Perspectives on Persuasion, Social Influence, and Compliance Gaining

Citation preview

1 A Rationale for Studying Persuasion John S. Seiter and Robert H. Gass

Some lime ago. one of (he author ... \\ i.I\ imitcd 10 hi" "on· ... ,",ccond grade c1a ...... rool1l 10 tal"-

about

'·pcr~uasion.'·

the :-.ubjeci the author

tC~lchc ...

and rC\l!i.Jn.:hel" at a univcr..,ity. The

t;CC-

and graders. the: author wa ... told. were hu\ illg ··care!.!f year:- and parent' with all 'orts of professions were making appearallce:... The author said he would he happy to do it. though privately he had his douhts. Pcrhap" hc'u \cell Ino man) mo\'ic\ \\ ilh "career day" scenes-featuring o\,crzc,> of prcpann!! Jmltkli\cring \-crbal and /loll\'erbalme",,,age influence peddlin g is cOlllmonl y a two-way street. Do effects have to be observed in only one or in both interactants? And who dec ides if the effort was a !oI u cces~? Moreover. com pliance i~ rarely an all-or-nothing affair. The participants may succeed in ~ome rc~pec ts but fail in ot hers. or succeed only partially. The difficulties are co mpou nded when one i ~ faced with participants whose goab may be multiple, sketchy . and changi ng. and whose w illin gnes~ to acce pt various outcomes or compromi ses may fluctuate during the com muni cation enco unt er. In the case of research on ueception or deception detecti on, it see ms much Illore practical to inc lude all sti ch investigations under thc rubri c of persua sion. In facl. we believe the case has already been made. rath er (;ollvi nci ng ly. that dece ption is a form of persuasive activity (S tiff, 1995). Delibe rate falsifications. omissionloo. or di stortion s all sati sfy an intent requ ireme nt. and the goab of deceiver~ co rre~po nd with those traditionally associated with pe rlll. and negativi .. m. Communicatio/l Research Reporu", 5. 11 4--119. Boster, F. J.. Lev ine, T .. & Kazoleas. D. (1993). The impact of argumentative ness and verbal aggrcs~ive­ ness on strategic diversity and persistence in compliance-ga ining hchuv ior. C(III/I1l1l11iclllio/l Quarter/y.4/.405-414. Burgoon, J. K .. & Hale. J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violation1oo: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication MO/lograph,\, 55. 58-79. Cac ioppo. J. T .. Petty. R. E .. Kao. F. C, & Rodri gue/. R. (1986). Centrul and peripheral routes to pcr .. uasian: An individual difference perJo.pective. )ollmal of Persollality lIrld Social Psychology. 51. 1032- 1043. Canary. D .. Cunni ngham , E. M .. & Cody, M. J . ( 1988). Goal types. gender. and locus of control In managing interperso nal con ni e!. Communication ReJearc/i. 15.426-446. Cody. M. J.. Canary. D. 1.. & Smith. S. W. (1994). Compliance-gaining goals: An ind ucti\c analysis of actor.. ' goal type,,>, strategicsues in adulthood and old age. In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brim (Eds.). U(e·.lpall del'l'lopmew (llId bellm'ior (vol. 3, pp. 65-102). New York: Academic Pre~:-.. EpMcin. S. (1979). The stabi lity of behavior I. On predicting most of the people mudl of the time. jml/"1w! of Pel".\()/Illlity alld Social PsydwloRY. 37. 1097- 11 26. Fiubordinate .... Mal/ agement Communicatioll Qllarterly. 2.6-22. Gorden. W. I.. & Infantc. D. A. ( 1991 ). Test of a commun ication mode l of organitational cO lll mitment. Communicatiol/ Quarterly. 