English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Purpose  The goal of the research was to check whether the sender communicating in an ambiguous manner can gain the benefits in three aspects: perception of his or her image, evoking agreement with issue stand and intention to support him or her in the election. Impact of ambiguous messages was compared with the impact of messages consistent or inconsistent with participants' opinions.    Design/methodology/approach  Two experiments were conducted. Participants were randomly divided into three groups and each of them was presented with (1) a message supporting or (2) opposing given proposition or (3) an ambiguous message not revealing the ultimate opinion of the sender. Participants' initial views on the issues were measured. In experiment 1 an expert message concerned the building of the nuclear power plant was presented. In experiment 2 it was a politician's message about introducing the guaranteed number of parliamentary seats for women.    Findings  The results suggest that a strategy of argumentative ambiguity applied by senders may be beneficial if the point is to avoid recipients' objections. However, the consequences of ambiguity for the evaluation of sender's credibility and voters' intentions can be seen to be negative.    Originality/value  This research was looking for the reconcile of the contradictory results of previous research, which may have their source in the various operationalization of ambiguity. It was focused at an argumentative ambiguity (i.e. presenting different points of view without declaring support for any of the options).

Does it pay to avoid speaking straight about controversial issues? Impact of argumentative ambiguity on the perception of the speaker