現代社會中，經常可以見到立場對立的意見討論情境。而人在這種情境中，似乎很難進行客觀理性的討論，甚至這種情境也容易引發人際緊張。因此，本研究目的在釐清「立場對立情境中，個體在對另一方提出的論點做贊成或反對判斷時，存在的傾向、影響因素與認知歷程」等相關問題，並希望能依據研究結果提供一些啟示與建議，協助人成為更客觀理性的討論者。
為達成目的，本研究提出「立場對立情境之論點贊否模式」（CSAAM）。在CSAAM中，認為當個體在針對切身相關的議題，與立場對立者進行意見討論時，共有兩條路徑的因素，會影響個體對另一方論點所做出贊成或反對的判斷（論點贊否反應）。第一條路徑是屬於意識層面的處理路徑，指的是論點立場與論點品質等兩類論點性質的影響。在這條路徑中，說明當立場對立者所提出的論點是屬於和個體自身立場一致的「順論點」或是有道理的「強論點」時，皆較會引發個體對論點的贊成傾向；然而若提出的論點是屬於和個體自身立場不一致的「逆論點」或是沒道理的「弱論點」時，則皆較會引發個體對論點的反對傾向。第二條路徑則是屬於自動化的處理路徑，指的是傳送者立場訊息的影響。在這條路徑中，說明立場對立訊息一方面可能透過反感情緒的中介，引發個體對傳送者的反對傾向，而直接影響個體的論點贊否反應；另一方面，立場對立訊息亦可能透過反感情緒的中介，干擾個體對論點品質的處理，使個體傾向把所接收到的論點知覺得較沒有道理，而間接影響論點贊否反應。
整體而言，在過去有關社會判斷與說服的雙路徑模式中，普遍較未強調「自動化處理會與意識處理同時產生影響」以及「自動化處理會對意識處理產生干擾」這樣的概念。然而CSAAM則採取平行路徑取向的觀點，認為就「立場對立情境的論點贊否反應」而言，「立場對立訊息對論點贊否反應的影響」這種自動化處理，會與「論點性質對論點贊否反應的影響」這種意識處理同時並存，而且立場對立訊息亦會自動化對論點品質的處理產生干擾（干擾意識處理）。
本研究透過七個實驗驗證CSAAM。在實驗一中，操弄「論點立場」與「論點品質」兩個受試者內變項。結果發現，這兩類論點性質確實會同時影響受試者的論點贊否反應（即受試者對論點判斷贊成或反對的個數與時間）。此外，後續的調查顯示，受試者對於論點立場的影響，普遍有相當的覺察。
在實驗二與實驗三中，操弄「立場對立」這個受試者間變項。實驗二發現，立場對立訊息確實會引發個體對傳送者產生反感情緒與反對傾向，而對贊否反應產生直接影響。在實驗三中，則進一步透過讓這種影響與意識處理力量彼此對立的實驗設計，驗證了這種影響屬於自動化的處理。
實驗四延續先前實驗的探討，操弄「論點立場」與「論點品質」兩個受試者內變項，以及「立場對立」這個受試者間變項。結果發現，論點性質與立場對立訊息對論點贊否反應的影響確實會同時並存，而且立場對立訊息亦會對論點品質處理產生干擾，間接對論點贊否反應產生影響。
實驗五、實驗六與實驗七則延續實驗四，除了操弄「論點立場」與「論點品質」兩個受試者內變項以及「立場對立」這個受試者間變項之外，更分別操弄「監控提醒」、「分心作業」與「時間壓力」等三個受試者間變項，目的在由CSAAM整體的角度，進一步驗證論點性質的影響確實屬於意識處理，而立場對立訊息的直接與間接影響則屬於自動化處理。實驗五發現，論點立場的影響屬於意識處理，因此也較會受到監控提醒的修正，而立場對立訊息的直接與間接影響則屬於自動化處理，因此也較不容易受到監控提醒的修正。然而實驗五並未發現監控提醒有促進論點品質影響的效果。實驗六與實驗七則發現，雖然細部結果未完全符合預測，但大致仍支持論點性質的影響屬於意識處理，因此也較會被分心作業或時間壓力所干擾，而立場對立訊息的影響則屬於自動化處理，因此也較不會受到分心作業或時間壓力的干擾，而產生變化。
整體來說，CSAAM的概念大致獲得了實驗資料的支持。本研究依據研究發現，提出結果應用與未來研究的建議。

The purpose of this study was to clarify the response tendency, influencing factors, and cognitive processes in people who make agreement/disagreement judgments on other’s arguments in a counterpositional situation.
