ChaseDream
搜索
123下一页
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 4239|回复: 21
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[考古] 新阅读 电视广播广告中语速快慢对听众的影响考古 [已确认]

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2011-11-12 01:02:15 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |正序浏览 |阅读模式
电视广播广告中语速快慢对听众的影响。
总共两段,第一段说有研究调查电视广播中广告的语速对听众的影响,两个M开头的人分别持两种对立观点。M1说语速快的有助于听众更好的接受广告信息,因为他们更加concentrated。 M2说快语速不好,有两个分观点:一是语速快reduce了听众对广告信息的processing,二是语速快削弱了听众听广告的motivation,因为他们没有opportunity去仔细听。
第二段说,实验先比较normal speed 和high speed的广告,发现听众在听normal speed广告时接受到的信息更多(这有点记不清了,大意是说normal的比high speed的好)。还做了一种实验增加播报时每个词之间的interval。因为增加inverval可以增加听众process信息的时间,但是实验中interval长短对听众的接收并没有影响,所以说明不是processing影响听众的接受能力。又绕回去说high speed的时候,人们觉得听广告有difficulty,不愿意听所以接收的少,得出结论是motivation影响接收。


问题有一个说实验结论说明了什么,应该是削弱了M1的理论,加强了M2的第二个分论点。
剩下的想不起来了。。。。

Melody1234 大神已确认 考试比原文简单 见#17
考古是同一篇~

第一题:主旨题
第二题是高亮第二段里的一句话,问它是支持了下列哪个观点,请在前后句找
第三题是作者支持哪个观点?显然是M2的观点
直接问题:1.第二段高亮的“增加停顿时间have no effect”的作用是什么,答案具体不记得了,貌似是高亮后一句话的同意改写
以下哪一项是第二个M的观点?support题目。A:语速过快会增加观众的理解难度


感觉这篇就是JJ57广告效用 关键词:ML和摩尔(Moore)、高亮。。。。
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------考古的分割线---------------------------------------------------------
1.3.7 语速在广告中影响
V1 by jscz66
第一篇说语速对人听广告的影响
第一段说语速和停顿对人理解广告有影响,然后说了两个专家吧,一个ML认为语速快时人会更专注于广告的内容,理解的也就更多,另一个人MO说有停顿会给人更多的时间来理解接收到的信息,并且语速太快会给人一种暗示就是讲的东西很难理解(因为怕讲不完,所以快)。
第二段说实验表明人们对正常语速的广告接受到的信息更多,但是停顿对人的理解没有影响,但是快的语速的确会给人一种很难理解的暗示,简介导致人们失去兴趣
记得有一个题说文章对两个专家的观点是同意还是不同意,选了反对第一个人说的,同意第二个人的第二个观点
V2 by morningzc
广告语速和间隙停顿
最后一段一句高亮,问研究下来,语速停顿has no effect,这句主要支持什么?
有两个迷魂选项A停顿的越多,对process的处理就增强(高亮前一句)2)D语速停顿不是因为lack of什么(写的是高亮的后面再后面的相关句子)

文章主要说了什么B反对ML的意见,支持Moor的第一个意见D反对ML的意见,支持moor的第二个意见
V3 by 朵朵0912 730
语速影响广告效果那篇
JJ里很全,题目有
文章结论(具体怎么问的忘了):not confirm M1 and M2’s first (就是opportunity那个) hypothesis but confirm M2’s second(motivation那个) hypothesis遇到了JJ中的
怎么样才最适合观众?
楼主选两个normal
V4 by camelo777 760
广告语速的问题,有原文不多说了,不长也不难。阅读主旨题目答案确定,选反对第一个人,支持第二个的第一个观点,是C选项。
考古
P1广告先说两个牛人,都是M打头的。M1说广告语速快好,停顿少越能使受众集中精力去听。M2说不然,语速太快和停顿越少,人们懒得去听,提出有两种可能。1.缺乏理解的时间。2.太快使人缺乏理解的motivation
P2做了个实验,否定了M1的观点,证实了M2的观点。即语速过快使人缺乏去听广告的motivation,否定了第一个可能,即人们不听广告是没时间去理解。例证是:实验表明停顿增加虽然给受众更多时间去理解语速快的广告,但不会使人们更好的理解广告。于是否定了人们缺乏时间理解广告这个原因
第一题:主旨题
第二题是高亮第二段里的一句话,问它是支持了下列哪个观点,请在前后句找
第三题是作者支持哪个观点?显然是M2的观点
直接问题:1.第二段高亮的“增加停顿时间have no effect”的作用是什么,答案具体不记得了,貌似是高亮后一句话的同意改写
以下哪一项是第二个M的观点?support题目。A:语速过快会增加观众的理解难度
还有一题,问你一下怎么样才最适合观众:
快语速and长停顿
Normal语速and 短停顿
Normal语速and Normal停顿
Normal语速and长停顿
Slow语速and ***停顿

