7 Interpersonal influence
Abstract: Interpersonal influence attempts are common within personal and professional relationships. Understanding interpersonal influence requires attending to how individuals both produce and are affected by messages as well as to the dynamic nature of conversation. This chapters reviews the message production and effects literatures in separate segments so as to capture the historical differences that make each unique. We also make an effort to situate these traditions in the still-developing framework known as multiple goals theory, emphasizing a distinction between conventional and personal goals. By presenting a single theoretical housing for the study of interpersonal influence research, we hope to explain existing findings with regard to both message production and effects while also highlighting as yet uncharted directions for research.
Key Words: Goals, interaction, compliance, identity, influence, requests
1 Introduction
Individuals seek aid from others and often provide it in return. These seeds of connection comprise the basis for enduring relationships. People also dispense well-intentioned advice to others who seem to need it. On occasion their counsel is appreciated, but, in other instances, offense is taken and remediation is required if the relationship is to move forward. And, with varying degrees of passion, people assert their positions on the organizational, social and political issues of the day. In any of these cases, some messages display an argumentative prowess akin to that of a child: “Give it to me because I want it.” Other messages manifest elegant logic and convey respect for the message recipient.
All of these are examples of interpersonal influence, that is, they are efforts designed (a) to preserve or change the behavior of another individual or (b) to maintain or modify cognitions, emotions, or identities via (c) interactions involving the use of symbols. We chose the terms effort and design to underscore the idea that interpersonal influence involves trying. The attempt does not guarantee the outcome, but, anticipation of a desired outcome almost certainly shapes what individuals say to one another. In addition, we emphasize behavior in that social actors do things for and to others. A thought alone does not constitute an interpersonal interaction. A thought that is expressed as verbal behavior and processed by another individual does. In addition to behavior, we point to cognitions, emotions, and identities, all concepts which are proximal to behavior. Interaction is mentioned to underscore the dynamic nature of communicative behavior. Finally, our emphasis on the use of symbols enables us to rule out parts of the social influence literature such as conformity and implicit group pressure.
The definition is also notable for what is not said. Most important in this respect is its inattention to message production versus message effects. The absence is intentional and was motivated by our desire to review both streams of research. Indeed, the chapter is structured such that two major sections are devoted to questions of (a) how individuals construct influence messages and (b) how variations in messages alter the probability of behavior. Before addressing those questions, we sketch a general theoretical housing for the study of interpersonal influence.
2 A theoretical perspective on interpersonal influence
In this chapter, we exploit multiple goals theory as a framework for understanding interpersonal influence. The phrase multiple goals theory is used broadly to refer to a family of more specific conceptual systems that have developed in the field of communication over the last several decades. Though there are important differences among the theories at the specific level, we emphasize their commonality and we leverage select aspects of these theories so as to advance a general understanding of interpersonal influence. As Caughlin (2010) and Wilson (in press) explain, there are three major assumptions to multiple goals theory.
First, goals theory assumes that interaction is purposeful. Communication from this perspective involves more than information transmission. As Burleson (2010: 152) argues:
Achieving a shared understanding of the meaning of a message is primarily a means to an end. That is, people do not produce and interpret messages as ends in themselves; rather, they engage in these activities to accomplish particular social goals – goals that in some way focus on, include, or require the participation of others.
Two points about this assumption require elaboration. Saying that communication is purposeful does not imply that individuals are always mindful of how they pursue social goals. Driving an automobile is purposeful yet individuals pay limited albeit varying amounts of attention to actions involved in driving. Communication is purposeful yet individuals pursue social goals with limited albeit varying levels of conscious awareness (Berger and Palomares 2011). Saying that communication is purposeful does imply a general awareness that others also produce and interpret messages in pursuit of goals. We interpret and evaluate others’ messages based, in part, on inferences about their underlying goals (Berger and Palomares 2011; Caughlin 2010). Whether or not individuals fully or accurately understand one another’s motivations is an intriguing problem that we revisit throughout this chapter.
A second shared assumption is that communicators often pursue multiple goals. Different theories describe different sets of goals. Clark and Delia (1979) offer one of the best-known descriptions. They argue that communicators simultaneously pursue three types of social goals: (a) instrumental goals, or objectives related to overcoming obstacles blocking the completion of a task, (b) relational goals, or objectives related to establishing and maintaining relationships with others, and (c) identity goals, or objectives related to managing one’s own and others’ impressions. Taking a different tack, Dillard (1990a) distinguishes primary and secondary goals. At any point in a conversation, the primary goal is the objective that for the moment defines the situation or answers the question “What is going on here?” If a friend says to us “Can I ask you a favor?” we expect one type of interaction to unfold, whereas if the friend says “Can I give you some advice?” we expect another. In either case, the primary goal is what motivates our friend to engage us. Secondary goals, or concerns that arise across a wide range of situations, shape and constrain how individuals pursue their primary goal. Common secondary goals include (a) acting consistently with one’s beliefs and values, (b) maintaining both parties’ face and smooth conversation, (c) maintaining valued relationships, (d) staying safe and avoiding expending more time or money than is necessary, and (e) maintaining arousal within comfortable bounds (Dillard et al. 1989; Hample & Dallinger 1987; Kellermann 2004; Kim et al. 2009). If secondary goals become more important than the primary goal, individuals may decide not to pursue the primary goal any further.
Third, multiple goals theory assumes that communicators often must manage conflicting aims. By definition, social conflicts involve two or more interdependent parties who perceive they hold incompatible goals (see Chapter 8, Canary and Canary). Equally important, individual actors often are faced with competing social goals. O’Keefe and Delia (1982) argue that communication situations become increasingly complex as: (a) multiple social goals are relevant to pursue, (b) significant obstacles to achieving those goals are present, and (c) actions that might accomplish one goal conflict with those that might accomplish other relevant goals. Complex situations are those most likely to: (a) elicit differences in how participants exert influence, and (b) challenge participants’ (and third parties’) communicative competence (O’Keefe 1988; Wilson in press).
