PL EN


2019 | 16 | 77-91
Article title

Psychologia społeczna czy retoryka empiryczna?

Authors
Content
Title variants
EN
Social Psychology or Empirical Rhetoric?
Languages of publication
PL
Abstracts
EN
For Aristotle, rhetoric was simply an applied technique of persuasion (techne rhetoriké), i. e. an aptitude or producing opinions. From today’s vantage point, it comprised not only the art of fine speech, but also the theory of communication, the theory of argumentation and the essentials of psychology and drama. The problem of multi-aspects of persuasion and argumentation was last comprehensively presented by Aristotle, who interrelated rhetoric with logic, the speaker’s ethos (reliability) and the theory of rhetorical affections, which were aimed at influencing the feelings of the listeners (pathos). It was not until the turn of the forties and fifties of the twentieth century that researchers took a new interest in techniques of exerting influence on people. The experimental methods of Carl Hovland, Fritz Heider, Leo Festinger and others have shaped the modern scientific formula of the old affections theory, now called social psychology. It follows that rhetoric and social psychology, the two fields of influencing people, are closely linked, what Aristotle was undoubtedly aware of. The aim of this article is to find an answer to the question about the relationship between the affections theory and social psychology: do we have the right to call it empirical rhetoric?
Keywords
Contributors
References
  • Arystoteles. Retoryka; Retoryka dla Aleksandra; Poetyka. Warszawa: Wydaw. Naukowe PWN, 2004. Print.
  • Billig, Michael. „Psychology, rhetoric, and cognition”. History of the Human Sciences 2, 1989, 289–307. Print.
  • Brandt, Richard Booker. Etyka: zagadnienia etyki normatywnej i metaetyki. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 1996. Print.
  • Chaiken, Shelly. „Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source Versus Message Cues in Persuasion”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39, 1980, 752–766. Print.
  • Chen, Serena, Kimberly Duckworth i Shelly Chaiken. „Motivated Heuristic and Systematic Processing”. Psychological Inquiry 10 (1999): 44–49. Print.
  • Chudy, Wojciech. Dialektyka. Powszechna Encyklopedia Filozofii (wersja internetowa). Polskie Towarzystwo Tomasza z Akwinu, 2009. http://www.ptta.pl/pef. Web.
  • Cialdini, Robert B. Wywieranie wpływu na ludzi: teoria i praktyka. Gdańsk: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne, 1998. Print.
  • Dow, Jamie. Passions and persuasion in Aristotle’s Rhetoric. First edition. Oxford, United Kingdom, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2015. Print.
  • Fahnestock, Jeanne. Rhetorical figures in science. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Print.
  • Fahnestock, Jeanne. „Verbal and Visual Parallelism”. Written Communication 20 (2003): 123–152. Print.
  • Forceville, Charles i Eduardo Urios-Aparisi (red.). Multimodal metaphor. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009. Print.
  • Fortenbaugh, William W. Aristotle’s practical side: on his psychology, ethics, politics and rhetoric. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2006. Print.
  • Hovland, Carl I., Irving L. Janis i Harold H. Kelley. Communication and persuasion; psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven, CT, US: Yale University Press, 1953. Print.
  • Kaczmarkowski, Michał. „Retoryka starożytna – możliwa podstawa nauk humanistycznych”. Retoryka antyczna i jej dziedzictwo. Red. Mieczysław Grzesiowski. Warszawa: Aletheia, Polskie Towarzystwo Filologiczne, 1996. Print.
  • Katz, Daniel. „Obituary: Floyd H. Allport 1890-1978”. American Psychologist 34 (1979): 351–353. Print.
  • Kennedy, George A. A new history of classical rhetoric. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994. Print.
  • Kjeldsen, Jens E. „The study of visual and multimodal argumentation”. Argumentation 29 (2015): 115–132. Print.
  • Lewin, Kurt. „Der Ubergang von der aristotelischen zur galileischen Denkweise in Biologie und Psychologie”. Erkenntnis 1 (1930): 421–466. Print.
  • Lichański, Jakub Z. „Jak Kwintylian rozumiał retorykę: zapomniana definicja”. Forum Artis Rhetoricae (2012): 5–11. Print.
  • Łabuz, Piotr M. i Marcin Urbański. Mistrz Manipulacji, czyli jak skutecznie wywierać wpływ na innych i czerpać z tego korzyści także w biznesie. Yans Cron Consulting Group sp. z o.o., 2003. Web.
  • MacMartin, Clare i Andrew S. Winston. „The rhetoric of experimental social psychology, 1930-1960: From caution to enthusiasm”. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 36 (2000): 349–364. Print.
  • Micheli, Raphael. „Emotions as objects of argumentative constructions”. Argumentation 24 (2010): 1–17. Print.
  • O’Keefe, Daniel J. Persuasion: theory & research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002. Print.
  • Perloff, Richard M. The dynamics of persuasion: communication and attitudes in the 21st century. Sixth edition. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017. Print.
  • Petty, Richard E. i John T. Cacioppo. Attitudes and persuasion – classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, Iowa: W.C. Brown Co. Publishers, 1981. Print.
  • Portolano, Marlana i Rand B. Evans. „The experimental psychology of attitude change and the tradition of classical rhetoric”. American Journal of Psychology 118 (2005): 125–140. Print.
  • Pratkanis, Anthony R. i Elliot Aronson. Wiek propagandy: używanie i nadużywanie perswazji na co dzień. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 2005. Print.
  • Simons, Herbert W. „Billig on rhetoric”. Rhetoric, ideology and social psychology: essays in honour of Michael Billig. Red. Charles Antaki i Susan Condor. London, New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014, 17–28. Print.
  • Stiff, James B. Persuasive communication. New York: Guilford Press, 1994. Print.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-8915f9eb-3f0d-4b93-a821-616955fbaaf1
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.