39.144- 155. Hample, 0 .. & Dallinger. J. M. (1985a). Unused complia nce gaining ... trategie .... In J. R. Cox. \1. O. Sitlar.... & G. B. Walker (Eds.). Argument alld sodal praerin': Proceedillgs a/the fOllrfh SC;VAFA ("(mfer· ellee 01/ arglllllel/f(/liol/ (pp. 675- 691 ). Annandale. V A: Speech Com muni cat ion As .. oc iiltion. Hample. D .. & Datlinger. J. M. ( 1985b, November). Cogllitil'(' editing ojargumellt\tnttegies. Pal)Cr presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication As~ociation, Denver. CO. Hampl e. D .. & Dallinger, J . M. (1987). Indi vidual differences in cog niti ve ed iting ituatiom. involving religious vcrlUdy. women and men attempted 10 influence others by speaking either in a competent manner (by supporting their argumenh with evidence) or in u le% competent manner (with no ~uppofling argumenl"» (Bradley. 1981). Consistent with the double ~Iandard for competence. re~ult.'. rl!vealed that men were perceived to be equally competent and were equally influential regardless of their communication sty le. whereas women were perceived to be more competent anu exerted greater influcnce when using a competent ~tylc than when u~ing the less competent style. Other researc h revea ls that women exert less influence than men in ~tcreotypically masculinc and gender-neutral domains. in which men are expected to show higher competence than women. but are more influcntial than men in ~tereotypically feminine domains and contexts in which women are expected to be more competent. For example. men cxert greater influence over the opinions of others for masculinc topics sm:h as sports, gun control, and military affairs. whereas women exert greater influence for feminine topics 'illch a~ women's fear of crime and child care (Falbo. Hazen, & Linimon, 1982: FeldmunSummers, Montano. Kasprlyk. & Wagner. 1980; Javornisky. 1979: Gerrard. Breda, & Gibbons. 1990). Moreover. evidence of clear femalc superiority at a task increa'ies women's influencc and decreases men'!>. (Pugh & Wahrman. 1983: Shackelford. Wood. & Worche l, 1996). As already noted, although competence generally facilitates influence. thi~ is not always the case for women. whose competent behavior may sometimes be perceived as too statu!>.-asserting, A number of ~tudies have revealed that ",omen can be di~advantaged by competence displays. For example, in one study, male and fcmale influence agent'i attempted to persuade others u~ing either a direct. competent ... Iyle of communication or a more indirect style. Results showed that men were equally per~lIa~ive regardle~s of their communication style. wherea~ women exerted greater influence when communicating in a more indirect manner (Burgoon. Jonc~. & Stewart, 1975). In another stlldy, corporarc exeCLItives were asked to evaluate the competence of male and female job applicants and indicate whether they would hire a candidate after reading the applicant's resume and a transcripl of Ihe job inlerview (Bullner & MeEnally. 1996). Results revealed Ihallhe executives were J110~t persuaded by and preferred to hire men who comll1unicated in a highly competent manner, showing directness and initiative. rather than men lIsing a less competen t style. The reverse was found for women applicants: the executi\cs reported bcing leaM persuaded by and lea')t likely to hirc a woman using the highly competent Mylc compared with women using other, less competent styles. Research shows that men are much more inclincd to resi~t women's inlluencc than men's (Ridgeway, 1981). Moreover. men also particularly resiq the influence of competent women. A Mudy examining the efTeclivene"ts of asserti\'c ver~lI"t tentative speech revealed that women who used tentative ~pecch. which involved verbal qualifiers such as disclaimers (e.g., " 1 may be wrong" or 'Till no expert") and hedges (e.g .• ''sort of," "kind of"). were perceived to be less competent than those using a~~ertive ~pcech that did 110t contain such verbal qua lifiers (Carli. 1991). In that study, males were perceived to be equally competent regardless of their speech style and, not surprisingly. equally influential

