Social perceptions as mediators of the effect of speech rate similarity on compliance

Research on the relationship between speech rate and persuasion has provided inconsistent results. Recently, it was proposed that speech rate similarity affects compliance by increasing social attractiveness, which is more important to compliance than speaker credibility. Further, it was speculated that social attractiveness produces obligations to aid the speaker. This experiment tested these claims by predicting that if obligations mediated compliance, social attractiveness would only improve compliance when the speaker benefited from that compliance. In a 5 (Speaker Speech Rate) × 2 (Benefit to Speaker) design, 257 listeners, pretested on their speech rate, were exposed to 1 of 10 requests soliciting volunteers for a bogus research project. As expected, speech rate similarity enhanced social attractiveness, and faster speech rates increased speaker competence and dominance. Social attractiveness had a main effect on compliance, suggesting a direct effect on attraction. Higher sociability/character assessments and lower dominance increased compliance when the speaker benefited more, providing only limited support for the mediating role of obligations. Increased dominance and status also augmented compliance, especially when the speaker benefited less from compliance. Thus speech rate and other nonverbal behaviors may effect compliance by increasing the speaker's social attractiveness, creating obligations to comply, or exerting persuasive force through higher status and power.

[1]  D. Buller,et al.  The Effects of Speech Rate Similarity on Compliance: Application of Communication Accommodation Theory. , 1992 .

[2]  D. Bem.  Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. , 1967, Psychological review.

[3]  A. Mehrabian,et al.  Nonverval concomitants of perceived and intended persuasiveness. , 1969, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[4]  Robert Hopper,et al.  Relationships between speech delivery and speech effectiveness , 1976 .

[5]  W. Pearce,et al.  Nonverbal Vocalic Communication and Perceptions Of A Speaker. , 1971 .

[6]  H. Kelman.  PROCESSES OF OPINION CHANGE , 1961 .

[7]  D. Romer.  Distraction, counterarguing and the internalization of attitude change , 1979 .

[8]  Richard L. Street,et al.  Speech rate acceptance ranges as a function of evaluative domain, listener speech rate, and communication context , 1982 .

[9]  N. Miller,et al.  Speed of speech and persuasion. , 1976 .

[10]  Robert J. Smith,et al.  Affective and cognitive mediators of reactions to spatial invasions , 1979 .

[11]  R. Street.  Speech Convergence and Speech Evaluation in Fact-Finding Interviews , 1984 .

[12]  Robert S. Baron,et al.  On Measuring Counterarguing. , 1973 .

[13]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  The effects of nonverbal synchrony on message comprehension and persuasiveness , 1981 .

[14]  W. Barnett Pearce,et al.  Vocalic communication in persuasion , 1972 .

[15]  Bruce L. Smith,et al.  Effects of Speech Rate on Personality Perception , 1975, Language and speech.

[16]  E. Aronson,et al.  OPINION CHANGE AS A FUNCTION OF THE COMMUNICATOR'S ATTRACTIVENESS AND DESIRE TO INFLUENCE. , 1965, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[17]  E. Langer,et al.  Staring and approach: An interpretation of the stare as a nonspecific activator. , 1976 .

[18]  R. Norman,et al.  When what is said is important: A comparison of expert and attractive sources , 1976 .

[19]  S. Chaiken.  Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. , 1979 .

[20]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  The Effects of Vocalics and Nonverbal Sensitivity on Compliance A Replication and Extension , 1986 .

[21]  R. Baron.  Invasions of personal space and helping: Mediating effects of invader's apparent need ☆ , 1978 .

[22]  R. Rosenthal.  Sensitivity to Nonverbal Communication: The PONS Test , 1979 .

[23]  F. N. Willis,et al.  The use of interpersonal touch in securing compliance , 1980 .

[24]  Lawrence R. Wheeless.  Some effects of time ‐ Compressed speech on persuasion , 1971 .

[25]  R. Street,et al.  The conception and perception of noncontent speech performance: implications for speech-accommodation theory , 1984 .

[26]  W. Pearce.  The effect of vocal cues on credibility and attitude change , 1971 .

[27]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Nonverbal Communication: The Unspoken Dialogue , 1988 .

[28]  R. Rosenthal.  MEASURING SENSITIVITY TO NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION: THE PONS TEST* , 1979 .

[29]  E. Pedhazur.  Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and Prediction , 1982 .

[30]  Jerold L. Hale,et al.  Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication , 1987 .

[31]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  Correlation and causality , 1979 .

[32]  Lalita A. Manrai,et al.  Acquiring Resources from Intimates When Obligation Substitutes for Persuasion , 1988 .

[33]  Gregg B. Jackson,et al.  Meta-Analysis: Cumulating Research Findings Across Studies , 1982 .

[34]  M. Patterson,et al.  Touch, compliance, and interpersonal affect , 1986 .

[35]  Joann Horai,et al.  The Effects of Expertise and Physical Attractiveness Upon Opinion Agreement and Liking , 1974 .

[36]  R. Rosenthal,et al.  Contrast Analysis: Focused Comparisons in the Analysis of Variance , 1985 .

[37]  J. Mccroskey.  Measurement of the Credibility of Peers and Spouses. , 1973 .

[38]  R. Kelly Aune,et al.  The Effects of Vocalics and Nonverbal Sensitivity on Compliance A Speech Accommodation Theory Explanation , 1988 .

[39]  Timothy C. Brock,et al.  Distraction Increases Yielding to Propaganda by Inhibiting Counterarguing. , 1970 .

[40]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Talking fast and changing attitudes: A critique and clarification , 1983 .

[41]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  THE EFFECT OF INTERACTION BEHAVIOR ON SOURCE CREDIBILITY, HOMOPHILY, AND INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION , 1974 .

[42]  C. Kleinke,et al.  Compliance to requests made by gazing and touching experimenters in field settings. , 1977 .