本帖子中包含更多资源

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?立即注册

x
收藏收藏1 收藏收藏1
22#
发表于 2011-11-13 20:20:27 | 只看该作者
顶上去 JJ中还没加进去呢
21#
 楼主| 发表于 2011-11-13 12:17:39 | 只看该作者
thx~
-- by 会员 四叶草clover (2011/11/13 11:13:33)


感谢四叶草童鞋喔喔喔~!
20#
 楼主| 发表于 2011-11-13 12:17:15 | 只看该作者
不好意思啊 才看到。。
考古是同一篇~

第一题:主旨题
第二题是高亮第二段里的一句话,问它是支持了下列哪个观点,请在前后句找
第三题是作者支持哪个观点?显然是M2的观点
直接问题:1.第二段高亮的“增加停顿时间have no effect”的作用是什么,答案具体不记得了,貌似是高亮后一句话的同意改写
以下哪一项是第二个M的观点?support题目。A:语速过快会增加观众的理解难度

这几个我都考到了~
-- by 会员 Melody1234 (2011/11/13 10:07:18)


谢谢大神~!
19#
发表于 2011-11-13 11:13:33 | 只看该作者
thx~
18#
发表于 2011-11-13 10:58:10 | 只看该作者
MacLachlan and his colleagues (LaBarbera & MacLachlan, 1979; MacLachlan & Siegel, 1980) contend that people prefer speech that is somewhat faster than normal speed, and that this prompts them to elaborate more on the advertising message. While they provide data that are consistent with this conclusion, attempts at replication have not provided support (Stephens, 1982; Lautman & Dean, 1983; Schlinger et al., 1983; Moore, Hausknecht, & Thamodaran, 1986).
Moore et al. (1986) offer an alternative thesis, suggesting that time compression interferes with the listener’s opportunity and motivation to elaborate on the ad. They argue that accelerating speech not only curtails processing time, it also serves as a cue that processing will be difficult. Drawing on the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) they argue that when speech rate is faster than normal, consumers will tend to process the substance of the ad less and focus instead on peripheral cues such as the likeability of the announcer’s voice. Empirical findings provide support for this prediction. Unfortunately, their methodology does not enable them to determine whether this is the result of reduced opportunity to process, reduced motivation to process, or both.
One means of addressing this question is to determine whether the effects of compression are driven primarily by syllable speed or interphrase pausation. Research has found that accelerated speech is perceived as more difficult to understand, and that for the same degree of time compression, accelerating syllable speed has a much larger effect on perceptions of speech rate than shortening interphrase pauses (Grosjean & Lane, 1976; Miller and Grosjean 1981). Thus, if the effects of compression are driven by reduced motivation to process, ad response should be more sensitive to changes in syllable speed. If they are driven simply by decreased opportunity to process, then reducing processing time by accelerating syllable speed should have the same impact as an equivalent reduction resulting from shortening interphrase pauses.

Consistent with previous research by Moore et al. (1986), we show that the effect of increasing speech rate in broadcast advertising is to disrupt, rather than enhance, consumer processing of the ad. More importantly, we extend their work by distinguishing between two alternative explanations for the observed disruption. First, we find that interphrase pausation has no effect on ad processing or attitude change. Since this variable has a substantial impact on the time available to process, it seems unlikely that lack of opportunity to process is responsible for the reduced processing associated with faster speech. Syllable speed, on the other hand, does influence consumer response, with faster articulation serving to disrupt message processing. Further, in the high syllable speed condition, subjects exposed to an ad with a low pitch voice, which is perceived as more attractive and credible, exhibited more favorable ad-directed cognitive responses and more positive ad and brand attitudes. Given that both manipulations reduced the ad’s running time by exactly the same amount, these results support a motivational explanation for the effects of compressed speech, at least within the normal range of human speech.