Although most multiple goal theories share these three broad assumptions, they do not all employ the term “goal” consistently (see Chapter 4, Palomares). For current purposes, it is useful to draw a distinction between conventional and personal goals (Wilson in press). Conventional goals are objectives understood to be relevant to a particular situation or context given the commonly understood purpose for interacting, the participants’ roles and relationships, and cultural norms for interaction; as such, they are end states participants plausibly could, though not necessarily will, attempt to accomplish. Conventional goals are objectives participants might be expected to pursue, either in the sense of descriptive expectancies (i.e., goals that typically are pursued in such a situation) or prescriptive expectancies (i.e., goals that ought to be pursued in such a situation; Burgoon 1993). Likewise, conventional goals are normative to pursue in a given context, either in the sense of descriptive norms (i.e., goals most peers would pursue in such a situation) or injunctive norms (i.e., goals most peers think ought to be pursued in such a situation; Lapinski and Ramil 2005). Conventional goals need not be prosocial or cooperative; in some contexts, pursuing self-interested goals (e.g., asking for a substantial raise, even if there is a limited pool of money to provide raises across all employees) may be conventional.
Personal goals are objectives that individuals want to attain or maintain, and thus are cognitive states that motivate, shape or constrain their current behavior (Berger and Palomares 2011; see Chapter 4, Palomares). Personal goals often, but not always, correspond with conventional goals; that is, individuals do not always pursue conventionally relevant goals in a situation (O’Keefe 1988). Personal goals can be self interested as when one student wants to borrow another’s notes because he missed the previous class. But, it is equally common for personal goals to be oriented toward the benefit of other individuals or social aggregates. When exerting influence, individuals still may be very concerned about another party’s aspirations.
To sharpen the contrast between personal and conventional goals, it is helpful to consider three conditions necessary for an individual to form a personal goal (Wilson 1990, 1995):
The individual must have knowledge of some standard for behavior, such as a conventional goal. In other words, the standard must be available to the interactant.
Any given exchange presents a multitude of behavioral possibilities. But, some are more salient than others due to knowledge of the specific situation or because some event has caused it to be foregrounded. In cognitive terms, the standard must be accessible.
The individual must view the standard as relevant to the current context; that is, the standard must be applicable.
Located as they are in the person, these criteria suggest the likelihood of individual differences in message production and message effects. They also underscore the potential for some gap between conventional and personal goals. For instance, most individuals share the goal of helping others who are in need or repaying those who have helped them in the past. But, some people do not and some do so only on specific occasion or with regard to specific topics of aid. When placed against the backdrop of personal/conventional goals, attention to questions of availability, accessibility, and applicability may help us understand message production and message effects.
3 Interpersonal communication and message production
3.1 Defining the situation: Goals that motivate interpersonal influence
Several research groups have proposed typologies of influence goals, or specific reasons individuals attempt to modify or preserve the behaviors or cognitive states of others. For example, Rule, Gay, and Kohn (1985) asked Canadian undergraduate students “What kinds of things do people persuade ____ to do.” Participants initially listed as many responses as they possibly could when the target individual was specified to be “other people” and then again when the target was “their friends,” “their father,” and “their enemies,” and the researchers sorted responses to create typology of 12 influence goals. Dillard (1989: 296) asked U.S. American undergraduates as well as employees of retail and service businesses to provide a written description “of a situation in which they tried to persuade someone to do something and then to describe their goal in the influence attempt;” participants were instructed that the target should be someone they knew well. A second undergraduate sample of undergraduates sorted goal descriptions based on similarity, and a third sample rated clusters of goals in terms of perceived situational dimensions (e.g., benefits of compliance to the requester vs. the target individual). Through this process, Dillard (1989) identified six influence goals common in close relationships. Cody, Canary and Smith (1994) argued that influence goals could be identified by exploring multiple dimensions at which interpersonal influence situations intersect. For example, since “favors” are requests that primarily benefit the requester rather than the target individual, and since we typically ask favors from people with whom we share some type of relationship, situations defined by the goal of “asking a favor” might be expected to share the qualities of high benefits to the requester, low benefits to the target individual, and at least moderate relational intimacy. Reanalyzing data from an earlier study where U.S. American college students rated interpersonal influence situations along seven situational dimensions, Cody, Canary and Smith (1994) created their typology of 12 influence goals. Using similar methods, Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson (1980) and Yukl, Guinan, and Sottolano (1995) have proposed typologies of influence goals that organizational employees commonly pursue with supervisors, co-workers, and subordinates in the workplace.
Although these studies have included student and non-student participants, explored attempts to influence a variety of targets (e.g., family, friends, romantic partners, co-workers), and used different methods to establish goal categories, there is striking similarity in the goal typologies that have emerged. Dillard and Knobloch (2011) argue that seven influence goals have emerged repeatedly in these typologies as common reasons for influencing others: (a) asking favors (attempting to obtain material or nonmaterial resources from others), (b) giving advice (providing counsel to others), (c) sharing an activity (proposing a joint endeavor), (d) changing orientation (altering the target person’s stance on an organizational or sociopolitical issue), (e) changing relationship (altering the nature of the relationship shared with the other person), (f) obtaining permission (securing approval for a desired course of action), and (g) enforcing rights and obligations (compelling a target to fulfill a commitment or responsibility).
The fact that several research groups have reached similar findings about common influence goals is important for two reasons. First, these findings explain how individuals are able to define situations in terms of underlying primary goals. In order for individuals to make sense of unfolding conversations in terms of influence goals, at least some goals must be common within a given culture (and to a lesser extent across cultures). As Dillard (1990: 46) explains,
It is important to emphasize that these investigations are not simply exercises in list making. Rather, illumination of the substance of goals provides some clues as to what constitutes culturally-viable explanation as to the ways that compliance-seekers conceive of their own actions.
Of course, the targets of interpersonal influence attempts also have access to such shared knowledge. These influence goals are “conventional” in the sense of being commonly understood reasons why individuals could or should attempt to influence others.
Second, these findings suggest that each of these influence goals will make other goals (along with associated issues such as emotions and threats to identity) potentially relevant to pursue as well. Wilson, Aleman, and Leatham’s (1998) identity implications theory argues that individuals rely on two sources of tacit knowledge to understand what threats to identity, and hence multiple goals, might become relevant during any interpersonal influence episode: (a) the primary (influence) goal that, for the moment, defines the situation, and (b) constitutive rules, or the logical preconditions that speakers presume to be “in play” whenever they use a directive (i.e., speech acts intended to alter the behavior of another). Following Searle (1969, 1976), these rules include: (a) is there a need for action? (b) is there a need for a directive? (c) is the target individual plausibly able to perform the desired action? (d) is the target individually plausibly willing and/or obligated to perform the action? (e) does the speaker have the right to issue the directive? and (f) does the speaker sincerely want the hearer to perform the action? By pairing these two sources of knowledge, one can predict which threats to face (i.e., desires for approval and autonomy; Brown and Levinson 1987) potentially might arise and hence what other goals message sources might pursue when pursuing an influence goal. A good deal of empirical research (e.g., Wilson, Aleman, and Leatham 1998; Wilson et al. 2009) supports predictions from identity implications theory, including one study (Cai and Wilson 2000) that compared data from students in Japan and the U.S.
