1982
DOI: 10.1521/soco.1982.1.2.160
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Behavioral and Cognitive Consequences of Reciprocal Versus Compensatory Responses to Preinteraction Expectancies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
99
1

Year Published

1985
1985
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
6
3
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 105 publications
(106 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
6
99
1
Order By: Relevance
“…While research investigating the positive aspects of crowding is less common (Novelli et al, 2013), studies have shown that individuals can enjoy crowded situations when a collective experience is felt (Neville and Reicher, 2011). In addition, Ickes et al (1982) have shown that if a positive relationship develops between individuals they chose a smaller interpersonal distance (see: Evans and Howard, 1973;Willis, 1966). In the together condition, therefore, some individuals may have experienced a certain level of collective experience and camaraderie as they 'played' the task together.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While research investigating the positive aspects of crowding is less common (Novelli et al, 2013), studies have shown that individuals can enjoy crowded situations when a collective experience is felt (Neville and Reicher, 2011). In addition, Ickes et al (1982) have shown that if a positive relationship develops between individuals they chose a smaller interpersonal distance (see: Evans and Howard, 1973;Willis, 1966). In the together condition, therefore, some individuals may have experienced a certain level of collective experience and camaraderie as they 'played' the task together.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Matching is generally seen as leading to positive interpersonal outcomes because it signals involvement with, and responsiveness to, one's partner (Cappella, 1983). The affect that reciprocity generates is modified, however, by one's pre-interaction expectancy of either a positive or negative experience (Ickes, Patterson, Rajecki, & Tanford, 1982). People who expected a negative experience in the Ickes et al studies denigrated their partners in post-interaction ratings even though the partners reciprocated their affectively positive behavior.…”
Section: Partner Influencementioning
confidence: 98%
“…For conversational distance, rewarding communicators frequently accrue the most favorable communication outcomes by violating rather than conforming to expectancies. The beneficial consequences result from both close and far violations and not only benefit the violator in an absolute sense but also relative to another, nondeviating interactant (Baron, 1978;Burgoon, 1978;Burgoon & Aho, 1982;Burgoon et al, 1979;Donohue, Diez, Stahle, & Burgoon, 1983;Ickes, Patterson, Rajecki, & Tanford, 1982;Imada & Hakel, 1977;Schiffenbauer & Schiavo, 1976;Smith & Knowles, 1979;Stacks & Burgoon, 1981;Storms & Thomas, 1977).…”
Section: Empirical Support For the Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%