140

Part 11 • Penua ,'1ioll Variable.\': Pt!r\fJc{'/i\ 'cs Oil SOllrce~. Rl'ceiL 'en. Cltalllleh. ami Ml'.Hagl'.\

using either type of speech. Of particular interest was the effect of perceived competence on women's influence. When speaking competently rather than tentatively. women exerted greater influence over 11 female audience but less influence over a male audience. In essence, men were more influenced by a woman they perceived to be lacking in competence than one who appeared highly competent. rating the competent woman as le!o.s trustworthy and less likable than her less competent counterparts. Other research confirm s the finding that men resist the intluence of competent women. In one study, women were equally influenced by competent male and female intluence agents and liked them equally well, whereas men were Illore influenced by a competent man than by a competent woman (Carli. LaFleur. & Loeber. 1995). In that study. Illen reported that they felt more threatened by a competent woman and liked her less than they liked a competent mall. Similarly. a recent study revealed that a woman who presented herself as a feminine woman who preferred traditional gender roles wa\ perceived to be less competent than a woman who presented herself as less traditionally feminine (Matschiner & Murnen. 1999). As expected, the traditional wOlllan exerted more intlucnce over men and less influence over women than the less traditional woman did. Again. men, but not women. judged the more competent. nontraditional woman to be less likable and were more resistant to her influence than a woman with lesser competence. In a similar sllldy. participants listened to an audiotape of a male or female expert who presented a speech advocating nontraditional gender roles; results revealed that womcn were equally persuaded by male and female speakers. but men were less persuaded by women than by men (Rhoades. 1979). Male resistance to female competence has also been found crossculturally. In this study. the re\earcher examined the responses of male and female officials working in Israeli bureaucrmic organizations to the requests of male and female confcderates (Weimann. 1985). In general. confederates were not particularly effective when their requests conveyed helplessness and dependence on the official, with one exception. Female confederates exerted greater influence over male officials when using this relatively incompetent \lyle of cOlllmunication than when using other, less helples ... and more competent appeals. The tendency of males to resist female inlluence has been found not only in re\carch on adults but also in research 011 children. including toddlers and preschoolers. Jacklin and Maccoby (1978) examined the intluence patterns among mixed- and same-sex pairs of 33month-old toddlers. They found that boys and girls were equally likely to issue verbal prohibitions (e.g .. "no" or "don't") when another child attempted to take their toys. but girls issuing prohibitions exerted less influence over their mule playmates than over female playmates and less influence than boys exerted over either mules or female~. Indeed. the boys' behavior was completely unaffected by girl s' prohibitions. which the boys ... imply ignored. Similar findings have been reported with a slightly older sarllple of childrcn. In that study. researchers studying the innuence of preschoolers when issuing direct requests reported that girls exerted les~ influence over boys than over girls. but that boys were equally influential with bOlh male and female classmates (Serbin, Sprafkin. Elman. & Doyle. 1982). In a study of middle school children. boys and girls attempted to persuade their peers to eat bitter-tasting crackers (Dian & Stein. 1978). Although the authors reported that atlractive children were generally more influential with the opposite sex than unattractive children. overall. boys were more inclined to eat the cracker\ after being per-

Chapler 8 • Gender E!fect.\ on Socia/lnflllellce

141

~uaded

by a male than female peer. wherea ... girl~ wert! equally influl.!nced by bmh gender.... Finally, research reveals thal boys resiM the influence of adult females, as wcll. A study assessing the effectiveness of parent~' imperatives and request~ 10 their two- to sixyear-o ld children revealed that girls were equally likely to comply with their J11other~ and father~. but boys complied le ... s with their mothers' influence attempt ... than with tho ... e of their father (Power. McGrath. Hughes. & Maniro, 1994).