To illustrate these points, the following section reviews research on what individuals tend to say when pursuing two influence goals: asking favors and giving advice. These two goals are among the most common that individuals pursue with a variety of targets (Cody, Canary, and Smith 1994), and they differ from each other in ways that have implications for both parties’ identities. For each goal, we address the following: (a) what features define that goal? (b) when is that goal appropriate goal to pursue? (c) what threats to identity, and hence other goals, also may be relevant to pursue? (d) how do requesters and targets try to manage multiple concerns when pursuing that goal, and (e) how do individuals differ in pursing that goal?
3.2 Asking favors
Asking a favor is a distinct influence goal because (a) the request primarily benefits the message source (self) rather than the target individual, (b) the requested action is not something the target typically would do as part of daily routine, and (c) the target is not strictly obligated to comply (Dillard 1989; Goldschmidt 1998). Favors include requests to borrow objects as well as to obtain physical, financial, material or informational aid from a target. Although favors can be asked of strangers, they occur most often in close relationships where the parties expect to rely on each other for help (Roloff et al. 1998).
When this shared understanding of what counts as a favor is framed in terms of the constitutive rules for directives, the following assumptions emerge: (a) the source needs help for some reason, (b) the target may be willing to provide assistance even though this will primarily benefit the source (otherwise there is no point in asking for assistance), and (c) the source sincerely wants help and hence will be willing to return assistance to the target in the future. These assumptions have implications for both parties’ face (Wilson, Aleman, and Leatham 1998). If the favor is a large one, it may require substantial time or resources from the target and hence constrain the target’s autonomy. Asking for help also creates a sense of debt or obligation to return assistance in the future (Goei et al. 2003; Gouldner 1960; Roloff et al. 1998), thereby constraining the source’s own autonomy. By asking a favor, sources imply that they cannot handle a situation alone and hence risk appearing to be weak or lazy; indeed, sources sometimes refrain from asking for assistance out of concern about how they will appear (Wilson, Gettings, and Dorrance Hall 2013). These potential threats to identity make other goals potentially relevant to pursue when asking a favor, such as not imposing too much on the target, showing gratitude, and not projecting an unfavorable self-image (Cai and Wilson 2000; Schrader and Dillard 1998).
Much of what individuals say when asking favors can be understood in light of these goals. Message sources often begin with a pre-favor, or an initiating move to prepare the target for the upcoming request (e.g., “Can I ask you a favor?” Golschmidt 1998). Such a move forecasts what type of episode is about to unfold and signals that the source is in need; it also can function to avoid explicit rejection by checking on the target’s ability to comply before asking the favor (e.g., “Will you be home tonight?” Jacobs and Jackson 1983). Aside from describing the desired action, requests for favors may be accompanied by explanations of why the source is in need, inquiries about whether the source is able to comply, apologies for imposing, statements acknowledging or minimizing the size of the request, and expressions of approval or gratitude (Cai and Wilson 2000; Lee et al. 2012; Roloff and Janiszewski 1989; Tracy et al. 1984; Wilson and Kunkel 2000). The degree to which message sources include such elaborating clauses varies depending on the size of the favor and the levels of intimacy and power that exist between the source and target (Brown and Levinson 1987, Leichty and Applegate 1991; Roloff et al. 1988). Individuals with higher levels of cognitive complexity are more likely to vary the degree to which they include elaborative clauses across situations varying on these dimensions (Leichty and Applegate 1991); in other words, cognitively complex individuals appear more likely vary their personal goals in lieu of situational features that impact the relevance of conventional goals (Wilson 1995). Culture also can influence perceptions of the size or appropriateness of the favor within an existing relationship, and hence the amount or types of elaboration message sources include (Holtgraves and Yang 1992; Kim et al. 2009; Lee et al. 2012).
Targets’ cognitive and emotional reactions to favor requests depend on factors such as judgments about the degree to which the source is seen as responsible for needing help, whether the favor is consistent with the relational context, whether the source has helped the target in the past, and broader cultural values that impact feelings of indebtedness (Han, Li, & Hwang 2005; MacGeorge 2001). Targets may respond to favor requests by complying, refusing, or with responses somewhere in between (e.g., complying conditionally, asking questions; Goldschmidt 1998). Given that targets also must manage multiple, potentially relevant goals, their refusals may be accompanied by apologies or accounts for not being able to help that stress external, uncontrollable causes (Roloff et al. 1998). When immediate compliance does not occur, sources may respond with forgiveness statements (“That’s OK, I understand”) or with attempts to see whether obstacles stated by the target can be overcome depending on factors such as relational closeness as well as the degree to which the refusal attends to both parties’ face (Boster et al. 2003; Johnson, Roloff, and Riffee 2004; Sanders and Fitch, 2001).
3.3 Giving advice
Giving advice is a distinct influence goal in that the message source: (a) perceives that the target individual may choose a less-than-optimal course of action, (b) perceives this his/her recommendations primarily benefit the target rather than him/herself, and (c) feels motivated to advice out of concern for the target’s well-being (Cody, Canary, and Smith 1994; Dillard 1989). The term “advice” implies that the target ultimately has a choice about whether to follow the recommendation rather than being strictly obligated to comply (Searle 1969). Advice commonly is offered in family, friendship, academic, healthcare, and workplace relationships while participants interact both face-to-face and online (Cody, Canary, and Smith 1994; Locher 2005; Pudlinski 1998; Yukl, Guinan, and Sottolano 1995).
When this implicit understanding of what counts as advice is framed in terms of the constitutive rules for directives, the following assumptions emerge: (a) the target is considering a less-than-ideal course of action (otherwise there is no need for advice), (b) the source has knowledge or perspective relevant to the situation that the target may not (otherwise the source is not in a position to offer new insight), and (c) the target plausibly is willing to consider the source’s recommendation even though it may differ from what the target currently plans to do (otherwise there is no point in offering advice). Once again, these assumptions have implications for both parties’ face, though those implications differ from those that arise when asking favors (Wilson, Aleman and Leatham 1998). By assuming that the target may choose a course of action that is not ideal, sources can imply that the target lacks competence or foresight; whereas by assuming that they themselves are in a position to offer insights that the target may not be considering, sources risk appearing to be nosy, overbearing, or a “know-it-all” (Goldsmith & Fitch 1997; Goldsmith, Lindholm and Bute 2006; Petronio and Jones 2006). These potential face threats make other goals potentially relevant to pursue when offering advice, such as not making the target defensive, maintaining the relationship with the target, and avoiding negative interpretations of oneself (Schrader & Dillard 1998, Wilson, Gettings, and Dorrance Hall 2013).
