No abstract

No abstract

This study investigated the effects of situational variables on the likelihood of use of four types of strategies to resist compliance-gaining attempts: identity managing, negotiation, justifying, and non-negotiation. Subjects rated strategies on the probability that they would actually use them to resist complying in each of eight situations, which vaned systematically in the level of agent-target intimacy, the consequences to the target-agent relationship of noncompliance, and the rights of the target to resist. Significant second-order interactions of the situational factors were obtained for the likelihood of use of each of the four types of strategies. Resistance message selection was concluded to be based upon an assessment of the relative risk associated with the implementation of a given strategy in conjunction with a particular combination of situational constraints.A growing body of literature is addressing issues pertaining to the selection of compliance-gaining messages (Marwell & Schmitt, 1967;Miller, Boster, Roloff, & Seibold, 1977). Studies have investigated how strategies can be meaningfully grouped and how situational and personality factors influence the selection of available message strategies (Miller et al., .To date, research interest in compliance-gaining activity has been one-sided, focusing only on the potential persuader (the agent) as an active element in the interpersonal persuasive attempt; yet the recipient of a particular compliance-gaining message (the target) may, for whatever reason, choose to resist compliance. Our observations of daily transactions suggest that first-attempt compliancegaining messages are not always successful. Furthermore, the type of strategy selected by the target to resist the compliance-gaining attempt is just as important as the agent's strategy in affecting relational definitions. Since little is known about how individuals select resistance strategies, the present research was conducted in order to explore two fundamental issues. First, we proposed a typology of strategies to resist compliance-gaining attempts. Second, we hypothesized and tested several relationships among situation factors and resistance strategy preferences.

Audio tape-recordings of 30-minute conversations between pairs of strangers (N=90) were scored for the frequency and duration of conversnrional lapses, interactive silences of three or more seconds occumnp at the recognizable completion of a turn-constructional unit. Ten-utterance segments of conversation immediately prior and immediately subsequent to lapses were transcribed from the tapes of45 of the conversations characterized by multiple lapses. Pre-and postlapse behaviors were coded as (A) (B) discloses, questions, edifies, acknowledges, advises, interprets, confirms, reflects.Also coded were gaps and laughter outbursts. Lag sequential analysis of the prelapse data indicated that behavior sequences prior to lapses were characterized by a pattern of "minimal response" by one of the participants. Postlapse sequences were characterized by the presence of question-answer adjacency pairs.Perhaps you are one of those people who have a wealth of interesting subjects at their conversational fingertips, but are scared to make use of them. Don't be afraid of being labeled an intellectual or an egghead. This doesn't mean that in the midst of an awkward silence a bright young thing should blast the silence with something she learned in Ancient History: "Did you know that Socrates' wife, Xanthippe, used to pare his toenailsfor him?" Such a conversational contribution, apropos of nothing said before, would be effective all right, but in the wrong way! However. if the conversation were on toenuils, think what a smash tidbit this would be. -Robert Loeb, She-MannersSocial encounters whose primary focus is conversation (for example, the dinner date or the dinner party) provide the ordinary individual with one of life's more severe tests of communicative competence. On such occasions participants operate under an implicit but nonetheless very compelling obligation to sustain interaction so as to avoid or at least minimize potential gaps (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1978). As most students of social interaction are aware, lapses in conversation are so potentially embarrassing that participants