The Variable Persuasiveness of Political Rhetoric
The Variable Persuasiveness of Political Rhetoric
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/ajps.12703
复制
发表时间：
2022-03-14
影响因子：
4.2
通讯作者：
Lauderdale, Benjamin E.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Blumenau, Jack;Lauderdale, Benjamin E.
哪种政治修辞最有说服力？政客们提出的论点具有共同的修辞元素，包括隐喻、自残攻击、诉诸专业知识、道德诉求等许多方面。然而，政治争论也是高度多维的，这使得评估这些要素的相对说服力变得困难。我们报道了一种新颖的实验设计，该设计评估了大量论点的相对说服力，这些论点部署了一系列修辞元素，以支持和反对涉及一系列英国政治问题的提议。我们发现，许多论点共有的修辞要素的平均有效性略有不同，但同一修辞类型的论点在不同问题上的说服力也存在很大差异。这些结果不仅揭示了某些辩论类型在塑造舆论方面比其他类型更有效，而且对解释政治传播领域的调查-实验研究具有重要的意义。
Which types of political rhetoric are most persuasive? Politicians make arguments that share common rhetorical elements, including metaphor, ad hominem attacks, appeals to expertise, moral appeals, and many others. However, political arguments are also highly multidimensional, making it difficult to assess the relative persuasive power of these elements. We report on a novel experimental design which assesses the relative persuasiveness of a large number of arguments that deploy a set of rhetorical elements to argue for and against proposals across a range of UK political issues. We find modest differences in the average effectiveness of rhetorical elements shared by many arguments, but also large variation in the persuasiveness of arguments of the same rhetorical type across issues. In addition to revealing that some argument-types are more effective than others in shaping public opinion, these results have important implications for the interpretation of survey-experimental studies in the field of political communication.