These threats to identity are “potential” in the sense that they plausibly could, though not necessarily will, occur during advice-giving episodes. Whether these threats are likely to occur, and hence activate secondary goals, depends on several factors. Even when targets disclose a problem, they are not always looking for advice (MacGeorge, Feng and Thompson 2008); hence, advice is less face-threatening when it has been solicited by the target rather than being offered without invitation (Goldsmith 2000). Particular relationships (e.g., parent/child, healthcare provider/patient, major professor/Ph.D. student) set up a context in which advice may be expected, at least to some extent on topics considered relevant to the relationship (Fitch 1998; Petronio and Jones 2006; Zhou, Golde and McCormick 2007). Cultural beliefs about whether advice is a sign of caring and connection or an imposition on autonomy also can influence relational interpretations of advice (Goldsmith and Fitch 1997; Fitch 1998; Kim et al. 2009).
The ways in which individuals offer advice in many cases reflect an awareness of the multiple, conventional goals to which they may be expected to attend. Message sources may frame the advice as “information” rather than an explicit recommendation (Kinnel and Maynard 1996), tell a story about what they did in a similar situation without explicitly saying that the target should do something similar (Pudlinski 1998), or “say it once” along with a promise not to continue reminding the target in the future (Goldsmith, Lindholm Gumminger and Bute 2006). Sources also may mitigate pressure by stressing that there is more than one viable choice in the situation and that ultimately it is up to the target to decide what to do (Brown & Levinson 1987; Wilson et al. 1998). Individuals differ in the extent to which they employ facework when giving advice depending on factors such as cognitive complexity (Leichty & Applegate 1991), verbal aggressiveness (Hample & Dallinger 1987), and self construals (Kim et al. 2009). Put differently, individuals differ in the extent to which their personal goals are in line with goals that conventionally might be pursued in advice episodes.
Targets’ cognitive and emotional reactions to advice requests depend on judgments about whether: (a) the source is seen as having the background or expertise to provide advice, (b) the source truly wants to help the target, (c) the advice is delivered in ways that attend to both parties’ face, and (d) the advice confirms things the source already believes or plans to do (Guntzviller and MacGeorge 2012; MacGeorge, Feng, and Thompson 2008). The perceived content of the advice also influences how it is evaluated; for example, whether advice is heard as helpful depends on the efficacy and feasibility of the recommended action as well as any perceived drawbacks of implementing the recommended action (MacGeorge, Feng, and Thompson 2008). The sequencing of advice also matters. When a target is emotionally distressed, advice also is heard as more helpful if the source offers emotional support and asks questions about the problem before offering advice (Feng 2009).
3.4 Section summary
Work to date has illuminated the defining features of favors and advice, potential face threats associated with asking favors and offering advice, and patterns of interaction that may unfold in situations defined by each influence goal. The distinction between conventional and personal goals suggests that future work might explore conditions that impact the degree to which shared agreement exists regarding when it is appropriate to ask favors or give advice as well as what other goals also should be pursued when doing so. Research also might explore conditions under which having personal goals that deviate from conventional goals leads to negative perceptions (e.g., the source is communicatively incompetent or callous) as opposed more positive perceptions (e.g., the source is creative or powerful; Wilson, in press). Failing to pursue conventional goals also may have implications for whether targets are likely to comply with requests (the focus of the next section) as well as for the ongoing source-target relationship.
4 Interpersonal communication and behavioral compliance
The phrase “compliance technique” is shorthand for planned and scripted communication methods intended to induce specific behavioral change. Some techniques are quite brief, consisting of no more than a request and a response. Others unfold in stages, with each segment of the interaction establishing the set-up for what follows. In the sections that follow, we present a summary of the research for several different techniques.
4.1 That’s-not-all
TNA presents a target with a product, a price, and a request to purchase. But, before the target can respond, the agent sweetens the deal either by reducing the price or adding something else of value. The first effort to test the TNA employed the guise of a psychology club bake sale (Burger 1986). Two experimenters manned a table that displayed cupcakes, but no pricing information. When potential buyers approached the table, control-condition participants were informed that they could purchase a cupcake and two cookies for a total of $.75. But, the TNA interaction followed this course:
Agent #1: “The cupcakes are $.75 apiece.”
Before the target could the respond, Agent #2 taps Agent #1 on the shoulder and engaged him.
Agent #1 [holding up his hand to the buyer]; “Wait a second.” [2–3 second exchange between agents.]
Agent #1: [Returning gaze to potential buyer] “The price includes two cookies.”
The TNA produced a compliance rate of 73% compared to the control condition’s 40%. The finding was replicated in several experiments (Burger 1986). Notably, all of the tests of TNA have involved donating to some charitable cause, a situational feature that probably triggers the conventional goal of helping and may be sufficient to instigate helping as a personal goal, at least among some targets. Targets frequently possess secondary goals as well, one of which may the desire to conserve their resources (Dillard 1990). Implementation of the TNA technique may be sufficient to counter the influence of that secondary goal, thereby paving the way for enhanced compliance.
4.2 Disrupt-then-reframe
The DTR begins with the assumption that individuals possess cognitive scripts for request interactions, that is, expectations regarding sequences of behavior (Knowles, Butler, and Linn 2001). Scripts are often illustrated in terms of restaurant behavior in which customers first order, then eat, then pay. Obviously, there are multiple versions of this script that vary the order of some behaviors (such as when payment occurs), but the larger point is the important one: Individuals learn to expect that interaction behaviors will occur in a predictable order. And, when they comprehend the interaction as a request sequence, the natural culmination is compliance. When message targets are thinking carefully, they may have reason to question whether or not they should comply. But, the confusion induced by mild perturbation distracts them from evaluating the request. The result is enhanced compliance.
In one application of the DTR (Knowles et al. 2001), control participants were asked “Would you be interested in donating some money to the Richardson Center [for developmentally-delayed adults]? You could make a difference!” In the DTR condition, a syntactically illegal construction was produced by reversing the words “money” and “some.”
Agent: “Would you be interested in donating money some to the Richardson Center? You could make a difference!”
