Situational influences on the selection of compliance‐gaining messages: Two tests of the predictive utility of the Cody‐McLaughlin typology

Recent work on the dimensions of compliance‐gaining situations offers an opportunity for systematizing a portion of message selection research. Two studies that utilize the six dimensions isolated by Cody and McLaughlin (1980), as well as one other, as predictors of compliance‐gaining message selection are reported. The first study relied on the hypothetical situation method typical of most compliance‐gaining research. Study 2 utilized a new method that asked participants to recall a persuasion situation they had been part of. Across the two investigations the effects attributable to the situation were relatively few in number and small in size. Several alternative interpretations of the data are suggested. The advantages and disadvantages of the two methods are examined. Explanations for each of the situational effects (or lack thereof) are considered.

[1]  R. Clark.  The impact of self interest and desire for liking on the selection of communicative strategies , 1979 .

[2]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Stalking the elusive "vividness" effect. , 1982 .

[3]  H. Michener,et al.  Liking as a determinant of power tactic preference. , 1972 .

[4]  Michael J. Schneider,et al.  The impact of relational consequences and intimacy on the selection of interpersonal persuasion tactics: A reanalysis , 1981 .

[5]  M. Cody,et al.  Dimensions of Compliance-Gaining Situations , 1983 .

[6]  Michael E. Roloff,et al.  The Situational Use of Pro- and Antisocial Compliance-Gaining Strategies by High and Low Machiavellians , 1978 .

[7]  Michael D. Miller.  Friendship, Power and the Language of Compliance-Gaining , 1982 .

[8]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Salience, Attention, and Attribution: Top of the Head Phenomena , 1978 .

[9]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[10]  J. Bradac,et al.  PERCEPTIONS OF COMPLIANCE-GAINING SITUATIONS , 1984 .

[11]  M. W. Lustig,et al.  THE EFFECT OF COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION AND SITUATION ON COMMUNICATION STRATEGY CHOICES , 1980 .

[12]  Alan L. Sillars.  THE STRANGER AND THE SPOUSE AS TARGET PERSONS FOR COMPLIANCE‐GAINING STRATEGIES: A SUBJECTIVE EXPECTED UTILITY MODEL1 , 1980 .

[13]  G. Marwell,et al.  Dimensions of Compliance-Gaining Behavior: An Empirical Analysis , 1967 .

[14]  M. Fitzpatrick,et al.  You always hurt the one you love: Strategies and tactics in interpersonal conflict , 1979 .

[15]  Michael E. Roloff,et al.  The influence of dogmatism on the situational use of pro- and anti-social compliance-Gaining strategies , 1979 .

[16]  F. Boster,et al.  COMPLIANCE‐GAINING MESSAGE SELECTION BEHAVIOR , 1984 .

[17]  Verling C. Troldahl,et al.  A Short-Form Dogmatism Scale for Use in Field Studies , 1965 .

[18]  James Price Dillard,et al.  Cultural and situational influences on the process of persuasive strategy selection , 1982 .

[19]  David R. Seibold,et al.  Compliance‐gaining message strategies: A typology and some findings concerning effects of situational differences , 1977 .

[20]  M. Cody,et al.  Perceptions of compliance‐gaining situations: A dimensional analysis , 1980 .