An examination of interpersonal influence between peers

Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors Romesburg, Tyla Sue, 1966-

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this materialis made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such aspublic display or performance) of protected items is prohibitedexcept with permission of the author.

Download date 08/01/2021 15:13:10

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/291549

INFORMATION TO USERS

The most advanced technology has been used to photograph and

reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the

text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and

dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any

type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality

illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,

and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete

manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if

unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate

the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and

continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each

original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in

reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white

photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations

appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly

to order.

University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company

300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600

Order Number 1341286

An examination of interpersonal influence between peers

Romesburg, Tyla Sue, M.A.

The University of Arizona, 1990

U M I 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106

AN EXAMINATION OF INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE

BETWEEN PEERS

by

Tyla Sue Romesburg

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

In the Graduate College

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

1990

2

STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for. an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

SIGNED:

APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR

This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:

Deborah A. Newton Assistant Professor of Communication

3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Like most major projects or works, this thesis represents the culmination of effort expended by many people, not just one, and it's completion is a standing reflection of the support of many. I gratefully acknowledge a few of the key people who were principal players in this project, and a few of the people who have been and continue to be fundamental forces in shaping my new destiny.

While completing this program of study and moving through Graduate school has been aided by my husband and my friends, prior to college of any type, I was motivated by both my parents. My mother, Sylvia, a working manager herself, always believed in the triumphs of women. As such, she always stood in my mind as an example of what women could be. My father, Larry, helped me believe in what I could be. In his mind I was everything, and I could be anything -- not in spite of being female, but especially because of it.

Along the road through college and to graduate school I met Michael John Permenter, who, despite the neurotic tendencies he claims I have cultivated -- married me and made my life complete. I am more than thankful for the support, the listening ear offered and the push toward the finish line Michael has given me. Without his belief in me, and his encouragement in my efforts, what a lonely road I would have traveled.

Others who made the trip with me through Graduate School, and who added color as well as contrast to the days that sometimes seemed black are my colleagues, and my friends. I am proud to know and have as my associates: Renee Klingle, Mark Adkins, Ellen Snyderman, Cindy McKee, Lesa Stern, Darrell Hokuf, and Loren McBain. Together we conquered ANOVA's, shared in commiseration of our inadequacies, and finally pulled each other through a rigorously challenging program.

Especially integral players of this thesis are my committee members Dr. William Bailey and Dr. David Tansik. Dr. Bailey has continuously challenged my logic, and forced me to think, re-think, and re-think my statements. His sheer delight in testing my wit and confronting my knowledge has taught me to always examine multiple perspectives prior to staking a claim. For this lesson, I will always be grateful. Dr. David Tansik has also encouraged me to examine multiple perspectives by opening up a global perspective for me. I have learned through conversations with him that the impact of policies today amount to global economic changes tomorrow. I feel priviledged to have had the good advise and counsel from these two gentlemen.

Finally, I am indebted to the guidance, the mentorship, and the -friendship of my advisor and my friend Dr. Deborah Newton. Through her drive for perfection I have been able to realize the fruits of my own ambitions. Everything that I am as an academician is due in whole, or in part, to her counsel and her example. Who I am as a person has also been shaped by her belief in excellence only. I have learned that regardless of context, mediocrity is never acceptable.

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF FIGURES 7

LIST OF TABLES. . 8

ABSTRACT 9

I. INTRODUCTION 10

Rationale 10

Definitional Issues 13

Interpersonal Influence Conceptions 13

Negotiation as Distinguished from Influence .... 16

Summary 18

Achieving Instrumental Goals 19

Predictors and Strategies 20

Balancing Interpersonal and Identity Functions 22

The Interpersonal Function 23

Predictor Variables 24

Strategies associated with the Interpersonal Function 25

The Identity Function 28

Predictor Variables 28

Strategies associated with the Identity Function 29

Summary 30

Predictions 31

II. METHODS 36

Participants 36

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Procedures 36

Verbal Behavior During Influence 37

Outcome Measures 39

Issue Importance Scale 39

Stress Scale 39

Communication Satisfaction Inventory 40

Relational Communication Measure 40

III. RESULTS 41

Frequency of Strategy Usage 41

Hypotheses Tests 42

Issue Importance and Experienced Stress 42

Communication Satisfaction 45

Relational Message Interpretations 45

Supplemental Analyses 46

IV. DISCUSSION 48

Hypotheses Tests 48

Directions for Future Research 51

Theoretical Implications 52

V. APPENDIX A: MANIPULATION STORY 54

APPENDIX B: ISSUE IMPORTANCE SCALE 55

APPENDIX C: STRESS SCALE 56

APPENDIX D: INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION INVENTORY 57

APPENDIX E: RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION MEASURE 58

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

REFERENCES.

LIST OF FIGURES

Relationship Between Instrumental, Identity and Interpersonal Functions

8

LIST OF TABLES

1. Summary of Strategies and Tactics Associated with Interpersonal and Identity Functions 32

2. Strategies: Coefficient Alphas and Interrater Reliabilities . . 38

3. Strategies: Frequency of Strategy Usage 41

4. Hypotheses Tests: Pearson Product-Moment Correlations Between Persons Report and Persons Use of Strategies 43

5. Hypotheses Tests: Pearson Product-Moment Correlations Between Person's Report and Partner's Use of Strategies .... 44

9

ABSTRACT

Interpersonal influence between peers is marked by the need to (1)

maintain a positive image, (2) achieve instrumental or task goals, and

(3) maintain interpersonal relations with one's partner. This

investigation examined the process of balancing these three objectives

or needs, and further examined the consequences associated with failure

to balance all objectives. Peers were videotaped during an influence

interaction, and their verbal strategies were coded by trained coders

along a 5-dimensional scale. Verbal evaluations made by coders were

correlated with self-report measures of (1) issue importance, (2)

stress, (3) communication satisfaction, and (4) relational message

interpretations. Correlation results indicate that while unsupported,

there is a trend between stress and self-defense strategies, and between

issue importance and other-accusation strategies. Results of hypotheses

testing the correlation between communication satisfaction and

relational message interpretations, and strategy usage were unsupported.

Post-hoc analysis are offered.

CHAPTER I

Introduction

Rationale

Clark and Delia (1979) argue that during every transaction

communication functions to: (1) facilitate the achievement of

instrumental goals, which are related to specific tasks and objectives;

(2) facilitate the achievement of interpersonal goals, which are related

to intensifying and/or stabilizing ongoing relationships; and (3)

facilitate the achievement of identity objectives, which are related to

people's impression management goals. Clark and Delia (1979) further

claim that in any transaction, situational constraints influence the

degree to which communication functions to facilitate the achievement of

these objectives. Situational constraints are factors such as (1) the

context of the communication, (2) the type of relationship in which the

participants are engaged, or (3) the goals the participants have for the

interaction. Clark and Delia posit that the situational constraints of

interactions may cause one of the functions of communication to

predominate and the other functions play ancillary roles.

Within the organizational domain, members must achieve

instrumental, interpersonal, and identity objectives. In most cases,

instrumental or task goals are the primary focus and must be met for

organizations to thrive. Given the assumption that achieving

organizational tasks is the primary responsibility of employees,

identity-based and interpersonal-based communication, though a secondary

focus, may be used to fulfill instrumental functions. Indeed, as task

11

objectives become more salient to organizational members, balancing

interpersonal and identity communication functions to achieve

instrumental goals is critical.

Because accomplishing instrumental goals is vital in

organizations, much effort has been expended assessing best means of

achieving goals. To date, most research has focused almost exclusively

on message strategies employed by organizational members to influence

the task achievements of others (Eisenberg, Miller & Monge, 1983;

Farace, Monge, & Russell, 1977; Wheeless, Wheeless, & Howard, 1984).

Research on interpersonal influence within organizations is rich with

delineations of message strategies employed by subordinates to influence

the type of tasks allocated by superiors. Analysis includes assessment

of message strategies employed by superiors to influence either the

quality or quantity of work completed by subordinates (Kipnis, Schmidt,

& Wilkinson, 1979).

Despite the wealth of research available regarding superior-

subordinate communicative interactions (e.g. Conrad, 1983; Eisenberg et

al. 1983; Farace et al. 1977; Gibb, 1961; Infante & Gordon, 1985;

Jablin, 1979, 1980; Wheeless et al. 1984) relatively little effort has

been directed toward examining the day-to-day communication behavior of

peers. Specifically, the strategies used by co-workers to influence one

another in order to achieve instrumental objectives has been largely

ignored. Siebold, Cantrill and Meyers (1985, p. 582) argue that "The

almost exclusive focus on the manager-subordinate influence relationship

in the past has blinded researchers to other potentially important

interpersonal influence relationship arenas." Kipnis et al. (1980)

also claim that "everyone is influencing everyone else in organizations,

regardless of job title" (p. 451).

Co-workers in organizations often find themselves in a peculiar

position when it comes to accomplishing instrumental goals. When

employees are at the same or relatively the same level within a

hierarchy, they lack legitimate authority to request attitudinal or

behavioral change. When attempting to influence one another, often

peers must rely on identity or relationship strategies to accomplish

instrumental goals. For example, if employees attempted to influence

one another regarding the allocation of departmental resources, they may

assert themselves as "experts" or "experienced" in a particular subject.

Similarly, they may appeal to the relationship, by saying "let's work

this out together" or "we both think the same way" in order to buffer

the influence attempt.