The result was 65% compliance in the DTR group compared to 30% in the control group. Compliance in a third condition, which reversed the words “Center” and “Richardson” in addition to “money” and “some” produced only 25% compliance. This seems to suggest that some degree of skill is needed to implement the technique effectively. Anything more than a mild disruption may trigger systematic processing, which eliminates the compliance advantage.
Although research on the DTR is still in its infancy, Carpenter and Boster (2009) located six articles containing 14 separate tests of the compliance technique. A meta-analysis of those data indicated a substantial effect of DTR on compliance. When the authors partitioned the data by type of organization, the effect was even more dramatic. DTR used in the service of nonprofit organizations produced compliance at four times the rate of the control group. But, even when the technique was used to increase sales for profit-oriented organizations, compliance was roughly two and half times greater than the control group. Such findings can be interpreted as a moderator effect in which the interaction is more or less about helping the agent, a judgment that is influenced by the type of organization that the agent represents. Importantly for our analysis of compliance techniques, the Carpenter and Boster results suggest that DTR works even with for-profit organizations, albeit not to the same degree. This suggests that there may be more goals in play than simply the desire to help (e.g., the goal of being liked by the agent).
4.3 Legitimizing paltry contributions
Presumably, individuals engage in cost-benefit decisions all of the time. Thus, it seems obvious that larger requests should produce lower rates of compliance. To the extent that this is true, it presents a decision point for the compliance-seeking agent: Can resource acquisition be maximized by gathering many small donations or a few larger ones? Cialdini and Schroeder (1976; see also Weyant 1984) suggest that the apparent dilemma can be avoided by legitimizing small contributions. By adding the phrase “Even a penny will help” to their standard solicitation, they were able to increase the frequency of contributions without affecting the size of donations. Takada and Levine (2007: 180) implemented the technique in terms of time, instead of money:
Agent: “I’m recruiting volunteers for administering orientation programs for new international students … picking students up at the airport, taking them to campus tours, coordinating orientations, or being at a reception center to welcome new students and check them in. Would you be interested in being a volunteer for one of those activities? Even a few minutes would help.
A meta-analysis of the LPC literature showed that adding the single LPC sentence to a request increased compliance by a factor of 2.5 (Andrews et al. 2008). Takada and Levine’s (2007) data also show a role for perspective taking: The LPC is most effective among individuals who are prone to adopt the perspective of others. Both the general effect and the narrower finding for perspective align with the notion targets make their compliance decision based on the perceived need of the agent: To varying degrees, people are committed to the conventional goal of helping. The effect of LPC is to attenuate the relevance of a personal, conserve-resources goal. Evidence of individual differences in perspective taking returns us to the idea that there are necessary conditions for the development of personal goals. Perspective-taking may work its effect by enhancing accessibility or applicability or both.
4.4 Pre-giving
The norm of reciprocity directs individuals to return in kind the actions, objects, and affections that are provided to them by others: tit for tat, and an eye for an eye (Gouldner 1960; see Chapter 10, Burgoon, Dunbar, and White). Application of the reciprocity principle is apparent in the marketing efforts of charitable organizations that send small, unsolicited gifts such as calendars and address labels along with their appeal for funds. These are examples of a strategy dubbed pre-giving (Bell et al. 1996; Bell et al. 1994). An application of the technique in a laboratory setting can be found in Goei et al. (2003: 185–186) in which two students took part in a research project in the same room. During the study, one of the students (actually a confederate) left the room, then returned with two soft drinks saying “Hey, I got you one too.” Later, when the experiment was almost over, the confederate wrote a note to the target:
Agent: Would you do me a favor? I’m selling tickets for cancer research. If you’re willing to buy any, would you just write the number on this note … Any would help, the more the better. Thanks.
It is generally thought that one necessary condition for pre-giving to be effective is that the target accept the initial offering. Goei et al. (2003) cleverly worked around this point by eliminating the target’s choice of receiving the gift. A second variable that moderates the effectiveness of the technique is whether or not the target believes that the influencing agent will learn of his or her compliance (Whately et al. 1999). That individuals apparently feel compelled to discharge the debt even when the pre-giver will not know of their action points toward an internalized norm of reciprocity. But, compliance is further enhanced when the target expects that the source will learn of his or her compliance. Together the results underscore the fundamentally social nature of human beings: The audience for one’s identity is both self and others. Also of importance is the fact that individuals experience the pressure of reciprocity even in commercial exchanges.
4.5 Unit relationship techniques
Whereas pre-giving may be a means of establishing a relationship, compliance rates may be enhanced by reminding message targets of their existing relationship with a message source even when (a) the two interactants are previously unknown to one another and (b) the basis for the relationship is wholly arbitrary. This class of techniques presumably create the perception of what Heider (1958: 176) called a unit relationship. In his words, “separate entities [e.g., individuals] comprise a unit when they are seen as belonging together.” The perception of a unit relationship is the basis for some broad form of liking.
One example of the technique comes from Aune and Basil (1994) who report a five-fold increase in compliance among college students when the target request was preceded by this interact:
Agent: “Hi! Are you a student here at ____ ? Oh, that’s great, so am I.”
In line with Roloff’s (1987) thinking on relational obligations, Aune and Basil (1994) speculate that calling attention to a group membership was sufficient to stimulate a sense unit relationship. Other research points to liking as the operative mediator (Burger et al. 2001), but the effects are difficult to disentangle because individuals both like and are obligated to those with whom they have a unit relationship (but see Goei et al. 2003). Evidently, the perception of a unit relationship can be created by a brief dialogue prior to the target request (e.g., “How are you feeling today?” “How many exams are you taking?” Dolinski, Nawrat, and Rudak 2001) or by learning that one shares a first name or a birthday (Burger et al. 2004). The multiple goals perspective suggests the possibility that both liking and obligation may be in play.
4.6 The foot-in-the-door
The FITD technique begins with a small request to which most anyone would be likely to acquiesce. This is followed by a second request that is not so innocuous. In the initial investigation of the foot-in-the-door, residents of Palo Alto, CA took part in this series of questions (Freedman and Fraser 1966):
Agent #1: “Would you mind displaying a small sign in the window of your home that reads
‘Be a safe driver’?”
Target: “Sure.”
[Days later]
Agent #2: “I’m with the Citizens for Safe Driving group. Would you be willing to let us put up this [very large] sign in your yard and leave it for about a week?”
Those who had previously committed to the first request complied at a rate twice that of those who had not been exposed to the initial request. Although subsequent work showed the effect in the original study to be unusually large, meta-analyses of the FITD literature have confirmed the efficacy of the technique (Burger 1999; Dillard et al. 1984; Fern et al. 1986).