An Arguments Agreement/Disagreement Model in Counterpositional Situation (CSAAM) was proposed. This model argues that when an individual discusses with a counterpositional communicator on some relevant issues, this person’s argument agreement/disagreement responses could be influenced via two routes. The first route is a conscious process, which involves the influences of two argument properties: the argument position and argument quality. When the counterpositional communicator’ arguments are propositional or strong, an agreement tendency would be elicited. When the arguments are counterpositional or weak, on the other hand, a disagreement tendency would be elicited. The second route is an automatic process, which involves the influence of the counterpositional message of the communicator. In this route the counterpositional message could directly elicit disagreement tendency through emotional reactance. In addition, the counterpositional message could interfere with the message recipient’s processing of argument quality, making him perceive the arguments as weaker and thus influencing his agreement/disagreement responses indirectly.
The dual-process models of social judgment and persuasion in the past seldom emphasized the possibility of co-occurrence of automatic and conscious processing. Neither did they point out that the automatic processing might interfere with the conscious processing. The CSAAM proposed in the present study adopted an approach of parallel routes, claiming that the automatic processing of the counterpositional message of communicators and the conscious processing of the argument property could co-occur and that the counterpositional message of communicators could interfere with the processing of the argument quality automatically.
The CSAAM was tested with seven experiments. In Experiment 1, the factors of argument position and argument quality were manipulated. The results showed that the two argument properties could influence the argument agreement/disagreement responses simultaneously. Further survey also showed that subjects were aware of the influence of argument position.
In Experiment 2 and 3, the counterposition of communicators was manipulated. The results of Experiment 2 demonstrated that counterpositional message of communicators could elicit reactance and a disagreement tendency. The results of Experiment 3 further supported the prediction that the influence of counterpositional message is automatic and this influence could attenuate the influence from conscious processing.
Experiment 4 extended the foregoing experiments and manipulated argument position, argument quality, and counterposition of communicator simultaneously. The results showed that the counterpositional message and the argument property could affect the recipient’s argument agreement /disagreement responses at the same time. Besides, the counterpositional message of communicators could interfere with the recipient’s judgment of the argument quality.
Experiment 5, 6, and 7 extended the findings of Experiment 4 by manipulating the three variables in Experiment 4 and monitoring reminding, distraction task or pressure of time. These experiments aimed at examining whether the influence of the argument property was conscious and whether the direct and indirect influences of counterpositional message of communicator were automatic. Experiment 5 found that the influence of argument position was conscious, so the influence could be corrected by monitoring reminding. It was also found that the influence of counterpositional message of communicators was automatic, so the direct and indirect influences could not be completely corrected. Nevertheless, Experiment 5 did not show the facilitating effect of monitoring reminding on the influence of argument quality. Although the results in Experiment 6 and 7 did not fully support the predictions, it was demonstrated that the influence of argument property was conscious, so the influence would be interfered by distraction task and pressure of time. It was also demonstrated that the influences of counterpositional message of communicators were automatic, so the influences would not change by distraction task and pressure of time.
In conclusion, the concepts of CSAAM were generally supported by the empirical data. Some suggestions for possible applications and future research were provided on the basis of the findings.

丘引（民90年12月31日）：世界視窗：能不能不要公布成績？中國時報，第37版。
史英與謝美萱（民93）：打破成績排名的迷思－關於排名的精緻思考。人本教育札記，177期，26-31頁。
林諭林（民94年10月29日）：只排組距，不排名次，新版成績單，不再分分計較。中國時報，第C2版。
國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要（民92年）。
張錦弘（民95年3月2日）：顧及後段生自尊，家長叫好。中國時報，第C8版。
張錦弘與孫蓉華（民95年3月2日）：台北中學生排名壓力拜拜，教局行文各校 不得公布全班、全校排名，建中甚至只能上網用密碼查成績。聯合報，第C8版。
教育部國語推行委員會（民87）：國語辭典。台北：教育部。
陳友琦與孫蒨如（民88）：心情、訊息架構與論點品質對說服效果的影響。應用心理學報，第7輯，41-55頁。
楊正平（民93）：排名文化何時滅？關於排名的社會觀察，人本教育札記，177期，32-37頁。
臺北市國民中學學生成績評量補充規定（民95年）。
劉榮與胡世澤（民94年10月29日）：國高中成績單，北市取消排名。自由時報，第B8版。
Albarracín, D., & Kumkale, G. T. (2003). Affect as information in persuasion: A model of affect identification and discounting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 453–469.