Communication between coworkers involves different issues than

those pertaining to superior-subordinate relationships which may explain

the dearth of information about communication behavior among peers.

There is an apparent need for a systematic study which examines the

manner in which peers influence one another and how they coordinate

interpersonal and identity functions of communication in the process of

securing instrumental objectives. The purpose of this investigation is

to: (1) examine how co-workers pursue instrumental goals while managing

both their relationships and their identities, (2) examine how issue, or

task importance, affects.influence strategy usage, and (3) to determine

13

how stress or pressure influences strategy use among peers.

Definitional Issues

Interpersonal Influence Conceptions

Prior to examining how the influence process is transacted between

peers, it is necessary to define interpersonal influence and

differentiate this term from similar concepts such as negotiation.

Interpersonal influence has been conceptualized by Siebold et al. (1985)

as "the process and paths by which individuals reinforce or alter each

others' cognitions, emotions, and behaviors" (p. 558). Working from a

rules perspective, Reardon (1981) conceptualizes interpersonal influence

as a "coordinated management of meaning" in which the goal is to

maneuver the rules of the other interactant so that they match one's own

rules. Interpersonal influence, as distinguished from the more macro-

social process of social influence, does not require conscious intent on

the part of the source.

Siebold, et al. (1985) report that there exists an overwhelming

amount of research within the interpersonal influence domain predicated

on the notion that participants in interpersonal influence attempts

possess the ability to strategically choose their means of influence.

According to Siebold et al. (1985), Beiseeker (1970) captures this

concept best by laying out what they refer to as the "tenets of a

source-oriented ^Strategic Choice Model.'" These tenets of influence

include: (1) conscious awareness of the influence strategy, (2)

sufficient time to assess the situation, (3) the intention to formulate

a plan, (4) a diverse, complex, and differentiated repertoire of

14

strategies and tactics to draw upon, (5) sufficient awareness and

individual perspective-taking ability, and (6) an ability to choose some

strategies and forego others (Siebold et. al., 1985 p. 557). Viewing

influence from a "source-oriented" perspective is appropriate for social

influence situations, such as in political campaigns, where the context

is one-to-many and the forum calls for intention (see Burgoon & Miller,

1990). However, viewing interpersonal influence as only those

intentional acts that occur in a face-to-face context limits the range

of behavior that can be included in the interpersonal influence domain.

Siebold et al. (1985) argue that limiting interpersonal influence

only to intentional communication acts, fails to account for the

"interactional, adaptive, and partially nonreflective character of

communicative influence strategies" (p. 557). Berger and Douglas (1982)

similarly caution against viewing interpersonal influence as conscious,

and suggest that such a restricted view fails to account for the rich

interpersonal processes. Further support for a non-actional view of

interpersonal influence is provided by Miller, Boster, Roloff and

Siebold (1987) who argue against necessitating "mindfulness" as a

prerequisite to interpersonal influence behavior. In particular, Miller

(1982) suggests that influence attempts are "habitual" and "learned" and

are often enacted despite the fact that tactics have proven ineffective

in obtaining influence goals. More specifically, Miller et. al. (1987)

contend ". . . it is probably in the daily, face-to-face transactions

between acquaintances, friends, and romantic partners—that is, in those

settings and relationships typically labeled 'interpersonal'--that the

majority of mindless, routinized communication occurs" (p. 94).

While limiting interpersonal influence to intentional attempts

confines the field, expanding interpersonal influence to include both

intentional and non-intentional acts provides too broad a domain in

which to distinguish influence from other communicative activities.

Given this dilemma, Berger (1985) has distinguished between

intentionality regarding the primary goal being sought and

intentionality regarding the vehicle, or means to achieving the goal.

Berger's (1985) distinctions between the objective and the method

employed to meet the objective is bolstered by the distinction made by

Miller et. al. (1987) between "strategies" and "tactics." Miller et.

al. (1987) regard "strategies" as more global and long-term oriented

behaviors with respect to achieving a desired response whereas "tactics"

represent the specific verbal and nonverbal behaviors enacted, often in

combination, to satisfy an over-arching strategy. Rather than limiting

interpersonal influence to those behaviors intentionally enacted, or

expanding interpersonal influence to include all possible non-

intentional behavior, it is useful to consider interpersonal influence

as intentional at the strategic or goal level and either intentional or

unintentional at the tactical or means level. Because the proposed

definition does not require intentionality at the tactical level, it is

more isomorphic with the influence process among familiar others. Given

the rapid and changing organizational environment, peers may not have

sufficient time to consciously evaluate, select, and enact an

16

appropriate tactic to accomplish a task objective.

By defining interpersonal influence in the manner suggested, the

influence process begins to sound much like interpersonal negotiation.

Indeed, Newton and Burgoon (1990) argue that "viewing interpersonal

relationships as ^negotiated orders' is becoming increasingly popular in

the discipline of communication" (p. 1). However, the popularity of

viewing interpersonal transactions as negotiations necessitates that a

distinction be made between what is treated as interpersonal influence

and what is referred to as negotiation.

Negotiation as Distinguished from Influence

According to Tedeschi and Rosenfeld (1980), negotiation is a

process in which two people, representing either themselves or acting on

behalf of a larger social group, attempt to reach a mutually acceptable

agreement over scarce resources. Donohue, Diez and Stahle (1983) argue

that the difference between negotiations and other socially

communicative transactions is conceptual at best. More specifically,

Donohue et al. (1983) suggest that whether a transaction is termed a

negotiation, interpersonal influence, or self-disclosure, is not of

concern to the individuals involved. However, for theoretical purposes,

Donohue et al. (1983) suggest we call interaction patterns 'negotiation'

when "... (a) outcome parameters become more specific in advance of

the interaction, (b) rule prescriptiveness becomes more rigid, and (c)

participants begin to see themselves being relationally opposed to one

another" (p. 273).

The dynamic and ongoing nature of interpersonal processes within

17

the organizational setting dictates that outcome parameters (e.g., task

achievement) are flexible rather than rigid. As outcome possibilities

for the interpersonal interaction become more diverse and less

structured, the transaction is considered less a negotiation-type

situation. In other words, the competition for scarce resources is

buffered with interpersonal and identity goals which expand the outcome

possibilities. Negotiations require that participants develop and

maintain specific objectives throughout the course of the interaction.

As previously discussed, during interpersonal influence transactions

between peers, the objectives of each participant are quite likely more

global than specific. The global outcome possibilities of peer

influence processes result partly from the necessity of the participants

to balance instrumental, interpersonal, and identity goals.

The second criteria advanced by Donohue et al. (1983) to

distinguish negotiations from other forms of interpersonal communication

requires that in negotiations, the rules that bind the language users

become more rigid. Within organizations there is some degree of rule

prescriptiveness, but there is a distinction in the types of rules

prescribed for negotiations and those prescribed for interpersonal

transactions. Negotiations are bound by extrinsic rules of conduct such

as amount of speaking time, type of message strategies permitted, and

codes of personal conduct. Non-negotiation interactions are more

appropriately defined by what Reardon (1981) refers to as intrinsic

rules. Intrinsic rules are modes of conduct considered appropriate by

the parties involved and are developed from previous interactions with

one another. Reardon (1981) contends that . . individuals are not

driven by external forces to behave in certain ways, but that they

choose to behave in those ways" (p. 156). Obviously, some extrinsic

rules govern organizational behavior, but to the extent that the

influence process between peers is guided by intrinsic versus

relationally extrinsic rules of conduct, the transaction can be

classified as an influence attempt, but not as a negotiated order.

According to Donohue et al. (1983) the third criteria that must be

met in order for a transaction to be deemed "negotiation" is that the

participants must view their positions as relationally opposed to one

another. To view one's position as relationally opposed to one's

partner requires that one is cognizant of the process of the

interaction. While awareness of the process does not entail conscious

delivery of messages, it does suggest that both the strategies and

tactics developed and enacted are of an intentional nature. In other

words, viewing negotiations in this fashion necessitates acceptance of

the source-oriented "strategic-choice model" articulated previously.

Summary

In contradistinction to the "negotiation" process described,

interpersonal influence encompasses behaviors that are intentional at

the strategic or global level, but not necessarily intentional at the

tactical level. Acceptance of the premise that achieving instrumental,

interpersonal, and identity objectives is intentional but that the means

employed are habitual, expands possibilities for interpersonal influence

as participants in the interaction flex and loosen the rules binding

19

them. Additionally, where negotiators have adequate time and resources

to develop their "best" strategies, many interpersonal influence

attempts among peers are spontaneous. This spontaneity entrenched in

the influence behavior among peers in organizations, partially causes an

imbalance in the management of the tripartite functions of

communication.

Achieving Instrumental Goals

While achievement of task-related goals may be an intentional act,

there are several factors that mediate strategic behavior. Returning to

the tripartite functions of communication delineated by Clark and Delia

(1979), achieving instrumental, interpersonal, and identity functions is

often motivated by external factors. In other words, the "choice" to

utilize interpersonal, or identity functions when prusuing an

instrumental objective will depend on contextual variables such as issue

importance and relational consequences. Cody, McLaughlin, and Schneider

(1981) argue that the functions previously defined do not operate in

isolation of one another, rather they overlap and may compliment one

another. Despite the fact that many strategies facilitate the

achievement of dual functions (e.g., ingratiation may foster a

relationship with a co-worker and result in tangible rewards), there are

many strategies that, when enacted to achieve a primary communication

function, result in neglect of the other functions. By examining each

function separately, as it relates to interpersonal influence, the most

salient variables affecting a strategic choice may be identified.

