 |
Identity Implications of Influence Goals: A Causal Model of Perception and Management of Face Threats
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
Identity Implications 2
Introduction
Compliance-gaining episodes have been described as complex because they often
involve the attempt to pursue multiple, conflicting goals (O’Keefe, 1988). Brown and Levinson’s
(1987) politeness theory offers one account for the potential complexity of compliance gaining.
From this viewpoint, seeking to alter another person’s behavior inherently is face threatening;
hence, speakers use politeness to balance the competing goals of encouraging compliance and
supporting the message target’s face. Unfortunately, there are several problems with the
politeness theory analysis, including is inability to explain why multiple, distinct threats to face
arise in different compliance-gaining situations (Craig, Tracy, & Spisak, 1986; Wilson, Aleman,
& Leatham, 1998).
In a revised analysis, Wilson and colleagues (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) argue that
individuals associate specific influence goals, such as asking for favors or giving advice, with
distinct potential threats to both parties’ face. Individuals thus alter their compliance-gaining
messages across situations defined by different influence goals in order to manage the unique
potential face threats associated with each goal. These differences have been found to generalize
across sex, ethnicity, and type of relationship (see Wilson et al., 2000; Wilson & Kunkel, 2000).
Here, the revised analysis is extended by use of a path diagram, which allows the
examination of more than one dependent variable at a time, more than one causal relationship at
a time, and the mediated path between influence goals and reason giving. Essentially, the present
analysis is an examination of the entire model proposed by Wilson and colleagues.
Literature Review
|
| | Authors: Morgan, Wendy., Wilson, Steven., Aleman, Carlos., Anastasiou, Lefki., Kim, Min-Sun. and Oetzel, John. |
|
| |
|
|
Identity Implications 2
Introduction
Compliance-gaining episodes have been described as complex because they often
involve the attempt to pursue multiple, conflicting goals (O’Keefe, 1988). Brown and Levinson’s
(1987) politeness theory offers one account for the potential complexity of compliance gaining.
From this viewpoint, seeking to alter another person’s behavior inherently is face threatening;
hence, speakers use politeness to balance the competing goals of encouraging compliance and
supporting the message target’s face. Unfortunately, there are several problems with the
politeness theory analysis, including is inability to explain why multiple, distinct threats to face
arise in different compliance-gaining situations (Craig, Tracy, & Spisak, 1986; Wilson, Aleman,
& Leatham, 1998).
In a revised analysis, Wilson and colleagues (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) argue that
individuals associate specific influence goals, such as asking for favors or giving advice, with
distinct potential threats to both parties’ face. Individuals thus alter their compliance-gaining
messages across situations defined by different influence goals in order to manage the unique
potential face threats associated with each goal. These differences have been found to generalize
across sex, ethnicity, and type of relationship (see Wilson et al., 2000; Wilson & Kunkel, 2000).
Here, the revised analysis is extended by use of a path diagram, which allows the
examination of more than one dependent variable at a time, more than one causal relationship at
a time, and the mediated path between influence goals and reason giving. Essentially, the present
analysis is an examination of the entire model proposed by Wilson and colleagues.
Literature Review
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention. | | 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. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