COlIIlIIl/nality, Gender, and Social Influence Women's influence depends not only on their apparent competence but al\o on thl! extent to which they display comlllunal behavior. conveying a concern for others and a lack of interest in asserting their status. Men's influence doc~ not. Instead, re ... earch indic:.HC~ that men are often cqually influcntial, regardless of how communally they behave. In one study, male and female confederates communicated either in a communal style. by agreeing with others, or in a dOlninant. status-as ...erting ... tyle. by overtly di~agrecing "ith others. Results revealed that women exerted greater influence when communal than when dominant. wh ile mcn were equally influential in both cases (Carli, 1998). Moreover. in this study people dis liked the dominant woman and responded to her dominance with anger. irritation, and hostility, whereas they did not express ho~tility toward men who were equally dominant. Other re~earch confirml., that women ul.,ing a self-a" ... crting. dominanl. or threatening ~tyle exert les~ influence than men using the same style (Burgoon. Dillard, & Doran. 1983; Perse. Nathanson. & McLeod. 1996) and less innuencc than women using a group-oriented. communal style (Burgoon. Birk. & Hall. 1991: Shackelford. Wood. & Worchel. 1996). Likewise. research reveab that a ... serting one's status through ... elfpromotion is perceived more favorably in men than in women. For example, women who describe thcir achicvcmcnts in a self-promoting manner arc perceived a . . less descrving of recognition or ,upport than less self-promoting women. whereas men are not penali/ed for self-promotion (Giacalone & Riordan. 1990; Wosins.a. Dabu!. Whetstone-Dion. & Cialdini. 1996). Research abo reveals that women who self-promote generally exen less inlluence than more modest women and are less wcll liked. even though self-promoting wOlllen are considered more competent than their marc modest counterparts (Rudman. 1998). In effect. women who appear to be too ... liuus-asserting. directive. or aggres ... ive in their communications are penalized for their gender-role violations. People di ... li~1.! 'llch women and resist their influence. Even nonverbal self-assertion has costs for women. For example. visual dominance. which involves maintaining a relatively higher level of eye gale while speaking than while listening and which is associated with possessing status and authority, i" more acceptable in men than in women. Women who show high amounts of vi'.;ual dominance are le ... s well liked and less inlluentialthan less vi~lIally dominant women (Copeland. Dri ... kell. & Salas. 1995; Mehta. Dovidio. Gibbs. Miller, Huray. Ellyson. & Brown. 1989. cited in Elly~on. Dovidio. & Brown. 1992). although high amounts of visual dominance are accepwble in men and do not reduce men·s influence (Mehta et al.. 1989, cited in Ellyson. Dovidio. & Brown. 1992). Similar findings have been reported in research on children. Killen and Naigles (1995) examined the effectiveness of dominant and comlllunal influence attempt, by boys

142

ParI II • Persuasion Variables: Perspel'lil'eJ ol/Sources, Receil'eI"J, CI/(ml/l'I.~, and M{''\.'WEW~

and girls who were interacting with peers, They found that girls exerted greater influence when using communal behaviors~agreeing. collaborating. and compromi~ing-than when using dominant behaviors---commanding others, issuing orders. or disagreeing, Two very recent studies examined preschoolers' reactions to female and male puppets exhibiting competent and communal behaviors (Carli. Olm-Shipman. & Kishore. 200 I). The first study revealed that boys disliked g irl puppets that displayed leadcrlike and competent behavior more than boy puppets displaying the same behaviors. but girls liked competent boy and girl puppets equally; both boys and g irl s had eq uall y favorable reactions to communal boy and girl puppets. The second study revealed that boys, but not girls. considered direct influence anempts by girl puppets to be less influential th an indirect attempts when the girl puppet was attempting to influence a male puppet. whereas both boys and girls considered boy puppets to be equall y influential in either direct or indirect mode. regardless of whom the puppet was influencing. In general. then. the research on child ren reveals that. just as with aduhs. males' influence is unaffected by whe th er they use communal or dominant behaviors. Moreover. these findings, along with those discussed earlier comparing the effectiveness of communal versus dominant commun ications by females. suggest that boys in particular re~ist the influence of dominant or competent females. Finally. a study examin ing adult reactions to the commu ni cations of one-year-old infants revealed that adulls were three to four times more likely to respond to girls who talked. babbled. or gestured than to girls who demanded attention. cried, or screamed (Fagol. Hagan, Leinbach. & Kronsberg. 1985 ). This same study revealed that adulls responded to boys about the same amount. regardless of their behavior. Clearly. even in childhood. girls' abi lit y 10 influence depends on their use of a communal style of interaction and avoidance of a dominant or self-asserting SlY Ie. whereas boys' ability to influence i~ relatively unaffected by their style of communication. The research reviewed so far indicates that the prescriptive gender stereotype requiring communal behavior in women and girls is endorsed by both males and females. Because being warm and likable is prescript ive for women but not for men. likability is associated wi th social influence for women more than it is for men (Carli. 1989). That is. people are more influential when they are likable. but the link between being likable and influence is stro nger for women than for men. However. there is evidence that men. in particular. prescribe communality for women. Men respond unfavorably to women who communicate self-in terest rather than friendliness. wa rmth. and other communal characteristics (Ridgeway, 1982) and like communal women more than women who are not communal (Carl i. LaFleur. & Loeber. 1995). Similarly. a meta-analysis of research on evaluation of leaders indicates that womcn leaders are denigrated for using an autocratic rather than democratic leadership styl e, especially by men. whereas male leaders are perceived to be eq ua ll y effective regardless of how they lead (Eag ly. Makhijani. & Klonsky, 1992). As this research on women leaders suggests, men's resista nce (0 the influence of competent women can be overcome when the women display communality as well as competence. One study spec ifically (esting this revealed (hal men were less influenced by women who spoke in a highly competent manner. using rap id clear speech. (han by men who spoke in the same manner (Carli. LaFleur, & Loeber. 1995 ). In this same study. with a male audience. women exerted as much influence as men when they combined competent speech with warmth. by smi ling and nodding. and more influence than women who