Additionally, by "fleshing out" the strategies particular to the

20

achievement of the three communication functions, the consequences such

strategies have, can be identified.

Predictors and Strategies

Instrumentally-aimed communication is predicated on the notion

that achieving task objectives is the most prevalent interaction goal.

According to Beisecker (1970) verbal communication associated with a

problem or task is "issue-oriented" and is often characterized by a

combination of both cooperative and competitive strategies. Beisecker

(1970) posits that issue-oriented communication is utilized by social

members when the other participants' position on the issue is

unpredictable or when the position of the source is flexible. Issue-

oriented communication is a broad term encompassing several possible

strategies and numerous tactics. For example, in completing a task or

problem, one may wish to influence the "type" or "quality" of work being

received from one's co-worker or one may seek assistance from one's co­

worker. Kipnis et al. (1980) claim that the general strategies

associated with achieving instrumental objectives within an organization

vary as a function of what the instrumental goal is and who the

participants are.

As noted, a critical variable that affects strategy use in

achieving instrumental objectives is issue importance. Some researchers

(e.g., Newton, 1988; Pruitt, 1983; Ware, 1980) argue that in negotiation

settings issue importance is a principal factor in determining strategic

choices. More specific to the current line of research, Clark (1979)

argues that degree of self-interest, or the importance of an issue,

which is tied to the achievement of instrumental goals, has a powerful

effect on strategic choices and tactical behaviors.

A second critical factor affecting strategic choices is the risks

associated with utilizing a given strategy. Cody, McLaughlin, and

Schneider (1981) contend that relational consequences mediate: (1) the

source's perceptions of which strategies would effectively lead to

accomplishment of task objectives, (2) the extent to which strategy

implementation affects interpersonal goals, and (3) the extent to which

strategy implementation affects identity-management goals. Thus, the

need is apparent to assess both interpersonal and identity outcomes in

conjunction with goal achievement.

The strategies tied to achievement of task objectives are

different than the strategies associated with achieving interpersonal

objectives or identity objectives. Given this assumption, the best

predictor of strategy use is the degree to which the goal is

instrumental, interpersonal, or identity-based. When the primary goal

is instrumental, then the source of the communication must balance

interpersonal and identity objectives while pursuing this objective.

More specific to the organizational arena, La Gaipa (1981) argues that

interpersonal and identity objectives mediate strategy usage among co­

workers who are pursuing task-related goals. To identify how task goals

are achieved, it is necessary to examine the message vehicles used to

accomplish the tasks. Interpersonal- and identity-management strategies

function as this vehicle. To recast in organizational terms,

accomplishing instrumental goals may be seen as a constant and

22

implementation of strategies as variables. Instrumental goals such as

completing organizational tasks are often achieved via interpersonal-

and identity-management strategies (see Figure 1).

Identity-Management Strategies

Instrumental Goal

Interpersonal-Management Strategies

Figure 1: Relationship between Instrumental, Identity and Interpersonal Functions.

The succeeding discussion focuses on how these strategies are

implemented to achieve the instrumental objective.

Balancing Interpersonal and Identity Functions

Clark (1979) argues that when achievement of an instrumental

objective is associated with a high degree of self-interest, pressure is

commonly exerted by the source on the receiver. However, when pressure

strategies such as threats are used to influence peers or friends, the

source must typically engage in relational repair and/or face redressive

actions to reestablish the relational groundwork (La Gaipa, 1981).

Balancing interpersonal- and identity-communication functions while

achieving instrumental goals necessitates that the strategies associated

with both interpersonal and identity functions "fit" together well.

Often times, the strategies used to achieve interpersonal and

instrumental goals are at odds with the strategies used to achieve

identity and instrumental goals. The primary reason for the friction

23

between interpersonal and identity strategies is that the variables

mediating strategy selection conflict. To investigate this discrepancy,

it is necessary to explicate the variables affecting strategic choices

and examine the strategies associated with interpersonal maintenance and

identity management.

The Interpersonal Function

Although the majority of communication within organizational

boundaries is task-related, a second function communication serves is to

develop and/or maintain interpersonal relationships. According to

La Gaipa (1981), in organizational cultures instrumental objectives are

commonly considered the antithesis of affective or interpersonal

objectives. Because of this prevailing perspective, managing

relationships may be problematic for peers pursuing instrumental goals.

It is often difficult for peers to communicate positive relational

messages while attempting to persuade one another.

Several decades ago, Bales (1950) claimed that communication could

be classified as either task-related, or social-emotionally related.

The social-emotional dimension of communication described by Bales

(1950) is closely tied to the interpersonal function of communication

specified by Clark and Delia (1979). Based largely on the seminal work

by Bales (1950), organizational research interests have expanded to

include those communicative acts serving to bind organizational members

via interpersonal relationships (e.g., Pacanowsky & O'Donnell-Trujillo,

1983). Poole (1985) discusses the broader implications of communication

directed toward fulfilling interpersonal functions as they pertain to

organizational climate. Specifically, Poole (1985) argues that

interpersonal communication is that on which organizational cultures are

founded because this dimension of communication . . is the medium for

accomplishing much of the organization's work" (p. 81).

Despite attention given by scholars to the interpersonal dimension

of communication few investigations have examined the impact of

interpersonal relationships on the macro-structure of organizations.

Only a handful of studies conducted within the domain of marital

relationships have examined how relationships are managed, and more

specifically, what strategies and tactics are employed by participants

to manage relationships (Newton, 1988; Newton & Burgoon, 1990).

According to Cody et. al. (1981), it is both practical and necessary to

examine interpersonal-directed strategies because these message

strategies "... indicate not only how they [the participants] propose

to achieve control over their interpersonal environments, but also how

they maintain stability or effect changes in their personal relations"

(p. 91). Knowledge about how co-workers balance interpersonal goals

while pursuing instrumental objectives can be obtained by examining the

contextual variables related to relationship maintenance.

Predictor variables. Some researchers (Cody et. al. 1981;

Fitzpatrick & Winke, 1979) suggest that one of the most potent variables

impacting strategy selection among peers is the expected relational

consequences incurred as a result of strategy use. Relational

consequences are costs or damages to the relationship that are assessed

along a variety of relational themes (e.g., deception violates trust in

25

relationships). Cody et al. (1981) identify relational consequences as

one of two factors affecting strategy selection during compliance-

gaining situations. Similarly, Fitzpatrick and Winke (1979) and Miller

and Steinberg (1975) argue that the risks and relational consequences

associated with implementing particular strategies are a key variable in

strategy selection.

Related factors affecting strategy choices that are empirically

supported are the degree of intimacy in relationships and goals

participants have for their relationships (Ayres, 1983; Cody et. al.,

1981; Dindia & Baxter, 1987; Miller & Steinberg, 1975). General

findings indicate that strategy selection will vary depending on (1)

length of the relationship; (2) intimacy or closeness of the partners;

and (3) whether or not individuals wish to escalate, maintain, or de-

escalate intimacy in the relationship. As previously discussed,

understanding how interpersonal or relationship-oriented factors affect

co-workers' strategy selection is fundamental to uncovering how

interpersonal relationships are maintained in an organization.

Strategies associated with the interpersonal function. Cody et

al. (1985) argue that there is ample evidence that achieving

interpersonal goals is important in "liking" relationships. Because co­

workers need to maintain some type of working relationship, it is

necessary that relational goals, are reinforced in everyday behavior.

When balancing interpersonal goals with instrumental objectives is

important, individuals are likely to rely on "pro-social" types of

strategies rather than pressure tactics or manipulations (Roloff, 1976).

26

The rationale for rejection of high-pressure strategies in liking

relationships is that the relational consequences are too severe.

Rejecting high-pressure strategies in favor of relational maintenance is

often the normative response in liking relationships.

Relational maintenance, according to Dindia and Baxter (1987)

"involves an effort to continue the present relational state. . (p.

144). According to Ayres (1983) it is possible to identify strategies

people use to keep their relationships stable. Different stability

strategies are employed depending on whether one's partner desires to

develop, maintain, or disengage from the relationship. In relationships

such as those between co-workers where development and/or maintenance is

important, Ayres (1983) identifies balance as the preferred strategy for

achieving instrumental goals and maintaining relational harmony. Ayres

(1983) operationalizes "balance" as those acts which lend support to the

other and express concern for the other's emotions. Newton (1988)

classifies this relationship-maintenance strategy as other-support which

functions to reinforce relational ties. Tactics instantiated to carry

out this strategy include: emphasizing commonalities, accepting

responsibility, making concessions and complementing the other. Newton

claims that use of other-supportive strategies and tactics involves

several of the relational message themes delineated Burgoon and Hale

(1978). Those relational themes imbedded in verbal and nonverbal

messages relevant to maintaining or escalating relationships include:

equality, similarity, depth, trust, composure and receptivity.

Specifically, Newton suggests that relational messages of equalitv.

27

immediacy, receptivity, and composure will be present in other-support

strategies.

In relationships where development and/or maintenance is not of

primary importance, verbal influence strategies may not include the same

number of positive relational messages. As Newton (1988) argues "In

certain interpersonal interactions where disparity in power exists and

achieving instrumental goals is more important than preserving the

relationship or inducing satisfaction in the receiver, more antisocial

or verbally aggressive strategies such as other-accusations may be

warranted" (p. 86). As a result of instrumental objectives overriding

interpersonal functions of communication, negative relational

consequences may result.