The most commonly invoked explanation is that the target infers the existence of a favorable attitude from compliance that, in turn, serves as a guide to action upon presentation of the second request. From that general premise it is possible to deduce several factors that should increase the potency of the technique: (a) actually performing the initial request (rather than simply agreeing to do so), (b) labeling the target as helpful or supportive of the cause, (c) requiring more than a minimal amount of effort to enact the initial request, and (d) making the second request topically similar to the first. In fact, Burger (1999) presents meta-analytic evidence supportive of each of these hypotheses. Individually and collectively, they line up in the context of helping as factors that might promote the accessibility and applicability of standards for socially-responsible behavior.
4.7 The door-in-the-face
The DITF technique begins with a request large enough that it will be rejected by most individuals. That initial appeal is then is followed by a smaller, but still substantial request (Cialdini et al. 1975). Our example is drawn from Turner et al. (2007), who studied DITF in the context of a scholarship fund drive called Bowling for Scholars:
Agent: “I’m working as a volunteer coordinator to help organize the charity bowling event. We’re really looking for volunteers to help with the event. It takes about 10 hours a week through April. Would you be interested?”
Target: “No, thanks.”
Agent: “Since you can’t volunteer would you like to sponsor me for the event? Any amount would be fine.”
Early summaries of the literature suggested several scope conditions that seem to govern the potency of the technique (Dillard et al. 1984; Fern, Monroe, and Avila 1986; O’Keefe and Hale 1998, 2001): The two requests must be delivered (a) close together in time (b) in a face-to-face interaction (c) by the same requester and (d) on behalf of the same (e) prosocial beneficiary. When all of these factors were favorable, the DITF almost doubled the likelihood of verbal compliance relative to the single-request control group. However, a more recent and comprehensive meta-analysis by Feeley, Anker, and Aloe (2012) found an effect on verbal compliance only such that effectiveness was enhanced with the same (vs. different) requester, in student samples, and when baseline compliance was low. Feeley et al. found no reliable effect of DITF on behavioral (vs. verbal) compliance, thereby rendering uncertain the overall efficacy of the technique.
The logic of the social responsibility account suggests that the first request raises the issue of need and thereby makes salient both the norm and the potential suffering of the needy. However, individuals can reasonably reject even a prosocial first request because they lack the ability to meet a request of that size. Most individuals cannot afford to give 10 hours per week for several months. Conversely, given an activated standard and failure to behave in line with that standard, in addition to a relatively inconsequential request, the goal of helping should serve as a guide for behavior.
4.8 The low ball
The low ball is a technique whose development is generally attributed to automobile dealerships (Carlson 1973). In the first step of the sequence, the salesperson offers a car at an unexpectedly low price. After securing a commitment to purchase from the buyer, the salesperson leaves to clear the transaction with management. When he or she returns, the buyer is told that management has rejected the deal because the dealership would lose money at that price. Thus, the dealer can only offer the sale at a new, higher price. In addition to its apparent effectiveness for selling cars, Cialdini et al. (1978) provide systematic evidence of the technique’s potency in other contexts. However, the low ball may be limited to circumstances in which the same person makes both the first and the second request (Burger and Petty 1981), a condition that calls to mind the unit-relationship techniques discussed above.
4.9 Dump-and-chase
Whereas the techniques described thus far all implicitly conceive of two interactants moving through a single sequence of moves, the DAC is unique in its appreciation of the fact that conversations are co-created (Boster, et al. 2009; Sanders and Fitch 2001): They might head off in unexpected directions or involve an unspecified numbers of interacts. So, rather than assume a single sequence, the DAC posits multiple possible paths toward (non)compliance. The simplest sequence involves a request followed by compliance. But, as obstacles researchers have pointed out, sometimes message targets offer reasons for their noncompliance rather than refusing outright (Johnson et al. 2004; Roloff and Janisewski 1989). Conversations continue to the extent that the compliance seeker is able to defuse the reasons for noncompliance. This constitutes a second, more elaborate path toward compliance.
The third and most complex sequence occurs when the target simply declines to comply with the initial request. This sets the stage for the compliance agent to pursue information about the reasons for refusal and then to attempt to overcome those obstacles, perhaps repeatedly (Sanders and Fitch 2001). Hence, the persistent agent presents a communicative pattern of dumping the proffered reasons for resistance and chasing the target in the direction of compliance. In an illustrative interaction between a student confederate and a student research participant, the exchange looks like this:
Agent: ‘‘I need to take care of some business in [building name] and I forget the lock for my bike. It should take about 10 minutes. Will you watch my bike for me until I return?’’
Target: “Hmm. I don’t know if I can.”
Agent: “Why not?”
Target: “I’m afraid that I’ll be late for my class.”
Agent: “No worries. I’ll be quick. I could really use your help.”
Target: “OK.”
To date only two studies have empirically tested the effectiveness of the DAC (Boster et al. 2009). However, both demonstrate the promise of the technique and its efficacy relative to the FITD and DITF. Depending on the length and complexity of the conversational path, it is evident that multiple goals may be in play. For instance, the situation is framed as one of helping when the agent expresses need. When the target mentions an unspecified obstacle, the agent seeks to clarify the problem and present a corresponding remedy.
5 Conclusion
Interpersonal influence is a dynamic process that encompasses message production and message effects as well as the intricate dance between the two. Our approach has been to review the production and effects literatures in separate segments so as to capture the historical differences that make each unique. But, we have also made an effort to locate these traditions in the still-developing framework known as multiple goals theory. Key to this undertaking was the distinction between conventional and personal goals. By presenting a single theoretical housing for the study of interpersonal influence research, we hope that conceptual parallels will be more apparent, opportunities for theoretical leverage more abundant, and the resulting empirical research more durable.
References
Aune, R. K. and Michael D. Basil. 1994. A relational obligations approach to the foot-in-the mouth effect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24: 546–556.
Andrews, Kyle R., Christopher J. Carpenter, Alison S. Shaw, and Franklin J. Boster. 2008. Legitimization of paltry favors effect: A review and meta-analysis. Communication Reports 21: 59–69.
Bell, Robert A., Matthew Cholerton, Veronica Davison, Kelvin E. Fraczek and Healther Lauter. 1996. Making health communication self-funding: Effectiveness of pregiving in an AIDS fundraising/education campaign. Health Communication 8: 331–352.