Chapter 8 • Gentler E{ft.'rf\

011

Sm:ill/lnfluence

143

were merely competent. Warm and competent women wen! perceived as more likable and less threatening to men than women who were competent but not warm. These results clearly demol1\trate that women who adhere to the prescription for female communality and combine competence with warmth reduce male rl!~i ... tance to their innuence. Essentially. communal behavior reduce\ the threat of female competence.

COllclusioll The different distribution of men and women into social role~. according to which women arc more oftcn found in dome~tic and lower-\tatus occupational roles and generally have lower overall statuo;; than men. ha\ rc\uJted in descriptive gendcr stereotype~ that women are less competent and le\\ legitimate than men as authorities and leader.... In addition, prescriptive ~tcreotypes require females to exhibit greater communality than males. These descriptive and prescriptive stcreotypes create an unfortunate double bind for women, who must both demonstrate exceptional competence to be seen as equal in ability to mcn and simultaneous ly avoid threatening others with their competent behavior. As this review has shown. although people who are perceived as competent und likable excrt greater innuence than tho~e who are not. achieving this balance of competence and likability is more or a challenge for women. Behavior that increa\es a man's perceived competence may enhance. or at least not reduce. his likability. competence being con!)istent with stereotypes about men. In contr;l\1. competent behavior can enhance a woman'\ innuence by increasing her perceived compctence. which Illay be in doubt as the re~ult of gender stereot ypes. while at the ~amc time reducing her influence by lowering her likability. This twin phenomenon occurs becau~e behavior that appear .. competent often also appears status-asserting and lacking in the coml11unal qualitie\ prescribed by stereotypes about women. Certainly. women \\ho appear to be direct. competent. and as~ertive may also be penalized for being ,een Z\\ illegitimately ... eeking \tatus. Icader,hip. or innuence. As a result . in order to exert innuence. women Il1U~t ~omehow combine competcnce with behavior that conveys a lack of desire for self-gain. Communal behavior serves this purpose. Women who combine competence with communa lit y can overcome resistance to their innuence while still adhering to traditional gender-role expectations. For women. innuence depends more on being likable than it does for men (Carli, LaFleur, & Loeber. 1995). The greater importance of li~ability for women', than men's innuence i~ under...cored by research on gender differencc!o. in powcr. Compared with men, women typically possess lower levels of expert power. which is ba~ed all perceived competence. and legitin1ate power. which i~ ba\ed on status and legitimate authority: women do, however. possc!o.s relatively high levels of referent power, which is based on women's perceived warmth and communality (Carli. 1999). Clearly. women have relatively less access to sourcc!o. of power that arc more available to men. A ... a result. women l11u~1 rely on their referent power. or likability. more than men do in order to be innuential. Indeed, thi s may account in part for the greater coml11unal behavior shown by women than men. This behavior include, higher levels of po,iti,e social behavior (Carli & Olm-Shipman. 2(00), nonverbal warmth. (Hall. 1984) and democratic leader\hip (Eagly & Johnson, 1990).

144

Part II • Persuasion Variable!)': PenpecliI'eJ Oil SourceJ, Receh·ers. C"a"nel.~, and Mes,mgl'\