Dindia and Baxter (1987) report that when relational consequences

are incurred, interactants normally engage in "relational-repair." La

Gaipa (1981) also argues that "To use the friendship for instrumental

goals necessitates face redressive action, explicitly demonstrating to

the other party that affective motivations are still present in the

relationship" (p. 452). Interestingly, length of relationship does not

affect the type of repair strategy used but affects the frequency of

use. Specifically, Dindia and Baxter (1987) argue that as length of

relationship increases, the frequency of repair and maintenance

strategies decreases. To the extent that interpersonal-maintenance

strategies are foregone in co-worker relationships, and participants do

not engage in relational-repair work, relational satisfaction is likely

to decrease.

The Identity Function

The third communication function specified by Clark and Delia

(1979) is the identity function. Just as interpersonal goals must be

balanced while achieving instrumental objectives, so must identity-

management goals. Goffman (1973) refers to the identity management

function as "face-work," and contends that all communicative behavior is

an act performed to "maintain face." Schlenker (1980) captures the

centrality of the identity function of communication by claiming that

"impression management is an integral part of social life" (p. 45).

Brown and Levinson (1978) expand this notion by declaring all

interactions are motivated either consciously or unconsciously by the

desire to "save face." This motivation to "save face" is strong in

organizations where raises, praise, and recognition often rest on

members' ability to not only perform tasks but also to present an

appropriate image or "face."

Predictors variables. Two mediating variables consistently

associated with the identity function of communication are: the desire

to impress the audience and the desire to be perceived as similar to

one's ideal self-perceptions (Baumeister, 1982; Burgoon, Buller &

Woodall, 1989; Tedeschi & Norman, 1980). Baumeister (1982) argues that

"these two main self-presentational motives are . . . aimed at

establishing, maintaining or refining an image of the individual in the

minds of others" (p. 3). The desire to impress an audience is mediated

by the degree to which the source "feels" the need to either assert

positive face or engage in face-redressive behavior.

The need for managing one's face can be partially determined by

the degree of stress the source feels while working towards achieving an

instrumental goal. Fisher (1986) argues that stress is an "umbrella

term" for a wide array of physical and psychological discomfort that

results in both behavioral and psychological response modifications.

Physical stimuli such as excessive heat and loud noise evoke

physiological responses such as changing or adapting body temperatures.

Psychological discomfort associated with the individuals' evaluation and

interpretation of events and external cues results in both behavioral

and cognitive responses directed toward reduction of discomfort

(Hunsaker, 1990).

Tied to organizational behavior, stress can be viewed as a primary

moderating variable between events and organizational members' behavior.

In terms of achieving specific instrumental goals, it is likely that as

the importance of the goal increases, the degree of stress felt in

accomplishing the task will similarly increase. One feasible

explanation for the increase in stress is that one's image and "face"

are risked when organizational members fail to achieve their goals.

Specifically, inability to perform at either one's own or the audience's

expected level, may result in feelings of stress or the need to re­

establish positive identity (Tedeschi & Norman, 1980).

Strategies associated with the identity function. As discussed,

the type of impression-management strategy enacted will likely be

affected by perceptions of task importance and moderated by stress

levels (Clark, 1979; Schlenker, 1980). Tedeschi and Norman (1980)

30

classify two "types" of impression-management strategies: assertive and

defensive impression-management. According to Tedeschi and Norman

(1980), assertive strategies facilitate the desire to impress the

audience and are aimed at securing specific and present rewards from the

audience. Assertive strategies may subsume tactics such as

ingratiation, basking, and self-promotion (Cialdini & Richardson, 1980;

Newton, 1988; Tedeschi & Norman, 1980). According to Tedeschi and

Norman, defensive impression-management strategies are utilized when the

actor feels there is a need to restore positive face. Such strategies

usually follow a target's negative evaluation of an actor's behavior.

Tactics subsumed under what Newton (1988) refers to as self-defense

strategies include: justifications, blasting, and denial (Cialdini &

Richardson, 1980; Newton, 1988; Tedeschi & Norman, 1980). The use of

assertive versus defensive impression-management strategies employed

during influence is mediated first, by audience perceptions of the

source, second, by the importance the actor attributes to the task, and

third, by the amount of pressure the source feels to maintain face.

Summary

Based on the literature, there are three primary factors that

mediate use of interpersonal and identity strategies in attempts to

achieve instrumental objectives in organizations. Issue importance,

relational consequences, or risks associate with the use of strategies,

and the degree of stress the source feels to maintain a positive image,

have all been empirically determined to affect strategic choices. The

available data regarding the factors that affect influence strategies is

limited in scope. In previous studies of influence—instrumental,

interpersonal, and identity functions of communication have been

addressed separately. The argument advanced by Clark and Delia (1979)

is that all three functions of communication are present in every

communicative act. Framed within an organizational domain, while

instrumental communication functions predominate influence behavior,

both interpersonal and identity functions are critical in achieving task

objectives. Therefore, empirical examination, is needed identifying how

the three functions are coordinated and manifested in strategic choices.

Again, tactics can be used interchangeably to carry out strategies, and

both identity and interpersonal strategies facilitate the accomplishment

of instrumental objectives. The specific verbal strategies and tactics

associated with interpersonal and identity functions of communication

have been previously summarized and categorized by Newton (1988). A

modified version this categorization is depicted in Table 1.

Predictions

Based on the argument by Miller et al. (1987) that during

interpersonal influence transactions people rely on a limited repertoire

of strategies directed toward the achievement of goals, it is predicted

that co-worker's ability to coordinate the three communication functions

is not highly efficient. As discussed previously, organizations are one

setting where achieving instrumental goals is critical, yet maintenance

of relationships and identities is imperative to success. Quite

probably, when instrumental goals are important, the degree of self-

interest in accomplishing the task will be high, which results in

32

Table 1

Summary of Strategies and Tactics Associated with Interpersonal and Identity Functions

Identity-Functions

Strategies: Self Assertions

Tactics: assertions self-promotions exemplification stubbornness disclosure wish statements want/need statements

Interpersonal Functions

Strategies: Other Support

Self Defense

justifications excuses denials self-inquiry

Other Accusations

Tactics: reinforcement of other support of other emphasize commonalities accepting responsibility concessions to other compliments agreement on issue agreement with other

accusat i ons/blami ng implied accusations criticism of other superiority over other poking fun over other advice giving to other threats neg. information seeking

high levels of stress. Based on the arguments proposed previously that

high issue importance results in enactment of identity-based strategies,

and that stress adds to the need to utilize identity-management

strategies, the following hypotheses are proposed:

HI: There will be a positive correlation between perceived issue

importance and the degree of stress felt during an interaction.

H2a: .There will be a positive correlation between the degree of stress

felt during an interaction and one's use of self-assertions.

33

H2b: There will be a positive correlation between the degree of stress

felt during an interaction and one's use of self-defense

strategies.

H3a: There will be a positive correlation between perceived issue

importance and one's use of self-assertion strategies.

H3b: There will be a positive correlation between perceived issue

importance and one's use of self-defense strategies.

H3c: There will be a positive correlation between perceived issue

importance and one's use of other-accusation strategies.

Berger (1985) argues that strategies enacted to achieve instrumental

goals and maintain identities often occur spontaneously. As a result of

this spontaneity, it is probable that relational-maintenance messages

are foregone, or postponed. Further, because identity-maintenance

strategies take precedence, the relationship fails to receive necessary

reinforcement for maintenance and, as a result, the participants feel

less satisfied with the relationship. Newton (1988) argues that when

such tactics as disagreements, threats, or blame, associated with

identity-maintenance functions are utilized, the result for the

recipient of those messages is the experience of less satisfaction with

the interaction and greater likelihood of negative relational message

interpretations.

Additionally, other-accusation tactics, such as criticism, advice

giving, and case-making are conceptually similar to some of the tactics

associated with both self-assertions and self-defense tactics. It is

likely that by discrediting the other, one's own position is viewed more

34

favorably. To the extent that other-accusations are viewed as a means

of enhancing one's own identity, tactics subsumed under this category

may be considered identity-based. Given this argument the following

hypotheses are proposed:

H4a: There is a negative correlation between use of self-assertions by

one person, and the interaction satisfaction experienced by the

other person.

H4b: There is a negative correlation between use of self-defense

strategies by one person, and the interaction satisfaction

experienced by the other person.

H4c: There is a negative correlation between use of other-accusation

strategies by one person, and the interaction satisfaction

experienced by the other person.

H5: There is a positive correlation between use of other-support

strategies and tactics by one person, and relational message

interpretations of equalitv. composure, receptivity, and immediacy

made by the other person.

H6a: There will be a negative correlation between use of self-assertion

strategies by one person, and relational message interpretations

of equalitv. composure, receptivity, and immediacy made by the

other person.

H6b: There is a negative correlation between use of self-defense

strategies by one person, and relational message interpretations

35

of eoualitv. composure, receptivity, and immediacy made by the

other person.

H6c: There is a negative correlation between use of other-accusation

strategies by one person, and relational message interpretations

of eoualitv. composure, receptivity, and immediacy made by the

other person.

Because the literature is sparse on the relationship between using

identity-based strategies to accomplish instrumental goals, and feelings

of self-satisfaction for the source, three research questions are

proposed.