Bell, Robert A., Matthew Cholerton, Kelvin E Fraczek, Guy S. Rohlfs and Brian Smith. 1994. Encouraging donations to charity: A field study of competing and complementary factors in tactic sequencing. Western Journal of Communication 5: 98–115.
Berger, Charles R. and Nicholas A. Palomares. 2011. Knowledge structures and social interaction. In: Mark L. Knapp and John A. Daly (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 169–199. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Boster, Franklin J., Allison S. Shaw, Mikayla Hughes, Michael R. Kotowski, Renee E. Strom and Leslie M. Deatrick. 2009. Dump-and-Chase: The effectiveness of persistence as a sequential request compliance-gaining strategy. Communication Studies 60: 219–234.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levenson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Burger, Jerry M. 1986. Increasing compliance by improving the deal: The that’s-not-all technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 277–283.
Burger, Jerry M. 1999. The foot-in-the-door compliance procedure: A multiple process analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review 3: 303–325.
Burger, Jerry M. and Richard E. Petty. 1981. The low-ball compliance technique: Task or person commitment? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40: 492–500.
Burger, Jerry M., Shelley Soroka, Katrina Gonzago, Emily Murphy and Emily Somervell. 2001. The effect of fleeting attraction on compliance to requests. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27: 1578–1586.
Burgoon, Judee K. 1993. Interpersonal expectancies, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 12: 30–48.
Burleson, Brant R. 2010. The nature of interpersonal communication: A message-centered approach. In: Charles R. Berger, Michael E. Roloff and David R. Doskos-Ewoldsen (eds.), The Handbook of Communication Science, 145–164. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Cai, Deborah and Steven R. Wilson. 2000. Identity implications of influence goals: A cross-cultural comparison of interaction goals and facework. Communication Studies 51: 307–328.
Carpenter, Christoper J. and Franklin J. Boster. 2009. A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the Disrupt-Then-Reframe compliance gaining technique. Communication Reports 22: 55–62.
Caughlin, John P. 2010. A multiple goals theory of personal relationships: Conceptual foundation and program overview. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27: 824–848.
Cialdini, Robert B., John T. Cacioppo, Rodney Bassett and John A. Miller. 1978. Low-ball procedure for producing compliance: Commitment then cost. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36: 463–476.
Cialdini, Robert B. and David A. Schroeder. 1976. Increasing compliance by legitimizing paltry contributions: When even a penny helps. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 34: 599–604.
Clark, Ruth A. and Jesse G. Delia. 1979. Topoi and rhetorical competence. Quarterly Journal of Speech 65: 187–206.
Cody, Michael J., Daniel J. Canary and Sandi W. Smith. 1994. Compliance-gaining goals: An inductive analysis of actor’s goal types, strategies, and successes. In: John A. Daly and John M. Wiemann (eds.), Strategic Interpersonal Communication, 33–90. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dillard, James P. 1989. Types of influence goals in personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 6: 293–308.
Dillard, James P. 1990. A goal-driven model of interpersonal influence. In: James P. Dillard (ed.), Seeking Compliance, 41–56. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
Dillard, James P., John E. Hunter and Michael Burgoon. 1984. Sequential request persuasive strategies: Meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face. Human Communication Research 10: 461–488.
Dillard, James P., Christopher Segrin and Janie M. Harden. 1989. Primary and secondary goals in the interpersonal influence process. Communication Monographs 56: 19–38.
Dolinski, Dariusz, Magdalena Nawrat and Izabela Rudak. 2001. Dialogue involvement as a social influence technique. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27: 1395–1406.
Feng, Bo. 2009. Testing an integrated model of advice giving in supportive interactions. Human Communication Research 35: 115–129.
Fern, Edward F., Kent B. Monroe and Ramon A. Avila. 1986. Effectiveness of multiple request strategies: A synthesis of research results. Journal of Marketing Research 23: 144–152.
Freedman, Johathan L. and Scott C. Fraser. 1966. Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4: 195–202.
Goei, Ryan, Lisa L. M. Lindsey, Franklin J. Boster, Paul D. Skalski and Jonathan M. Bowman. 2003. The mediating role of liking and obligation on the relationship between favors and compliance. Communication Research 30: 178–197.
Goldschmidt, Myra M. 1998. Do me a favor: A descriptive analysis of favor asking sequences in American English. Journal of Pragmatics 29: 129–153.
Goldsmith, Daena J. 2000. Soliciting advice: The role of sequential placement in mitigating face threat. Communication Monographs 67: 1–19.
Goldsmith, Daena J. and Kristine Fitch. 1997. The normative context of advice as social support. Human Communication Research 23: 454–476.
Goldsmith, Daena J., Kristin A. Lindholm and Jennifer J. Bute. 2006. Dilemmas of talking about lifestyle changes among couples coping with a cardiac event. Social Science & Medicine 63: 2079–2090.
Goldsmith, Daena J., Kristin Lindholm Gumminger and Jennifer J. Bute. 2006. Communication about lifestyle change between cardiac patients and their partners. In: René M. Dailey and Beth A. LePoire (eds.). Applied Interpersonal Communication Matters: Family, Health, & Community Relations, 95–118. New York: Peter Lang.Publishing, Inc.
Gouldner, Alvin W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review 25: 161–178.
Guntzviller, Lisa M. and Erina L. MacGeorge. 2013. Modeling interactional influence in advice exchanges: Advice giver goals and recipient evaluations. Communication Monographs 80: 83–100.
Hample, Dale and Judi M. Dallinger. 1987. Individual differences in cognitive editing standards. Human Communication Research 14: 123–144.
Han, Kuei-Hsiang, Mei-Chih Li and Kwang-Kuo Hwang. 2005. Cognitive responses to favor requests from different social targets in a Confucian society. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22: 283–294.
Heider, Fritz. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York, NY: Wiley.
Holtgraves, Thomas and Joong-Nam Yang. 1992. Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: General principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62: 246–256.
Jacobs, Scott and Sally Jackson. 1983. Strategy or structure in conversational influence attempts. Communication Monographs 50: 285–304.
Johnson, Danette I., Michael E. Roloff and Melissa A. Riffee. Responses to refusals of requests: Face threat and persistence, persuasion and forgiving statements. Communication Quarterly 52: 347–356.
Kellermann, Kathy. 2004. A goal-directed approach to gaining compliance: Relating differences among goals to differences in behaviors. Communication Research 31: 397–445.