Being likable is especially imponam whe n women interact with men. Resistance to fe male influence is panicularly pronounced in men and boys. who are more like ly to dislike and negatively sanction females who are see n as too competent and direct. It is primaril y in interaction s with men that women lack authority and legitimacy. and it is therefore not su rpri sing that men respond less favorably than women do to starus-asse rrin g be havior in women. Given the resistance to worne n's influe nce. particularly by men. how should women behave in order to be influen ti a l? First. women can increase their influe nce by co mmunicatin g in a warm and 01 her-directed manner and avoiding di splays of highly dominant or self-asserting behavior. In addition, in order to overcome the double standard in evaluation . women can enhance th e ir inllucncc by combining a warm communication styl e with outstanding le ve ls of competence. Clearly. the need to exhibit competence combin ed with warmth places an additional burden on women that is not shared by men. In co ntrast to women, the manner in which men and boys communicate has little apparent effect on their likabilit y or influence. Studies show that men are given the be nefit of the doubt and are presumed to be co mpete nt, eve n when their behavior might be see n as incompetent if ex hibited by women. Sim ilarl y. men who lack communality. self-pro mote. or behave in an overtl y directive or dominant manner are perceived more favorably tha n their female counterparts. Indeed. much of the research in thi s revi ew reveals that male influence is re lati ve ly unaffected by how much com petence or communality they display. As influence agents. m ale~ seem to have greare r behavioral latitude than fe ma les. Becau!'lc stereotypes dictate that female~ lack com petence and should be warm and comm unal , th e behavior of fem ale innuence age nts receives greate r scrutiny than that of mal es, and their influence depends much more on their di!'lplaying a careful balance of competence and warmth . Unfortunately, the path to influence is less easily navigated for women than it is for men, as a result.

Rejerellces,____________________________ Ahemeyer. R. A .. & Jone .... K. ( 1974). Sexual identity. ph), ... ic:.!1 attractiveness and ~e:.! t ing pf"\"(m(l1 COII/IIIIII/icarinll (2nd ed., pp. 2292RS) . Tho\J~and Oaks. CA: Sage. Bu"ch, P., & Wilson, D. T. (1976). An experimental ~nalysi,> ofa "lon: Bedford/51. Martin'". Chow. 5 .. & Iioiden. R. ( 1997). Toward an under"tamJing of loyalty : The moderating rok of trust. JOl/rnal of M£IIw~eriall.'iSljes. 9. 27S- 298. Cialdini, R. 8. (1980). Full-cycle social p"ychology . Applied Social P~ychol(J~y Allllllal, J. 21-...45. Cialdini. R. B. (200 I). Illflflence: Scit'flce amI practice 14th cd.). 80imilarity on ~alc~person inference proccs!>. Jotlmal of Per.wmal Sellillg and Sale!) Mwwgement. /0. 7-16. Fine, L. M .. & St:humann. D. w. (1992). The nature and role of sa l e~pcN>n perception ... : The Interactive effects of sale'lper.. onlcustomer personalities. JOImwl of Confllmer P.~ycll(ll(Jgy. I, 285-296. Ford. W. S. Z. (1999). Communication and customer service . In M. E. Roloff (Ed.). COII/llllmicalioll yt'arbook 22 (pp. 341-376). Thousand Oak. .... CA: Sage. French. J. R. P.. & Raven. B. (1959). The ba:.es of ..ocial power. In D. Can wright (Ed.). Smdies ill social ponter (pp. 150--167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Imlilule for Social Research. Gade!. M. S. (1964). Concentr~Hion by sa lcsmen on congenial prospects. Journal of Marketing. 28. 6466. Garbarino, E.. & John\on. M. S. ( 1999). The different role ... of satisfacLion. trust. and commitment in customer relationship.... Journal of Marketillg. 63. 70--87. Ga ... ". R. H .. & Seiler. J. S. (200:\). Persullsioll. weilll illfluellce. and compliance gail/il/g (2nd cd.). 80"Ion: Allyn & Bacon. Gengler. C. E .. lIoward. D. 1.. & Zolner. K . (1995). A per~onal construct analysis of adaptive ...elting and ...ales eXJXricncc. P,fydwloRY (Illtl Marketillg. 12. 287-304. Goff. B. G .. & Walters. O. L . (1995). Susceplibility to ~alespersons' influence and eonliumers' cr... nn n:lali()n~hip-; III retailing . hl/lnllli (!/Rl'flIiling. 75. 11-.12. Re)nold-;. K. E.. & Be.llt). S . l:. (llJl)l)b). ,\ n:~lat l (IIl:-.llIP l.'U,[Orllcr 1)J)!.)log~ Journal 01 R(,/clilj,l.~. 75. 50lJ-5:!1. Schurr. P. J I.. & Ol