當理性遇上感性:情緒導向模式在危機傳播之驗證

姚惠忠 姚惠忠, 凌儀玲 Hui-Chung Yao, 鄭皓蔚 I-Ling Ling
{"title":"當理性遇上感性:情緒導向模式在危機傳播之驗證","authors":"姚惠忠 姚惠忠, 凌儀玲 Hui-Chung Yao, 鄭皓蔚 I-Ling Ling","doi":"10.53106/172635812022060041002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n 既有危機傳播理論,多從認知影響情緒取徑入手,較少探討情緒影響認知,因此有學者疾呼危機傳播也需要情緒導向模式的理論取徑。本研究為彌補此一缺口,針對Lu & Huang(2018)所提出的情緒導向模式命題進行實證。研究發現理性分析的認知導向模式,不管在模型解釋力、直接、間接效果上,多不如情緒導向模式。換言之,危機初始階段影響公眾對危機知覺、態度,甚至行為意圖的關鍵變項,可能不是危機責任認知,而是公眾因危機事件而生的情緒。\n The cognition–emotion approach has dominated crisis communication theories, whereas the emotion–cognition approach has received little attention. Based on the notion proposed by Lu and Huang (2018) that emotional intensity determines information processing capacity, this study empirically tested the emotion–cognition approach in the domain of crisis communication. The results indicate that the emotion–cognition approach outperformed the cognition–emotion approach in terms of explanatory power, total effect, and direct and indirect effects. In addition, public emotions, rather than crisis responsibility, might have a substantial effect on the public’s perceptions, attitudes, and behavioral intentions during the outbreak of a crisis.\n \n","PeriodicalId":377163,"journal":{"name":"中華傳播學刊","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中華傳播學刊","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53106/172635812022060041002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

既有危機傳播理論,多從認知影響情緒取徑入手,較少探討情緒影響認知,因此有學者疾呼危機傳播也需要情緒導向模式的理論取徑。本研究為彌補此一缺口,針對Lu & Huang(2018)所提出的情緒導向模式命題進行實證。研究發現理性分析的認知導向模式,不管在模型解釋力、直接、間接效果上,多不如情緒導向模式。換言之,危機初始階段影響公眾對危機知覺、態度,甚至行為意圖的關鍵變項,可能不是危機責任認知,而是公眾因危機事件而生的情緒。  The cognition–emotion approach has dominated crisis communication theories, whereas the emotion–cognition approach has received little attention. Based on the notion proposed by Lu and Huang (2018) that emotional intensity determines information processing capacity, this study empirically tested the emotion–cognition approach in the domain of crisis communication. The results indicate that the emotion–cognition approach outperformed the cognition–emotion approach in terms of explanatory power, total effect, and direct and indirect effects. In addition, public emotions, rather than crisis responsibility, might have a substantial effect on the public’s perceptions, attitudes, and behavioral intentions during the outbreak of a crisis.  
当理性遇上感性:情绪导向模式在危机传播之验证
既有危机传播理论,多从认知影响情绪取径入手,较少探讨情绪影响认知,因此有学者疾呼危机传播也需要情绪导向模式的理论取径。本研究为弥补此一缺口,针对Lu & Huang(2018)所提出的情绪导向模式命题进行实证。研究发现理性分析的认知导向模式,不管在模型解释力、直接、间接效果上,多不如情绪导向模式。换言之,危机初始阶段影响公众对危机知觉、态度,甚至行为意图的关键变项,可能不是危机责任认知,而是公众因危机事件而生的情绪。 The cognition–emotion approach has dominated crisis communication theories, whereas the emotion–cognition approach has received little attention. Based on the notion proposed by Lu and Huang (2018) that emotional intensity determines information processing capacity, this study empirically tested the emotion–cognition approach in the domain of crisis communication. The results indicate that the emotion–cognition approach outperformed the cognition–emotion approach in terms of explanatory power, total effect, and direct and indirect effects. In addition, public emotions, rather than crisis responsibility, might have a substantial effect on the public’s perceptions, attitudes, and behavioral intentions during the outbreak of a crisis.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信