RQ1: How will use of self-assertion strategies affect the source of

those strategies in terms of interaction satisfaction?

RQ2: How will use of self-defense strategies affect the source of those

strategies in terms of interaction satisfaction?

RQ3: How will use of other-support strategies affect the source of

those strategies in terms of interaction satisfaction?

CHAPTER 2

Methods

Participants

Participants were 56 students recruited from an upper-division

business communication course at a large Southwestern University.

Subjects were recruited in dyads from existing groups in which students

have been interacting in for several months. Each dyad received extra

credit points for their participation.

Procedures

The investigation was conducted in the communication laboratory--

a one-room apartment set up like a family room and equipped with a one­

way mirror, couch, and two rolling chairs. Prior to arriving at the

laboratory, students were informed that they had been randomly selected

to participate in a research investigation being jointly conducted by

the Department of Communication and the College of Business. The

participants were also informed that both departments were considering

increasing the minimum grade point average (G.P.A.) required for

enrollment in their respective departments (see Appendix A). Students

were asked to carefully consider the impact such an increase would have

on student enrollment and on their educational status at the University.

Upon arriving at the laboratory, the students were greeted, reminded

that they would be video-taped and then instructed to discuss: (1)

whether or not increasing the minimum G.P.A. requirement was a "good"

decision, and (2) what other policies, or considerations should be

examined prior to finalizing departmental decisions. Participants were

37

informed that a committee consisting of their communication instructors,

several non-participating students, and other departmental professors

would be viewing the tape and analyzing their input prior to making

final decisions on the proposal. After ten minutes of interaction, the

students were thanked for their assistance and asked to fill out

dependent measures that were proported to assist the committee in

assessing the impact of the proposal on students. All students were

debriefed after 10 days when the entire study had been completed.

Verbal Behavior During Influence

Behavioral ratings for each utterance during a 10-minute

interaction were evaluated by trained coders. Coders rated the

frequency of specific strategy use by the participants according to the

coding scheme developed by Newton (1988). Each dimension of the coding

scheme represents the tripartite communication functions delineated by

Clark and Delia (1979). Based on the argument, advanced by Newton

(1988), that global or strategic rating methods provide substantive

behavioral differentiation, there was not an attempt made to rate

specific tactics employed by the subjects. That is, speech interacts

were not assessed via transcription because this method of investigation

has proven both time consuming and expensive, and yields relatively

small increases in explanatory power compared to global rating methods

(Gottman, 1979; Newton, 1988).

Sixteen students from an upper-division communication course were

recruited and trained as coders for the project. Coders received 5

hours of formal training in identifying five global strategies and

38

approximately 5-7 tactics associated with each strategy. The five

global strategies involved ratings of: self-assertions; self-defensive

comments; other-support statements; other accusations; and issue/content

statements that could not be categorized as either relating to the self

or the other. Additionally, coders received approximately 2 hours of

practice coding with movies and other dyadic interaction tapes. After

training was completed, each coder was responsible for coding ten

subjects. Frequency counts were made for each strategy used by subjects

and frequency scores were converted to percentages. By converting raw

scores to percentages, each strategy utilized was evaluated with respect

to overall strategy usage during the conversation. Coefficient alpha

scores for the strategies and interrater reliabilities are reported in

Table 2.

Table 2

Strategies: Coefficient Alphas and Interrater Reliabilities

Alpha Verbal Strategies Coeffs

Self Assertions .70 Self Defense .69 Other Accusations .53 Other Support .84 Content/Issue .42

While the alpha coefficient scores for both other-accusations and

content-related comments are poor, it should be noted that both other-

accusations and content-related comments account for only 11% of the

total strategies used by participants. Given the low manifestation of

these two strategies, raters had fewer occasions to recognize and

reliably categorize these behavioral responses than with the other

strategies.

Outcome Measures

In addition to examining the frequency of identity-based, versus

interpersonal-based, strategies used by peers during influence, several

measures examined the consequences associated with enactment of

strategies.

Issue Importance Scale

The degree of interest and perceptions of issue importance felt by

participants was be measured by a 3-item Likert-type scale designed for

this investigation. This scale reflected the degree of importance the

participants assigned to the project (see Appendix B). The Alpha

coefficient for the scale was .44.

Stress Scale

The amount of stress experienced during the interaction as a

result of the interaction itself, was assessed by a 10-item

unidimensional Likert-type scale developed by Hunsaker (1990).

Questions 3, 5, and 9 tapped subjects' subjective assessment of their

autonomic-physiological condition (see Appendix C). Hunsaker's

investigation of stress as measured by these questions produced an alpha

reliability of .88. The internal consistency of the scale in this

investigation is .91.

Communication Satisfaction Inventory

Participant satisfaction with communication during the dyadic

transaction was evaluated by a modified version of Hecht's (1978)

Communication Satisfaction Inventory. The scale consists of 19 Likert-

type items ranging from 1 to 7 (1 reflecting strong agreement with the

statement, and 7 reflecting strong disagreement with the statement) (see

Appendix D). Modifications were made by Newton (1988) who previously

reported an alpha reliability of .91. In this investigation, the alpha

coefficient yielded is .94.

Relational Communication Measure

Relational message interpretations were measured by a 30-item

Likert-type scale developed by Burgoon and Hale (1987) reflecting

perceptions of messages embedded in strategy use (see Appendix E).

Relational messages are measured by the operationalization of seven

relational themes present in communication interactions. The use of the

Relational Communication Measure by Newton (1988) supports application

of this measure to influence transactions. Reliability estimates of the

relational message themes are: immediacy/affection, .84;

depth/similarity, .54; receptivity/trust, .81; composure, .76;

formality, .41; equality, .80; and dominance, .47 (Newton, 1988).

Coefficient alphas in this investigation are: immediacy, .79;

receptivity, .89; composure, .73; and equality, .81. For this

investigation, the dimensions of dominance, formality, and depth were

eliminated due to the low alpha ratings in previous investigations.

CHAPTER 3

Results

Frequency of Strategy Usage

Prior to examination of the hypotheses, evaluation was made across

participants of the frequency of strategy usage relative to total

strategy interaction time. Table 3 reflects the average percentage of

time each strategy was enacted by participants in relation to total

strategic usage.

Table 3

Strategies: Frequency of Strategy Usage

Percent of Verbal Strategies time used

Self-Assertions 32% Other-Support 30% Self-Defense 15% Other-Accusation 12% Content/Issue 11%

As indicated in Table 3, self-assertions (e.g., wish statements,

self-promotions, or exemplifications) and other-support strategies

(e.g., concessions to other, acceptance of responsibility or

reinforcement of other) account for over 60% of total strategy use.

During the influence interaction, peers were less likely to employ self-

defense strategies (e.g., justifications, denials, or excuses) or other-

accusation strategies (e.g., criticism of other, advice giving to other,

or case-making) as a means of influencing the behavior and/or decisions

of their partners. It is noteworthy that during the interaction content

42

and/or issue statements (e.g., description of the issue, or discussion

of the facts) reflecting neither the self or the other, accounted for

only about 11% of the total interaction time.

Hypotheses Tests

Pearson product-moment correlations were conducted to test the

relationship among a person's (1) perceptions of issue importance (2)

reported level of stress, (3) satisfaction with the interaction, and (4)

strategy usage during the conversation. The correlation results

illustrated in Table 4 indicate that only 1 of the correlations are

significant at the .05 level of analysis.

Hypotheses regarding one person's strategy usage and his or her

partner's relational message interpretations and reported communication

satisfaction were tested with Pearson product-moment correlations

between a person's coded use of strategies and his or her partner's

responses on dependent measures. As reported in Table 5, results

indicate that 4 of the correlations are significant at a level of .05.

Issue Importance and Experienced Stress

Hypothesis 1 concerns the relationship between the perceived

importance of the issue the degree of stress experienced by

participants during the interaction. Results confirm the hypothesis and

indicate that a significant positive correlation exists between issue

importance and stress (r =.45, £< .01). Hypothesis 2a and 2b predicted

that high levels of stress would be related to one's use of self-

assertions and self-defense strategies. Results indicate there is a

non-significant trend between one's experience of stress and his or her

43

Table 4

Hypotheses Tests: Pearson Product-Moment Correlations Between Person's Report and Person's Use of Strategies

PERSON'S USE OF STRATEGIES

PERSON'S REPORT Self

Assertions Self Defense

Other Support

Other Content/Issue Accusations only

Person's Perceived -.15 Issue Importance

Person's Stress -.09

-.07

.18

-.03

.05

.19 **

.09

.15

-.05

Satisfaction with the Comnunication

- .02 -.07 .04 -.04 -.05

PERSON'S REPORT OF STRESS

PERSON'S REPORT

Issue Importance

Stress

.45 *

*E < .05, one-tailed. ** .05<e < .10, one-tailed (approaches significance)

44

Table 5 Hypotheses Tests: Pearson Product-Moment Correlations Between Person's Report and Partner's Use of Strategies

PERSON'S REPORT Self

Assertions

PARTNERS USE OF

Self Defense

STRATEGIES

Other Suooort

Other Accusations

Content/Issue onlv

Satisfaction -.03 -.03 with Communication

Interpretation of Partner's Relational Messaaes

Immediacy .06 .04.