感觉这几段好像跟文章考古思路比较接近,其他内容没提到~

请大牛帮忙鉴定~
-- by 会员 四叶草clover (2011/11/13 10:48:51)


恩 确实是。。。考试那篇主要就是从这里面精炼的内容,比这个说的简练很多,很好懂~
17#
发表于 2011-11-13 10:48:51 | 只看该作者
MacLachlan and his colleagues (LaBarbera & MacLachlan, 1979; MacLachlan & Siegel, 1980) contend that people prefer speech that is somewhat faster than normal speed, and that this prompts them to elaborate more on the advertising message. While they provide data that are consistent with this conclusion, attempts at replication have not provided support (Stephens, 1982; Lautman & Dean, 1983; Schlinger et al., 1983; Moore, Hausknecht, & Thamodaran, 1986).
Moore et al. (1986) offer an alternative thesis, suggesting that time compression interferes with the listener’s opportunity and motivation to elaborate on the ad. They argue that accelerating speech not only curtails processing time, it also serves as a cue that processing will be difficult. Drawing on the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) they argue that when speech rate is faster than normal, consumers will tend to process the substance of the ad less and focus instead on peripheral cues such as the likeability of the announcer’s voice. Empirical findings provide support for this prediction. Unfortunately, their methodology does not enable them to determine whether this is the result of reduced opportunity to process, reduced motivation to process, or both.
One means of addressing this question is to determine whether the effects of compression are driven primarily by syllable speed or interphrase pausation. Research has found that accelerated speech is perceived as more difficult to understand, and that for the same degree of time compression, accelerating syllable speed has a much larger effect on perceptions of speech rate than shortening interphrase pauses (Grosjean & Lane, 1976; Miller and Grosjean 1981). Thus, if the effects of compression are driven by reduced motivation to process, ad response should be more sensitive to changes in syllable speed. If they are driven simply by decreased opportunity to process, then reducing processing time by accelerating syllable speed should have the same impact as an equivalent reduction resulting from shortening interphrase pauses.

Consistent with previous research by Moore et al. (1986), we show that the effect of increasing speech rate in broadcast advertising is to disrupt, rather than enhance, consumer processing of the ad. More importantly, we extend their work by distinguishing between two alternative explanations for the observed disruption. First, we find that interphrase pausation has no effect on ad processing or attitude change. Since this variable has a substantial impact on the time available to process, it seems unlikely that lack of opportunity to process is responsible for the reduced processing associated with faster speech. Syllable speed, on the other hand, does influence consumer response, with faster articulation serving to disrupt message processing. Further, in the high syllable speed condition, subjects exposed to an ad with a low pitch voice, which is perceived as more attractive and credible, exhibited more favorable ad-directed cognitive responses and more positive ad and brand attitudes. Given that both manipulations reduced the ad’s running time by exactly the same amount, these results support a motivational explanation for the effects of compressed speech, at least within the normal range of human speech.

感觉这几段好像跟文章考古思路比较接近,其他内容没提到~

请大牛帮忙鉴定~
16#
发表于 2011-11-13 10:45:54 | 只看该作者
谢谢啊
-- by 会员 arielchung (2011/11/13 10:42:10)


不客气呀 举手之劳~
15#
发表于 2011-11-13 10:42:10 | 只看该作者
谢谢啊
14#
发表于 2011-11-13 10:40:12 | 只看该作者
不好意思啊 才看到。。
考古是同一篇~

第一题:主旨题
第二题是高亮第二段里的一句话,问它是支持了下列哪个观点,请在前后句找
第三题是作者支持哪个观点?显然是M2的观点
直接问题:1.第二段高亮的“增加停顿时间have no effect”的作用是什么,答案具体不记得了,貌似是高亮后一句话的同意改写
以下哪一项是第二个M的观点?support题目。A:语速过快会增加观众的理解难度

这几个我都考到了~
-- by 会员 Melody1234 (2011/11/13 10:07:18)




那个原文也是一样的吗?
-- by 会员 四叶草clover (2011/11/13 10:13:13)


No no no, 远没这个复杂。原文才一屏, 就两段,而且几乎没给数据。
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-10-16 15:44
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2025 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部