Affection exchange theory speaks to the benefits that affectionate communication elicits, not only when it is received but also when it is communicated to others. Previous research has provided evidence for the individual and relational benefits of having a high trait affection level, yet these benefits may partially be accounted for by the affectionate behavior one elicits from others by being affectionate in the first place. We addressed the validity of this alternative hypothesis in this project, first by re-analyzing data in which we compared correlations between trait affection level and various benefits with the same correlations after controlling for received affection. Next, in three studies involving a total sample of 1,144 people, we further investigated the benefits of expressed affection, both on its own and when received affection is covaried out. Results indicated that affection expressed to others is associated with numerous individual and relational benefits, including increased happiness and self esteem, decreased fear of intimacy and susceptibility to depression, and higher relationship satisfaction. Many of these effects are attenuated*/and some are intensified*/when affection received from others is held constant.

Brown and Levinson's politeness theory specifies five strategies for achieving politeness. Although the strategies are presented as ordered and mutually exclusive, there is reason to believe that they are neither The authors offer an alternative means of classifying requests that is grounded in the phenomenology of the social actor and depends on three message features: explicitness, dominance, and argument. Separate samples of judges viewed video clips of one college student attempting to influence another and provided judgments ofpoliteness (n = 100), explicitness and overall dominance (n = 435), linguistic dominance (n = 80), or argument (n = 60). A regression analysis predicting politeness was conducted using message as the unit of analysis. The results showed a strong, negative relationship between politeness and dominance and weaker, positive associations with explicitness and argument.

Door-in-the-face (DITF) is a sequential request technique in which a source first makes a large request. Upon the receiver's refusal, a smaller (target) request is made. DITF has been found to increase compliance with the target request compared to control conditions where only the target request is made. Despite its effectiveness, DITF lacks a consistently supported theoretical explanation. Two studies were conducted to determine whether people see DITF as a bargaining situation, consistent with the reciprocal concessions explanation, or as a helping situation, consistent with a social responsibility explanation. In Study 1, 78 participants judged the relevance of helping and bargaining items to four DITF interactions. In Study 2, 80 participants rated the similarity of a DITF interaction to four interactions that crossed situation (helping versus bargaining) with relationship (friend versus stranger). Results of both studies were consistent with a social responsibility explanation of DITF but inconsistent with reciprocal concessions.

This study examines the influence of five communication modalities on voters' perceptions of candidates during what Popkin terms"the distant phase" of the presidential primary campaign. During the final week of the New Hampshire primary campaign, researchers surveyed 315 prospective voters in four states whose primaries followed New Hampshire's by 1, 2, 4, and 5 weeks. The results revealed that political talk radio exerted the greatest influence on voters' perceptions of Bob Dole and considerable impact on perceptions of Steve Forbes. In addition, prospective voters' conversations with other people, television news, and candidate spots (only for Forbes) exerted modest influence on voters' perceptions of Republican candidates.Much less is known about the influence of communication modalities in presidential primary campaigns than in general election campaigns (Jewell, 1974). This is ironic because the potential of communication to influence voters'

This investigation tested the effectiveness of inoculation treatments on 790 participants. The study probed the relationship between threat and involvement, their role in inoculation, and the nature of cognitiveprocesses triggered via inoculation. The pattem of results suggests that inoculation elicits threat, threat contributes to resistance, and resistance is most pronounced for more involved receivers and on behalfofmore involving topics. Finally, the results shed additional light on the process of inoculation but revealeda process considerably more intricate than was initially predicted. Structural equation analyses indicated that inoculation and involvement exert parallel, but independent, effects throughout the process of resistance. Both contributed directly to resistance, and both indirectlyfirthered resistance, but along unique paths. Whereas inoculation elicited receiver threat, which indirectly enhanced resistance through its sizable and immediate impact on Phase 2 attitudes, involvement contributed to theprocessofcounterarguingand, thus, exertedadelayed indirect impactonPhase3attitudes. agly and Chaiken (1993) recently noted the quandary facing contemporary scholarship on inoculation. Although research in E both laboratory and applied settings consistently indicates the Michael Pfuu (PhD, University of Arizona, 1987) is a professor in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Linda J. Penaloza, Waipeng Lee, Violet Shu-huei Yang, and Yah-huei Hong are graduate students in journalism and mass communication; and Kyle James Tusing, Ascan E Koerner, and Linda C. Godbold are graduate students in communication arts, all at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The authors thank faculty in Journalism and Mass Communication and Communication Arts for their help in recruiting participants for this investigation and acknowledge the insights of Cindy Gallois and anonymous reviewers that bolstered this article. Please direct correspondence concerning this article to Michael Pfau, 5016 Vilas Hall, School of Journalism, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, W I 53706; telephone: (608)-2624334 (work), (608)-827-8224 (home); fax: (608)-262-1361; e-mail MWPfau@Facstaff.wisc.edu.