Allyn, J., & Festinger, L. (1961). The effectiveness unanticipated persuasive communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 35-40.
Apsler, R., & Sears, D. O. (1968). Warning, personal involvement, and attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 162-166.
Aronson, E., WIlson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (1994). Social psychology: The heart and the mind. New York: HarperCollins.
Ashcraft, M. H. (2002). Cognition (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bargh, J. A. (1996). Automaticity in social psychology. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 169-183). New York: Guilford Press.
Bettinghaus, E. P., & Cody, M. J. (1987). Persuasive communication (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bless, H., Fiedler, K., & Strack, F. (2004). Social cognition: How individuals construct social reality. New York: Psychology Press.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic press.
Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press.
Brock, T. C. (1981). Historical and methodological perspectives in the analysis of cognitive responses: An introduction. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 1-3). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brock, T. C., & Green, M. C. (Eds.). (2005). Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Buller, D. B. (1986). Distraction during persuasive communication: A meta-analytic review. Communication Monographs, 53, 91-114.
Burgoon, M., Alvaro, E., Grandpre, J., & Voulodakis, M. (2002). Revisiting the theory of psychological reactance: Communicating threats to attitudinal freedom. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 213-232). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cacioppo, J. T., Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1981). The natures of attitudes and cognitive responses and their relationships to behavior. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 31-54). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carter, R. F., Ruggels, W. L., Jackson, K. M., & Heffner, M. B. (1973). Application of signaled stopping technique to communication research. In P. Clarke (Ed.), New models for mass communication research (pp. 15-43). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Carter, R. F., & Simpson, R. (1970). Cited in P. Clarke (Ed.), New models for mass communication research (pp. 27-28). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuaion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.
Chen, H. C., Reardon, R., Rea, C., & Moore, D. (1992). Forewarning of content and involvement: Consequence for persuasion and resistance to persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 523-541.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Covington, M. V. (1983). Motivated cognition. In S. G. Paris, G. M. Olson, & H. W. Stenvenson (Eds.), Learning and Motivation in the Classroom. (pp.139-164). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Covington, M. V. (1984). The self-worth theory of achievement motivation: Findings and implications. Elementary School Learning, 85, 5-20.
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.
Dunning, D., Leuenberger, A., & Sherman, D. A. (1995). A new look at motivated inference: Are self-serving theories of success a product of motivational forces? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1082-1090.
Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 31-44.
Festinger, L., & Maccoby, N. (1964). On resistance to persuasive communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 359-366.
Freedman, J. L., & Sears, D. O. (1965). Warning, distraction, and resistance to influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 262-266.
Fukada, H. (1986). Psychological processes mediating the persuasion inhibiting effect of forewarning in fear arousing communication. Psychological reports, 58, 87-90.
Gass, R. H., & Seiter, J. S. (1999). Persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Gilbert, D. T. (1989). Thinking lightly about others: Automatic components of the social inference process. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 189-211). New York: Guilford Press.
Gilbert, D. T., Giesler, R. B., & Morris, K. A. (1995). When comparisons arise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 227-236.
Gilbert, D. T., & Hixon, J. G. (1991). The trouble of thinking: Activation and application of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 509-517.
Gilbert, D. T., Krull, D. S., & Pelham, B. W. (1988). Of thoughts unspoken: Social inference and the self-regulation of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 685-694.
Gilbert, D. T., Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. S. (1988). On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 733-740.
Haaland, G. A. & Venkatesan, M. (1968). Resistance to persuasive communications: An examination of the distraction hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 167-170.
Hass, R. G. (1981). Effects of source characteristics on cognitive responses and persuasion. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 141-172). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Haas, R. G., & Grady, K. (1975). Temporal delay, type of forewarning, and resistance to influence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 459-469.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Hovland, C. I., Lumsdaine, A. A., & Sheffield, F. D. (1949). Experiments on mass communication. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Jack, J. Z. & O’Brien, M. E. (2003). Decreasing resistance by affirming the self. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 235-257). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88, 67-85.
Jones, S. C. (1973). Self- and interpersonal evaluations: Esteem theories versus consistency theories. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 185-199.
