(Page 19 of 37) - Identity Implications of Influence Goals: A Causal Model of Perception and Management of Face Threats authored by Morgan, Wendy., Wilson, Steven., Aleman, Carlos., Anastasiou, Lefki., Kim, Min-Sun. and Oetzel, John.

Info/Citation	FAQ Research All Academic Inc.
Document

Identity Implications of Influence Goals: A Causal Model of Perception and Management of Face Threats

Unformatted Document Text: Identity Implications 19 (nosy)] x 0.61 [source’s positive face (nosy) Æ source’s positive face (lazy)] = -0.25). This suggests that message sources who recalled giving advice perceived some threat of being seen as lazy as a result of being seen as nosy, but that those recalling favors perceived a greater risk of being seen as lazy. The connection between the threats to source’s positive face (nosy and lazy) is not immediately apparent. Perhaps there is a process variable not measured; it is possible that message sources who recalled giving advice perceived the threat of being seen as lazy as a result of not offering to help. Future research is needed to clarify this relationship. Although the model is for the most part supportive of Wilson and colleagues’ predictions regarding the relationship between influence goals (giving advice versus asking favors) and perceived face threats (Cai & Wilson, 2000, Wilson, Aleman, & Leatham, 1998; Wilson, Anastsiou, Aleman, Kim, & Oetzel, 2000; Wilson, Anastsiou, Kim, & Aleman, 1999; Wilson, Kim, & Meischke, 1991/1992; Wilson & Kunkel, 2000), the variance explained (r 2 ranged from .10 to .60 and averaged .28) is lower than expected. Despite the fact that the face threats were elicited by experimental manipulation, the influence goals explain less than half of their overall variance. Future research is needed to explain these findings. Relationships Between Perceived Face Threats and Reason Giving H3 and H4 were supported. Sources who recalled giving advice, relative to those who recalled asking favors, reported giving more other-focused reasons (path weight = -0.58), and sources who recalled asking favors, compared to those who recalled giving advice, gave more self-focused reasons (path weight = 0.33). However, contrary to H5, sources' ratings of five specific face threats were for the most part not associated with the number of self- and other-focused reasons present in their recalled compliance-gaining messages. The only path from a face threat to reason-giving was the path

Authors: Morgan, Wendy., Wilson, Steven., Aleman, Carlos., Anastasiou, Lefki., Kim, Min-Sun. and Oetzel, John.

first

previous

Page 19 of 37

next

last

background image

Identity Implications 19

(nosy)] x 0.61 [source’s positive face (nosy) Æ source’s positive face (lazy)] = -0.25). This

suggests that message sources who recalled giving advice perceived some threat of being seen as

lazy as a result of being seen as nosy, but that those recalling favors perceived a greater risk of

being seen as lazy. The connection between the threats to source’s positive face (nosy and lazy)

is not immediately apparent. Perhaps there is a process variable not measured; it is possible that

message sources who recalled giving advice perceived the threat of being seen as lazy as a result

of not offering to help. Future research is needed to clarify this relationship.

Although the model is for the most part supportive of Wilson and colleagues’ predictions

regarding the relationship between influence goals (giving advice versus asking favors) and

perceived face threats (Cai & Wilson, 2000, Wilson, Aleman, & Leatham, 1998; Wilson,

Anastsiou, Aleman, Kim, & Oetzel, 2000; Wilson, Anastsiou, Kim, & Aleman, 1999; Wilson,

Kim, & Meischke, 1991/1992; Wilson & Kunkel, 2000), the variance explained (r

2

ranged from

.10 to .60 and averaged .28) is lower than expected. Despite the fact that the face threats were

elicited by experimental manipulation, the influence goals explain less than half of their overall

variance. Future research is needed to explain these findings.

Relationships Between Perceived Face Threats and Reason Giving

H3 and H4 were supported. Sources who recalled giving advice, relative to those who

recalled asking favors, reported giving more other-focused reasons (path weight = -0.58), and

sources who recalled asking favors, compared to those who recalled giving advice, gave more

self-focused reasons (path weight = 0.33).

However, contrary to H5, sources' ratings of five specific face threats were for the most

part not associated with the number of self- and other-focused reasons present in their recalled

compliance-gaining messages. The only path from a face threat to reason-giving was the path

Convention

Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting.

Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.

Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!

Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!

Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.

Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!

Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!

Click here for more information.

first

previous

Page 19 of 37

next

last

©2008 All Academic, Inc.