.07

-.06

.07

-.06

-.06

.03

Receptivity .09 -.10 .12 -.17 ** -.03

Composure -.14 -.04 .07 -.09 .05

Equality .05 .03 .05 -.08 -.08

INTERPRETATION OF PARTNER' S RELATIONAL MESSAGES

PERSON'S REPORT

Satisfaction with Communication

Immediacy

.63 *

Receptive

.45 *

Composure

.40 *

Equality

.46 *

*E <.05, one-tailed. ** .05< g < .10, one-tailed (approaches significance)

use of the identity strategy of self-defense (r =.18, £= .09), but there

is no significant relationship between stress and self-assertions.

Hypothesis 3. which tested the relationship between perceived issue

importance and strategy use was unsupported. Though not significant,

there was a weak correlation (r =.19, £=.08) between one's perception of

issue importance and his or her use of other-accusation strategies.

Communication Satisfaction

One hypothesis and three research questions were advanced to

examine the impact of strategy use on communicator's satisfaction with

the interaction. Hypothesis 4. which predicted that one person's use of

self-assertions, self-defense, and other-accusation strategies would be

negatively associated with the other's satisfaction was unsupported.

Research questions I, 2, and 3 examined how one's use of self-defense,

self-assertions, or other-accusation strategies affected his or her

feelings of satisfaction with the interaction. Tests of all questions

produced non-significant results.

Relational Message Interpretations

The last two hypotheses, concern the relationship between one

person's strategy use and the relational interpretations made by the

other. Hypothesis 5 testing the association between other-supportive

strategies and relational interpretations of equality, immediacy,

receptivity and composure, received no support. Hypothesis 6a. 6b. and

6c, regarding the relationship between self-assertions, self-defense,

and other-accusation strategies and relational interpretations of

equality, immediacy, receptivity, and composure was not supported.

While the strategies utilized did not correlate with global feelings of

satisfaction, or with relational message interpretations, it is

noteworthy that relational themes of iminediacy, receptivity, composure

and equality did correlate with reported communication satisfaction.

Specifically, the following relationships were found between one's

satisfaction and his or her relational message interpretations of:

immediacy, (r=.63, jx.01); receptivity, (r=.45, £<.01); composure,

(r=.40, jx.01); and equality, (r=.46, jx.Ol).

Supplemental Analysis

Post-hoc analysis of the results indicate several interesting

findings. First, strategies of self-defense, other-accusation, and

other-support are all significantly negatively correlated with use of

self-assertion strategies and tactics. Specific findings reveal the

following relationships with self-assertions: self-defense (r=-.22,

jk.05); other-accusation (r=-.29, £<.05); other-support (r=.30, jx.01).

Similarly, self-defense is significantly negatively correlated with

other-support (r=-.38, jk.OI). There is also a significant negative

correlation between one's perceived issue importance and the other's

reported communication satisfaction (r=-.30, fK.OL), such that as issue

importance increases for one partner, satisfaction decreases for the

other.

Other findings pertaining to one person's strategy use and the

other's report on dependent measures, are the following: (1) There is a

significant negative correlation between one person's perceived issue

importance and the other's use of self-assertions, such that as issue

importance increases for one of the partner's, self-assertions used by

the other decrease (r=-.24, £<.05). Along the same lines, other support

strategies used by one partner was significantly associated with lack of

assertions or defense statements by the other. The correlation results

between other-support, and self-assertions and self-defense strategies,

respectively are (r=-.30, £=.01), (r=-.38, £<.01).

48

DISCUSSION

This investigation attempted to clarify influence processes

embedded in day-to-day communication transactions between peers.

Expanding on Clark and Delia's (1978) tripartite model of the functions

of communication, achieving instrumental goals was taken as a constant

and efforts were aimed at examining influence attempts in relation to

the management of interpersonal and identity objectives. To date, this

is one of only a handful of influence investigations that examine actual

behavior, as opposed to recalled responses, and the influence process as

enacted by people in on-going relationships, as opposed to strangers.

This research also expands upon our knowledge about how influence

affects organizational behavior. As discussed previously, most

organizational investigations have focused on the relationship between

superiors and subordinates. As a result, studies of influence processes

in organizations typically examine power and control issues. Limiting

the study of influence to assessing communication of power and control

oversimplifies complex interpersonal processes.

This investigation attempts to account for the complex influence

process by examining communication behavior across a number of factors

including: (1) perceptions of issue importance, (2) affects of stress,

and (3) interpretation of relational messages.

Hypotheses Tests

Based on seminal work by Newton (1988), the relationships were

assessed between satisfaction with communication, relational message

interpretations, and influence strategies. Five global strategies

reflecting either identity functions of communication (self-assertions,

self-defense strategies), or relational functions of communication

(other-support, other-accusation), or simply reflect non-

interpretational messages (content/issue) functioned as the primary

variables in this investigation. Each global strategy was associated

with several specific tactics, which had been previously rated by

researchers to cluster together.

Previous investigations of interpersonal influence behavior

indicate that in ongoing relationships, the key variables associated

with strategy use among peers are stress, issue importance, and

relational goals. Based on the mediating and predictive value of these

variables, several primary and sequential hypotheses were posited.

First, it was predicted that stress and issue importance would be

highly correlated. Peers who feel strongly about an issue and/or goal,

are likely to feel pressure or stress to influence the attitudes or

behaviors of the others. Similarly, high stress is likely to affect

perceptions of importance. Not surprisingly, there was a significant

correlation between issue importance and the level of stress individuals

experienced.

Second, predictions were made that issue importance and

experienced stress would prompt people to enact identitv-based

strategies (e.g., promoting one's self as an expert, denying previous

negative behavior). Results indicate that there is trend between use of

self-defense strategies and experienced stressed. These findings are

not surprising, as Tedeschi and Norman (1985) argue that people will

50

exercise self-defensive strategies, such as excuses and denials when

they feel pressured to restore positive impressions. Perceptions of

issue importance did not correspond with either self-assertions or self-

defense strategies. However, there was a non-significant trend

indicated between perceptions of issue importance and the use of other-

accusations. As previously discussed, other-accusations may function as

an identity-enhancing strategy in some instances and as a relational de-

escalation strategy in others. As a result of the multiple function of

this strategy, caution should be exercised in interpreting the results.

The third group of hypotheses assessed the relationship between

both strategy use and communication satisfaction, and strategy use and

relational message interpretations associated with equality, composure,

receptivity, and immediacy. Lack of support for the association between

satisfaction and the relational messages associated with specific

influence strategies may, in part, be attributable to the multiple-

functioned nature of one or two of the strategies. Additionally, the

frequency of a specific strategy use may be too weak to communicate

relational messages. However, grouping strategies of self-assertions.

self-defense, and other-accusations into one global measure of identity-

related functions, and correlating that measure with specific relational

message interpretations, may provide support for the hypotheses.

Because of the on-going nature of peer relationships, it is

possible that the persuasive efficacy of a person's communication in one

interaction, coupled with his or her satisfaction with the transaction,

will affect a person's behavior in future interactions. Three research

51

questions, addressed the intra-personal relationship between a person's

identity and relationally-based strategy use during influence and

reported level of satisfaction. However, none of the research questions

were empirically supported.

Directions for Future Research

Future investigations of influence between and among peers, can

improve upon this research in several ways. First, investigations would

benefit from nonverbal analysis of influence strategies. In Newton's

(1988) attempt to index nonverbal cues associated with strategic verbal

influence attempts, nonverbal cues accounted for up to 87% of the

variance in relational message interpretations of receptivity and

similarity (p. 89). As a result of the substantive percentage of

variance accounted for, Newton (1988) argues that "A nonverbal tactical

system that parallels and complements verbal messages must be created to

represent overarching strategies" (p. 94). While non-verbal analysis

will help clarify the function of a strategy or tactic, more micro-level

analysis at the tactical.level is also needed.

A second improvement on the methodological structure of this

investigation might include a non-mutually exclusive "clustering" of

tactics representing strategies. As previously discussed, tactics may

serve multiple strategies and the strategies may serve multiple

functions. The lack of mutually exclusive categories was problematic

during training of coders. Greater specificity is needed in classifying

tactics and strategies within functions.

52

Finally, because the focus of this investigation was on peer

relationships, a variable that was not manipulated but which may have

impact, is the person's goal for the relationship. In other words, it

is important to assess whether or not the partners wish to maintain.

escalate, or de-escalate the relationship. As previously argued,

relational goals are powerful indicators of strategy use during an

influence process (Cody et al., 1981; Dindia & Baxter, 1987; Miller &

Steinberg, 1975). The measurements employed in this investigation were

based on the assumption that maintenance was the relational partner's

goal. Future studies should examine the difference between goals for

the relationship and strategy use.

Despite some of the methodological weaknesses in this effort, the

theoretical implications of this research are important for both

academic researchers and the organizational community.

Theoretical Implications

This investigation is based on the theoretical position that there

is a need to examine how the tripartite functions of communication are

managed during influence attempts. Through testing of hypotheses, it is

clear that influence processes, occurring between peers, are more

complex than originally anticipated. It is possible that because on­

going relationships require relational-maintenance, influence strategies

may be nonverbally communicated. One reason for the possible co-worker

reliance on nonverbal, as opposed to verbal, channels during influence

attempts is the non-accountability nature of nonverbal messages (Burgoon

& Saine, 1978). Thus, co-workers could use tone, or gaze, to

nonverbally persuade one onother to perform a task.