Kenworthy, J. B., & Miller, N. (2002). Attributional bias about the origins of attitudes: Externality, emotionality, and rationality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 693-707.
Knowles, E. S., & Linn, J. A. (2003a). Approach-avoidance model of persuasion: Alpha and omega strategies for change. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 117-148). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Knowles, E. S., & Linn, J. A. (2003b). The important of resistance to persuasion. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 3-9). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kruglanski, A. W. (1975). The endogenous-exogenous partition in attribution theory, Psychological Review, 82, 387-406.
Kunda, Z. (1999). Social cognition: Making sense of people. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
LeDoux, J. (1996). The emotion brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Levine, R. (2003). The power of persuasion: How we're bought and sold. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78.
Martin, R., Hewstone, M, & Martin, P. Y. (2003). Resistance to persuasive messages as a function of majority and minority source status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 585-593.
McGuire, W. J., & Papageorgis, D. (1962). Effectiveness of forewarning in developing resistance to persuasion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 26, 24-34.
McGrane, W. L., Toth, F. J., & Alley, E. B. (1990). The use of interactive media for HIV/AIDS prevention in the military community. Military Medicine, 155, 235-240.
Meyers-Levy, J., & Maheswaran, D. (2004). Exploring message framing outcomes when systematic, heuristic, or both types of processing occur. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1&2), 159–167.
O’Keefe, D. J. (2003). Persuasion: Theory and research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Papageorgis, D. (1968). Warning and persuasion. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 271-282.
Pennington, D. C. (2000). Social cognition. London: Routledge.
Perloff, R. M. (2003). The dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the 21st century (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Petty, R. E., & Brock, T. C. (1981). Thought disruption and persuasion: Assessing the validity of attitude change experiments. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 55-80). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1977). Forewarning, cognitive responding, and resistance to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 645-656.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979a). Effects of forewarning of persuasive intent and involvement on cognitive responses and persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 173-176.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979b). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915-1926.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Tradition versus intergration. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 367-374.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M., & Brock, T. C. (Eds.). (1981a). Cognitive responses in persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M., & Brock, T. C. (1981b). Historical Foundations of cognitive responses. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 5-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Facilitation and inhibition in the processing of signals. In P. M. A. Rabbitt & S. Dornic (Eds.), Attention and performance V (pp. 669-682). New York: Academic Press.
Quinn, J. M., & Wood, W. (2003). Forewarnings of influence appeals: Inducing resistance and acceptance. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 193-213). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ratneshwar, S., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Comprehension's role in persuasion: The case of its moderating effect on the persuasive impact of source cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 52-62.
Reardon, K. K. (1991). Persuasion in practice. Newbury Park: Sage.
Reeder, G. D., Pryor, J. B., Wohl, M. J. A., & Griswell, M. L. (2005). On attributing negative motives to others who disagree with our opinions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1498-1510.
Ross, L., & Ward, A. (1996). Naїve realism in everyday life: Implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. In E. S. Reed, E. Turiel, & T. Brown (Eds.), Values and knowledge (pp. 103-135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127-190.
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99-118.
Simons, H. W., Morreale, J., & Gronbeck, B. (2001). Persuasion in society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2000). Social psychology (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Stiff, J. B. (1994). Persuasive communication. New York: Guilford Press.
Stiff, J. B., & Mongeau, P. A. (2003). Persuasive communication (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Taylor, S. E., Peplau, L. A., & Sears, D. O. (1997). Social psychology (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tobin, S. J., & Weary, G. (2003). An on-line look at automatic contrast and correction of behavior categorization and dispositional inferences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1328-1338.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. New York: Blackwell.
Vohs, J. L., & Garrett, R. L. (1968). Resistance to persuasion: An integrative framework. Public Opinion Quarterly, 32, 445-452.
Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1997). The flexible correction model: The role of naive theories of bias of bias correction. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 141-208.
Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Smoak, N. D., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2003). Multiple routes to resisting attitude change. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 13-38). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Weinstein, N. D., Grubb, P. D., & Vautier, J. S. (1986). Increasing automobile seat belt use: An intervention emphasizing risk susceptibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 285-290.
Wood, W., Kallgren, C. A., & Preisler, R. M. (1985). Access to attitude-relevant information in memory as a determinant of persuasion: The role of message attributes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 73-85.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151-175.
Zuwerink, J. R., & Devine, P. G. (1996). Attitude importance and resistance to persuasion: It's not just the thought that counts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 931-944.