The Interpretation of Coercive Communication: The Effects of Mode of Influence, Powerful Speech, and Speaker Authority

Abstract

Social systems devise rules for member conduct and often specify punitive action for nonconformity. However, confronting and signaling the intent to punish a rule violator may be an inherently face‐threatening and volatile situation. As such, in this paper we seek to add to the research aimed at minimizing the negative effects of confrontation. We conducted an experiment to examine the impact of linguistic cues and coercive potential on message categorization and on receiver perceptions of threat and face‐sensitivity. Results suggest that threats might be considered a special class of warnings, distinguishable by a speaker‐based locus of punishment Locus of punishment did not, however, impact perceptions of having been warned. These findings thus call into question the assumed parallelism between researcher conceptualizations of threats and warnings and those of typical language‐users. Additionally, targets reported feeling less threatened and perceived more face‐sensitivity, in cases when the speaker was not the source of punishment. Perceptions of threat were decreased when disclaimers were employed and where the message originated from a peer rather than an authority. Power of speech had an impact in ambiguous situations. Implications for researchers and practitioners are discussed.

Group communication and conflict management in an electronic medium

“…This is contrary to the condition in other settings (e.g. FTF) where feelings of threats are evoked by powerful linguistic cues (Roloff et al, 1998). The implication is that, a speaker along with the type of speech influences listeners' interpretation of messages such that speakers can exert undue influence (e.g.…”

“…Furthermore, e‐mail can foster interaction that is void of tension, emotionality, and threat to face (e.g. Roloff et al , 1998) that negatively impacts conflict management process in FTF settings.…”