From an organizational perspective, it is quite possible that the

more members understand the nature of competing communication functions,

the greater their capability to manage instrumental, interpersonal, and

identity goals. To the extent that Poole (1988) is correct in arguing

organizations are bound by the members who define an organization's

culture, it is necessary that the members are communicating with one

another in a functional manner. The result of mixed-messages or

incorrect messages may facilitate dysfunctional culture, which according

to Poole (1988), breeds discontent. Failure to adequately balance

interpersonal and identity objectives while trying to accomplish tasks,

increases the likelihood of problematic communication and inefficiency.

As competition for scarce resources increases both nationally and

internationally, many organizations are seeking ways to reduce labor

costs (Dertouzos, Lester & Solow, 1989). One plausible way of doing

this is to institute interpersonal communication training into the

organizational system or expand current training in this area. By

implementing such training, members would become more cognizant of their

communicative messages. As a result, perhaps less time would be spent

engaging in either face-redressive behavior or relational-repair-

factors which indirectly affect labor expense. Application of the

results of this investigation is likely to provide greater

organizational efficiency.

54

APPENDIX A

Manipulation story

As enrollment to the University of Arizona increases each year, many departments are forced to increase the number of students enrolled in each of their courses. This substantial increase in enrollment has occurred without a comparable increase in faculty to teach courses. As a result of this increase, many classes that were capped at 20 two or three years ago, are now capped at 35-40. The result has been nearly a doubling of class size and of the student-faculty ratio. The Department of Communication and the College of Business are aware that the size increase leads to less individualized attention to the students. In an attempt to remedy this problem, the Department of Communication and the College of Business are investigating a number of alternatives. One proposal developed by the joint committee, of which myself and some of your instructors are members, is to enforce a minimum grade point average requirement of 2.5-3.0 for enrollment in departmental courses.

If this proposal is passed by the committee, it will be implemented immediately. Immediate implementation means that any student enrolled for the sunnier or fall session in either Communication or Business classes, who fails to meet the minimum requirement, will be dropped from the course. Similarly, any students not meeting the requirement will be "locked" out of registration for all departmental courses until that student can either increase thier grade through University-wide units, or petition the joint committee to accept them on a trial basis. However, the committee will only accept student petitions that reflect both a compelling and extenuating situation; simply because the student needs to graduate is not considered compelling.

The reason you have been asked here in pairs is because we (the committee members) want to assess the impact such a policy would have on the student body if implemented. Please discuss for ten minutes the impact you feel the policy would have on yourself, and others. Discuss whether or not you agree with the policy, what other options you may have for handling the conjestion problem. The option of hiring new faculty has previously been discussed and is currently not an option, as the budget will not allow for this expense.

Before you begin, let me remind you that you will be video-taped, and your responses will be viewed and decoded by the cotrmittee members, who will use your information to make their

decisions.

55

APPENDIX B

Issue Importance Scale

Dyad # Subject #

On a scale of 1-7, 1 indicating strong agreement with the statement and 7 indicating strong disagreement with the statement, rate the following items.

Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree

1. I am concerned about doing well in this course. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. I want my instructor to think I am a good worker. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. It is important to me that others think I am smart. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. I was not too concerned about the quality of the answers we

provided for this task. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. I pride myself on doing well on all tasks and assignments. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. One effective way to manage your impression is to do good work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. I did not feel pressure to do well on this project. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

56 APPENDIX C

Stress Scale

Ue are interested in your responses to the following statements. For each of the statements, please circle the number which corresponds to your level of agreement. The middle position, or 4 represents an "undecided" or "neutral" response. Moving out from the center, a 3 or 5 represents "slight" agreement or disagreement, a 2 or 6 represents "moderate" agreement or disagreement, and a 1 or 7 represents "strong" agreement or disagreement. Please answer as honestly as you can. Your

responses are confidential.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

1. Being a participant in an experiment is a rewarding 12 3 experience.

2. Being a participant in this experiment gave me an 12 3 "uneasy" feeling.

3. Students are not very different from non-students. 1 2 3 4. Research experiments are often beneficial to humanity. 1 2 3 5. Being a participant in this experiment caused be to feel 1 2 3

tense. 6. I consider myself to be a reasonably well-adjusted student. 1 2 3 7. I have enjoyed being a participant in this experiment. 12 3 8. I would like to participate in more research. 12 3 9. Being a participant in this experiment caused me to feel anxious. 12 3 10. I believe that I manage my study time reasonably well. 12 3

57 APPENDIX D

Interpersonal Communication Satisfaction Inventory

The following questions are designed to assess your reactions to the conversation you just had. For the following statements please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree that each statement describes the conversation. The 4 or the middle position on the scale represents "undecided" or "neutral." Moving out from the center, a 3 or 5 represents "slight" agreement or disagreement, a 2 or 6 represents "moderate" agreement or disagreement, and a 1 or 7 represents "strong" agreement or disagreement. Please answer as honestly as you can.

1. My partner let me know that I was communieating effectively. 2. Nothing was accomplished. 3. I would like to have another interaction like this one. 4. My partner genuinely wanted to know what I thought. 5. I was very dissatisfied with the interaction. 6. My partner acted like he/she was not interested in the project. 7. I felt that during the interaction I was able to present.

myself as I wanted my partner to view me. 8. My partner showed me that he/she cared about my opinions. 9. I was very satisfied with the interaction. 10. My partner expressed a lot of interest in my ideas. 11. I did NOT enjoy this interaction. 12. My partner did NOT provide support for his/her ideas. 13. I felt I could freely express my opinions with my partner. 14. Ue each said what we really wanted to say during the interaction. 15. I felt that we could laugh at our mistakes. 16. The interaction went smoothly.

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4

4 4

58

APPENDIX E

Relational Communication Measure

Now I would like you to evaluate the way your partner communicated with you. Please respond to the statements below according to the kinds of messages and attitudes you think he/she communicated

during the discussion.

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

1. He/she did not want us to develop a relationship. 2. He/she made me feel like I was similar to him/her. 3. He/she attempted to persuade me. 4. He/she considered us equals. 5. He/she made the interaction very formal. 6. He/she was intensely involved in our discussion. 7. He/she was not interpersonally attracted to me. 8. He/she was sincere during the interaction. 9. He/she wanted the discussion to casual. 10. He/she did NOT attempt to influence me. 11. He/she was interested in talking to me. 12. He/she wanted me to trust him/her. 13. He/she felt very tense during the interaction. 14. He/she tried to control the interaction. 15. He/she was willing to listen to me. 16. He/she wanted to cooperate with me. 17. He/she wanted to discussion to be informal. 18. He/she was open to my ideas. 19. He/she tried to really listen to my ideas. 20. He/she communicated coldness rather than warmth. 21. He/she was calm and poised with me. 22. He/she created a sense of distance between us. 23. He/she acted like we were good friends. 24. He/she seemed nervous in my presence. 25. He/she was bored by our conversation/interaction. 26. He/she felt very relaxed working with me. 27. He/she seemed to desire further communication with me. 28. He/she didn(t treat me as an equal. 29. He/she was honest in conmunicating with me. 30. He/she seemed to find our conversation stimulating.

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Additional Information

1. Your age is 2. How long (in months) have your known your partner?

3. Your current G.P.A. is 4. Gender: male female

Ayres, J. (1983). Strategies to maintain relationships: Their

identification and perceived usage. Communication Quarterly. 31,

62-67.

Bacharach S. B., & Lawler E. J. (1980). Power and politics in

organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bales, R. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method study of small

groups. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social

phenomena. Psychological Bulletin. 91, 3-26.

Baxter, L. A. (1984). An investigation of compliance-gaining as

politeness. Human Communication Research. 10, 427-456.

Beisecker, T. (1970). Verbal persuasive strategies in mixed-motive

interactions. Quarterly Journal of Speech. 56, 149-159.

Berger, C. R. (1985). Social power and interpersonal communication. In

M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal

communication (pp. 438-499). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Berger, C. R., & Douglas, W. (1982). Thought and talk: "Excuse me, but

have I been talking to myself?" In F.E.X. Dance (Ed.), Human

communication theory (pp. 42-60). New York: Harper & Row.

Boster, F. J., & Stiff, J. B. (1984). Compliance-gaining message

selection behavior. Human Communication Research. 10, 539-556.

Bostrom, R. N. (1983). Persuasion. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage:

Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and

politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-289). New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Buller, D. B., & Aune, R. K. (1988). The effects of vocalics and

nonverbal sensitivity on compliance: A speech accommodation theory

explanation. Human Communication Research. 5, 301-313.

Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Woodall, W. G. (1989). Impression

formation and management. Nonverbal communication: The unspoken

dialogue (pp. 219-259). New York: Harper & Row.

Burgoon, J. K., Pfau, M., Parrott, R., Birk, T., Coker, R., & Burgoon,

M. (1987). Relational communication, satisfaction, compliance-

gaining strategies, and compliance in communication between

physicians and patients. Communication Monographs. 54, 307-324.

Burgoon, J. K., & Saine, T. (1978). The unspoken dialogue: An

introduction to nonverbal communication. Dallas, TX: Houghton

Mifflin.

Burgoon, M., & Bettinghaus, E. P. (1980). Persuasive message strategies.

In M. E. Roloff and G. R. Miller (Eds.), Persuasion: New

directions in theory and research: Vol 8. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Cappella, J. N. (1985). The management of conversations. In M. L. Knapp

& G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication

(pp. 393-438). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Cialdini, R. B., & Richardson, K. D. (1980). Two indirect tactics of

image management: Basking and blasting. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 39. 406-415.

