To Elaborate or Not--Thinking about Oral Critiques: A Study of ELM Theory at the 1996 National CEDA Tournament.
Saved in:
| Title: | To Elaborate or Not--Thinking about Oral Critiques: A Study of ELM Theory at the 1996 National CEDA Tournament. |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Church, Russell T., Jones, Mark |
| Peer Reviewed: | N |
| Page Count: | 14 |
| Publication Date: | 1996 |
| Document Type: | Reports - Research Speeches/Meeting Papers |
| Descriptors: | Criticism, Debate, Evaluation, Higher Education, Judges, Public Speaking, Self Concept, Student Development, Student Motivation, Student Reaction, Student Surveys |
| Abstract: | A study examined what critiques, if any, encourage debaters to think about their debating in the most productive ways. It evaluated oral critiques and revealed decisions as components in influencing the debaters'"self-talk" or internal dialogues as the more important messages. The study used R. Petty and J. Cacioppo's (1986) elaboration likelihood model (ELM theory) to evaluate the debater's self-talk about the round immediately after a debate. The study was administered at the National Championship Tournament of the Cross Examination Debate Association held on the campus of California State University at Long Beach during the spring semester of 1996. A survey packet was distributed with round 4 ballots to all 97 judges, who were asked to complete the questionnaire and to distribute a different questionnaire to the debaters at the completion of the round and after any oral critiques. Judges returned 88 of the 97 surveys and debaters, 266 out of 388, or 91% and 69% respectively. Results indicated that debaters viewed judges who announced winners and those who gave oral comments much more favorably than those who did not. Whether the debater won or lost was also an influence. Findings suggest that debaters often react to oral critique with a mixture of elaborate and peripheral thinking, with the study providing at least one index to elaborate thinking and three indices of peripheral thinking. (Contains 13 references.) (CR) |
| Entry Date: | 1997 |
| Accession Number: | ED405616 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | A study examined what critiques, if any, encourage debaters to think about their debating in the most productive ways. It evaluated oral critiques and revealed decisions as components in influencing the debaters'"self-talk" or internal dialogues as the more important messages. The study used R. Petty and J. Cacioppo's (1986) elaboration likelihood model (ELM theory) to evaluate the debater's self-talk about the round immediately after a debate. The study was administered at the National Championship Tournament of the Cross Examination Debate Association held on the campus of California State University at Long Beach during the spring semester of 1996. A survey packet was distributed with round 4 ballots to all 97 judges, who were asked to complete the questionnaire and to distribute a different questionnaire to the debaters at the completion of the round and after any oral critiques. Judges returned 88 of the 97 surveys and debaters, 266 out of 388, or 91% and 69% respectively. Results indicated that debaters viewed judges who announced winners and those who gave oral comments much more favorably than those who did not. Whether the debater won or lost was also an influence. Findings suggest that debaters often react to oral critique with a mixture of elaborate and peripheral thinking, with the study providing at least one index to elaborate thinking and three indices of peripheral thinking. (Contains 13 references.) (CR) |
|---|
