Goal Types, Compliance-Gaining and Locus of Control

Abstract

This study argues that situations can be conceptualised according to actors' prototypes (Cantor & Mischel, 1979a, b) for obtaining goals. In addition, these goals are constructed from salient dimensions of perceptions found in previous literature on compliance-gaining. Fourteen goal types were selected and used in a study concerning perceptions of influence situations and expected use of influence approaches. Perceptions and influence strategies varied from one goal to another, and Locus of Control constructs (i.e. internal locus of control, powerlessness) were also significantly related to participants' reactions. Internals (vs. externals) claimed greater confidence when pursuing goals, reported greater persistence when pursuing goals, rated goals as easier to imagine, and reported greater willingness to enter into events to achieve the various goals. Internals were also more likely than externals to rely on rationality, referent power, and manipulation of positive feelings. Powerless actors, however, opted for weaker strategies (e.g. direct requests, compromise), more rudimentary strategies (coercive power), and more emotional-based strategies (manipulation of positive feelings, manipulation of negative feelings). 1975; Wish, Deutsch Rr Kaplan, 1976). 0261-927X/86/04/0249-2 1 50230/0 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Putting upward influence strategies in context

“…Ralston (1985) proposed that since internals believe they can control their environment, they should be more likely to use ingratiatory tactics than would externals. However, Canary, Cody and Marston (1986) concluded that powerless actors tend to prefer compliance-gaining situations in which they are dependent on the target and can exploit that dependence by manipulating the target's emotions (positively or negatively), or by manipulating relational or exchange obligations (i.e. invoking norms of reciprocity and feelings of obligation; Pfeer, 1992).…”

Understanding and Managing Others: The Impact of Social Intelligence upon Social Influence

“…Goal type=situation Fourteen common situations, each with a desired goal and complemented by an example, served as the goal type instrument (Canary, Cody, & Marston, 1986). For example, in the situation entitled ''Routine Activities-Friends,'' the general goal listed was to have a routine night out with friends.…”

“…completed numerous investigations aimed at categorizing common goal types (Canary, Cody, & Marston, 1986;Cody & McLaughlin, 1980;Cody, Woelfel, & Jordan, 1983). Canary, Cody, and Marston (1986) identified fourteen different types of goals a person might have in a social interaction, such as initiating a relationship or gaining assistance from a professor.…”

“…Canary, Cody, and Marston (1986) identified fourteen different types of goals a person might have in a social interaction, such as initiating a relationship or gaining assistance from a professor. For each, a unique situation was presented with a designated goal.…”

Adult‐child conflict control expectancies: Effects on taking conflict personally toward parents

“…Locus of control specific to particular interpersonal goals has long been advocated as a superior assessment of control expectancies (Canary, Cody, & Marston, 1986;Canary et al, 1988;Dudley, 1977;Hamilton 1991;Lefcourt, 1981Lefcourt, ,1982Lefcourt, von Bayer, Ware, & Cox, 1979;Paulhus, 1983;Paulhus & Christie, 1981). The study of locus of control with regard to conflict-specific goals was forwarded by Canary et al (1988).…”