms of complexity and not dialectical forms of complexity. Taken together, these results fill a large gap in our understanding of how language might influence the outcomes of culturally-significant legal proceedings.

show abstract