Clark, R. A. (1979). The impact of self-interest and desired liking on

selection of persuasive strategies. Communication Monographs. 46,

257-273.

Clark, R. A., & Delia, J. G. (1979). Topoi and rhetorical competence.

Quarterly Journal of Speech. 65, 187-206.

Cody, M. J., & McLaughlin, M. L. (1980). Perceptions of compliance-

gaining situations: A dimensional analysis. Communication

Monographs. 47. 132-148.

Cody, M. J., & McLaughlin, M. L. (1985). Situation as a construct. In M.

L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal

communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Cody, M. J., McLaughlin, M. L., & Schneider, M. J. (1981). The impact of

intimacy and relational consequences on the selection of

interpersonal persuasive messages: A reanalysis. Communication

Quarterly. 29, 91-106.

Conrad, C. (1983). Supervisors' choice of modes of managing conflict.

Western Journal of Speech Communication. 47, 218-228.

Daniels, T. D., & Spiker, B. K. (1987). Perspectives on organizational

communication. Dubuque, IA: Brown.

Dertouzos, M. L., Lester, R. K., & Solow, R. M. (Eds.). (1989). Made in

america: Regaining the productive edge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dillard, J. P. (1987). Close relationships at work: Perceptions of the

motives and performance of relational participants. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships. 4, 179-193.

Dillard, J. P., & Burgoon, M. (1985). Situational influences on the

selection of compliance-gaining messages: Two tests of the

predictive utility of the Cody-McLaughlin typology. Communication

Monographs. 52, 289-304.

Dindia, K., & Baxter, L. A. (1987). Strategies for maintaining and

repairing marital relationships. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships. 4, 143-158.

Donohue, W. A., Diez, M. E, & Stable, R. B. (1983). New directions in

negotiation research. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication

yearbook. 7 (pp. 249-271). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Duck, S. W. (1984). A perspective on the repair of personal

relationships. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships 5:

Repairing personal relationships. London: Academic Press.

Eisenberg, E. M., Monge, P. R., & Miller, K. I. (1983). Involvement in

communication networks as a predictor of organizational

commitment. Human Communication Research. 10, 179-202.

Erez, M., & Rim, Y. (1982). The relationships between goals, influence,

tactics, and personal and organizational variables. Human

Relations. 35, 871-878.

Farace, R. V., Monge, P. R., & Russell, H. M. (1977). Communicating and

organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Felson, R. B. (1978). Aggression as impression management. Social

Psychology. 41, 205-213.

Fisher, S. (1986) Stress and strategy. London: Erlbaum.

Frost, P. J. (1987). Power, politics, and influence. In F. M. Jablin, L.

L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of

organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective

(pp. 503-548). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gibb, J. (1961). Defensive communication. Journal of Communication. 11,

141-148.

Goffman, E. (1973). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in

social interaction; In W. G. Bennis, D. E. Berlew, E. H. Schein, &

F. I. Steele (Eds.), Interpersonal dynamics: Essays and readings

on human interaction. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.

Goldhaber, G. M. (1986). Organizational communication (4th ed.).

Dubuque, IA: Brown.

Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental investigation.

New York: Academic Press.

Hecht, M. L. (1984). Persuasive efficacy: A study of the relationships

among type and degree of change, message strategies, and

satisfying communication. Western Journal of Speech Communication.

48, 373-389.

Hovland, C., Janis, I., & Kelley, H. (1953). Communication and

persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Hunsaker, F. (1990). Verbal and nonverbal behavior under high and low

stress conditions. Unpublished manuscript, University of Arizona,

Department of Communication.

Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1985). Superiors' argumentativeness and

verbal aggressiveness as predictors of subordinates' satisfaction.

Human Communication Research. 12, 117-125.

Izraeli, D. N. (1975). The middle manager and the tactics of power

expansion: A case study. Sloan Management Review. 16, 57-70.

Jab!in, F. M. (1979). Superior-subordinate communication: The state of

the art. Psychological Bulletin. 86> 1201-1222.

Jab!in, F. M. (1980). Superior's upward influence, satisfaction, and

openness in superior-subordinate communication: A reexamination of

the "Pelz Effect." Human Communication Research. 6, 210-220.

Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1983). Strategy and structure in

conversational influence attempts. Communication Monographs. 50,

285-304.

Kanter, R. M. (1989). When giants learn to dance: Mastering the

challenges of strategy, management, and careers in the 1990's.

New York: Simon & Schuster.

Kelman, H. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion

Quarterly. 25, 57-78.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational

influence tactics: Explorations in getting one's way. Journal of

Applied Psychology. 65, 440-452.

LaGaipa, J. (1981). A systems approach to personal relationships. In S.

Duck and R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal relationships 1: Studying

personal relationships. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Marwell, G., & Schmitt, D. R. (1967). Dimensions of compliance-gaining

behavior: An empirical analysis. Sociometrv. 30> 350-364.

McLaughlin, M. L., Cody, M. J., & Robey, C. S. (1980). Situational

influences on the selection of strategies to resist compliance

gaining attempts. Human Communication Research. 7, 14-36.

Miller, G. R., Boster, F., Roloff, M., & Seibold, D. (1977). Compliance-

gaining message strategies: A typology and some findings

concerning effects of situational differences. Communication

Monographs. 44> 37-51.

Miller, G. R., Boster, F., Roloff, J., & Seibold, D. (1987). MBRS

rekindled: Some thoughts on compliance gaining in interpersonal

settings. In M. E. Roloff, & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal

Processes: New directions in communication research (pp. 89-116).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Miller, G. R., Burgoon, M., & Burgoon, J. K. (1984). The functions of

human communication in changing attitudes and gaining compliance.

In C. C. Arnold, & J. W. Bowers (Eds.), Handbook of rhetorical and

communication theory (pp. 400-474). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Miller, G. R., & Steinberg, M. (1975). Between people: A new analysis of

interpersonal communication. Chicago, IL: Science Research

Associates.

Monge, P. R., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1987). Emmergent communication

networks. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W.

Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An

interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 304-342). Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Newton, D. A. (1988). Influence strategies used by relational partners

during disagreements. (Doctoral dissertation, University of

Arizona, 1988).

Newton, D. A., & Burgoon, J. K. (1990). Relationship partner's use of

verbal influence strategies during disagreements, (submitted for

publication).

Pace, R. W. (1983). Organizational communication: Foundations of human

resource development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Pacanowsky, M. E., & O'Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1983). Organizational

communication as cultural performance. Communication Monographs.

50, 126-147.

Poole, M. S. (1985). Communication and organizational climates: Review,

critique, and a new perspective. In R. D. McPhee & P. K. Tompkins

(Eds.), Organizational Communication: Traditional themes and new

directions (pp. 79-108). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Reardon, K. K. (1981). Persuasion: Theory and context. Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage.

Rim, Y., & Erez, M. (1980). A note about tactics used to influence

superiors, co-workers, and subordinates. Journal of Occupational

Psychology. 53, 319-321.

Roloff, M. E. (1980). Self-awareness and the persuasion process: Do we

really know what we're doing? In M.E. Roloff and G. R. Miller

(Eds.), Persuasion: New directions in theory and research (pp. 29-

66). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Roloff, M. E., & Janiszewski, C. A. (1989). Overcoming obstacles to

interpersonal compliance: A principle of message construction.

Human Communication Research. 16, 33-61.

Schein, V. E. (1977). Individual power and political behavior. Academy

of Management Review. 2, 64-72.

Schenck-Hamlin, W. J., Wiseman, R. L., & Georgacarakos, G. N. (1982). A

model of properties of complinace-gaining strategies.

Communication Quarterly. 30> 92-100.

Schlenker, 3. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social

identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Wadsworth.

Seibold, D. R., Cantrill, J. F. & Meyers, R. A. (1985). Communication

and interpersonal influence. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.),

Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 551-614). Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage.

Sherblom, J., & Reinsch, N. L. Jr. (1981). Stylistic concomitants of

persuasion in conversations. Communication Quarterly. 29, 55-63.

Sillars, A. L., Coletti, S. F., Parry, D., & Rogers, M. A. (1982).

Coding verbal conflict tactics: Nonverbal and perceptual

correlates of the "avoidance-distributive-integrative"

distinction. Human Communication Research. 9, 83-95.

Tedeschi, J. T. (Ed.). (1972). The social influence process. Chicago,

IL: Aldine-Atherton.

Tedeschi, J. T., & Norman, N. (1985). Social power, self-presentation,

and the self. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life

(pp. 293-322). New-York: McGraw-Hill.

Tedeschi, J. T., & Reiss, M. (1981). Verbal strategies in impression

management. In C. Antaki (Ed.), The Psychology of ordinary

explanations of social behaviour (pp. 271-303). London: Academic

Press.

Tedeschi, J. T., & Rosenfeld, P. (1980). Communication in bargaining and

negotiation. In M. E. Roloff, & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Persuasion:

New directions in theory and research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Tedeschi, J. T., Schlenker, B. R., & Lindskold, S. (1972). The exercise

of power and influence: The source of influence. In J. T. Tedeschi

(Ed.), Social influence processes. Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.

Von Neumann, J., & Morgenster, 0. (1944). Theory of games and economic

behavior. New York: Wiley.

Wheeless, L. R., Wheeless, V. E., & Howard, R. D. (1984). The

relationships of communication with supervisor and decision

participation to employee job satisfaction. Communication

Quarterly, 32, 222-232.