Kim, Min-Sun, Steven R. Wilson, Lefki Anastasiou, Carlos Aleman, John Oetzel and Hye-ryeon Lee. 2009. The relationship between self-construals, perceived face threats, and facework during the pursuit of influence goals. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 2: 318–343.
Kinnel, Ann M. K. and Douglas W. Maynard. 1996. The delivery and receipt of safer sex advice in pretest counseling sessions for HIV and AIDS. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 24: 405–437.
Kipnis, David, Stuart M. Schmidt and Ian Wilkinson. 1980. Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology 65: 440–452.
Knowles, Eric S., Shannon Butler and Jay A. Linn. 2001. Increasing compliance by reducing resistance. In: Joseph P. Forgas and Kipling D. Williams (eds.), Social Influence: Direct and Indirect Processes, 41–60. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis.
Lapinski, Maria. K. and Rajiv. N. Rimal. 2005. An explication of social norms. Communication Theory 15: 127–147.
Leichty, Greg S. and James L. Applegate. 1991. Social-cognitive and situational influences on the use of face-saving persuasive strategies. Human Communication Research 17: 451–484.
Lee, Hye Eun, Hee Sun Park, Tatsuya Imai and Daniel Dolan. 2012. Cultural differences between Japan and the United States in uses of “Apology” and “Thank You” in favor asking messages. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 31: 263–289.
Locher, Miriam A. 2006. Advice Online: Advice Giving in an American Internet Health Column. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
MacGeorge, Erina L. 2001. Support providers’ interaction goals: The influence of attributions and emotions. Communication Monographs 68: 72–97.
MacGeorge, Erina L., Bo Feng and Elizabeth R. Thompson. 2008. “Good” and “bad” advice: How to advice more effectively. In: Michael Motley (ed.), Applied Interpersonal Communication: Behaviors that Affect Outcomes, 145–164. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
O’Keefe, Barbara J. and Jesse G. Delia. 1982. Impression formation and message production. In: Micheal E. Roloff and Charles R. Berger (eds.), Social Cognition and Communication, 33–72. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
O’Keefe, Barbara J. 1988. The logic of message design: Individual differences in reasoning about communication. Communication Monographs 55: 80–103.
O’Keefe, Daniel J. and Scott L. Hale. 1998. The door-in-the-face influence strategy. In: Michael E. Roloff (ed.), Communication Yearbook 21: 1–33. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
O’Keefe, Daniel J. and Scott L. Hale. 2001. An odds-ratio-based meta-analysis of research on the door-in-the-face influence strategy. Communication Reports 14: 31–38.
Petronio, Sandra and Susanne M. Jones. 2006. When “friendly advice” becomes a privacy dilemma for pregnant couples. In: Lynn H. Turner and Richard West (eds.), The Family Communication Sourcebook, 201–215. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pudlinski, Christopher. 1998. Giving advice on a consumer-run warm line: Implicit and dilemmatic practices. Communication Studies 49: 322–341.
Roloff, Michael E. 1987. Communication and reciprocity within intimate relationships. In: Michael E. Roloff and Gerald R. Miller (eds.), Interpersonal Processes: New Directions in Communication Research, 11–38. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Roloff, Michael E. and Chris A. Janisewski. 1989. Overcoming obstacles to interpersonal compliance: A principle of message construction. Human Communication Research 16: 33–61.
Roloff, Michael E., Chris A. Janiszewski, Mary McGrath, Cynthia S. Burns and Lalita A. Manrai. 1988. Acquiring resources from intimates when obligation substitutes for persuasion. Human Communication Research 14: 364–396.
Rule, Gail R., Gay L. Bisanz and Melinda Kohn. 1985. Anatomy of a persuasion schema: Targets, goals, and strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48: 1127–1140.
Sanders, Robert E. and Kristine L. Fitch. 2001. The actual practice of compliance seeking. Communication Theory 11: 263–289.
Schrader, David C. and James P. Dillard. 1998. Goal structures and interpersonal influence. Communication Studies 49: 276–293.
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, John R. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5: 1–25.
Tracy, Karen, Robert T. Craig, Martin Smith and Frances Spisak. 1984. The discourse of requests: Assessment of a compliance-gaining approach. Human Communication Research 10: 513–538.
Turner, Monique M., Ron Tamborini, M. S. Limon and Cynthia Zuckerman-Hyman. 2007. The moderators and mediators of door-in-the-face requests: Is it a negotiation or a helping experience? Communication Monographs 74: 333–356.
Whately, Mark A., J. M. Webster, Richard H. Smith and Adele Rhodes. 1999. The effect of a favor on public and private compliance: How internalized is the norm of reciprocity? Basic and Applied Social Psychology 21: 251–259.
Wilson, Steven R. 1990. Development and test of a cognitive rules model of interaction goals. Communication Monographs 57: 81–103.
Wilson, Steven R. 1995. Elaborating the cognitive rules model of interaction goals: The problem of accounting for individual differences in goal formation. In: Brant R. Burleson (ed.), Communication Yearbook 18: 3–25. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wilson, Steven R. In press. Conventional and personal goals during conflict. In: Nancy Burrell, Mike Allen, Raymond W. Preiss and Barbara M. Gayle (eds.), Managing Interpersonal Conflict: Advances through Meta-analysis. Routledge.
Wilson, Steven R., Carlos G. Aleman and Geoff B. Leatham. 1998. Identity implications of influence goals: A revised analysis of face-threatening acts and application to seeking compliance with same-sex friends. Human Communication Research 25: 64–96.
Wilson, Steven R., Patricia Gettings, and Elizabeth Dorrance Hall. 2013. May. Multiple goals during complex family conversations: What goals do family members pursue when talking with returning service members about seeking mental healthcare? Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, London, UK.
Wilson, Steven R. and Adrianne W. Kunkel. 2000. Identity implications of influence goals: Similarities in perceived face threats and facework across sex and close relationships. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 19: 195–221.
Wilson, Steven R., Adrianne D. Kunkel, Scott J. Robson, James O. Olufowote and Jordan Soliz. 2009. Identity implications of relationship (re)definition goals: An analysis of face threats and facework as young adults initiate, intensify, and disengage from romantic relationships. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 28: 32–61.
Yukl, Gary, Patricia J. Guinan and Debra Soitolano. 1995. Influence tactics used for different objectives with subordinates, peers, and superiors. Group & Organizational Management 20: 272–296.
Zhao, Chun-Mei, Chris M. Golde and Alexander C. McCormick. 2007. More than a signature: How advisor choice and advisor behaviour affect doctoral student satisfaction. Journal of Further and Higher Education 31: 263–281.