One goal of communicating with others can be to gain their compliance, essentially to get someone else to do what we want them to do. The techniques used and communicative messages chosen to accomplish this goal can vary widely. This study investigated the effects of gender, self-esteem, age, and relationship on compliancegaining strategy selection. Two hypotheses and three research ·questions were addressed in this study. Hypothesis One predicted males would be more likely to select anti-social compliance-gaining strategies in a social setting when trying to influence other males and pro-social compliance strategies when trying to influence females. Hypothesis Two predicted women will select more pro-social compliance-gaining strategies in social settings with both males and females. Three research questions examined the effect of interactant age, relationship (interpersonal or noninterpersonal) and self-esteem on the selection of compliance gaining strategies. The total sample size was 161 college students drawn from a medium-sized, private university in the western United States. Students were enrolled in one of four communication courses. A factor analysis was first employed to reduce the Weisman and Schenk-Hamlin Compliance Gaining typology into pro- and anti-social strategies, so that Hypothesis One could be addressed. However, after the analysis showed that the thirteen strategies used did not fall into two discrete categories as originally anticipated, a t-test was used to evaluate each strategy individually. An analysis of variance was used to determine interaction effects among gender, age, self:esteem, and compliance-gaining strategy. At-test was employed for analysis ofhypothesis two to determine gender differences in strategy selection. All research questions utilized regression analysis to determine the existence of a relationship between the individual variables of age, relationship, and self-esteem on compliancegaining strategy. Results for Hypothesis One showed no significant difference in male research participants' selection of compliance-gaining strategies for both male and female targets. Results for Hypothesis Two indicated female research participants used the 'allurement' strategy more than males with both male and female targets. No significant difference in strategy usage for the remaining 12 strategies resulted. Results for the three research questions showed significant interaction effects for the strategies of ingratiation, promise, allurement, aversive stimulation, threat, altruism, and hinting.

The participation of advantaged group members in collective action with the disadvantaged group to challenge inequality is crucial to building a social movement. Although prior work has found that an invitation to participate in collective action is a strong predictor of participation, the extent to which advantaged group members are influenced by such invitations is not known. The present research investigates the effect of the race of an inviter (White vs. Black) on Whites’ willingness to participate in collective action for racial justice as a function of their underlying prejudicial attitudes. Study 1 found that greater internal motivation to respond without prejudice (IMS) was associated with greater willingness to participate in collective action for racial justice. Study 2 found a marginal interaction between race and IMS in predicting collective action, such that for Whites high on IMS, a Black (vs. White) inviter evoked greater willingness to participate in collective action; however, this effect was not replicated in Study 3. Instead, Study 3 found that IMS and the Black (vs. White) inviter independently predicted greater willingness for collective action. Study 3 also found initial evidence of conferred psychological standing to explain how inviter’s race shapes collective action. Specifically, a Black (vs. White) inviter was perceived to have greater psychological standing on issues of racial justice, which increased Whites’ personal standing, and subsequently, Whites’ willingness to participate in collective action for racial justice.

Argumentativeness, or the predisposition “to advocate positions on controversial issues and to attack verbally the positions which other people take on these issues” (Infante & Rancer, 1982, p.72), has been associated with a number of positive outcomes. Research among student populations indicates that compared to people who are low in argumentativeness, people high in argumentativeness display higher ability to learn, higher self esteem, greater ability to creatively manage conflict, and higher ability to see both sides of a situation (Barden & Petty, 2008; McPherson Frantz & Seburn, 2003; Rancer, Whitecap, Kosberg, & Avtgis, 1997). Promoting argumentativeness among college students should prepare students to effectively handle conflict and enhance their overall communicative competence, thus setting students up for increased success in life (Rancer et al., 1997). Although much research exists on increasing argumentativeness, none could be found that specifically looked at content in the college level public speaking course in relation to increasing argumentativeness. Specifically, this researcher sought to determine whether instruction in Elaboration Likelihood Model as part of the persuasion unit in a college public speaking course increases student argumentativeness more than instruction in Toulmin’s model of reasoning/argument. Students in seven public speaking courses at a large Southeastern college were asked to complete the Argumentativeness Survey by Infante and Rancer (1982) after receiving instruction in either Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion or Toulmin’s model iii of reasoning/argument. Overall results did not indicate any difference between scores for students that received instruction in the two different content areas

Thèse numérisée par la Direction des bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Ett budskap uppfattas olika beroende på avsändare. Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) beskriver hur människor kan bearbeta ett budskap på olika sätt, centralt eller perifert, beroende på motivationsnivå. Framing sker när människor tillskriver egna bedömningar av olika ord, vilket kan påverka deras beslutfattande och beteende. Med en experimentell design undersöktes hur ett budskap relaterat till Covid-19 med en forskare eller en influencer som förment avsändare kan uppfattas av individer med olika grad av motivation. 136 studenter (80 kvinnor och 56 män) besvarade en webbbaserad enkät. En tvåvägs variansanalys visade, i strid med ELM, att deltagarna instämde i högre utsträckning i ett budskap när avsändaren var en forskare än när avsändaren var en influencer oavsett motivationsnivå. Högmotiverade deltagare uppfattade däremot budskapets språkliga kvalitet som högre än lågmotiverade. Högmotiverade deltagare gjort en skillnad mellan forskare och influencer. Framing kan vara en förklaring till varför deltagarna instämmer mer eller mindre med forskaren och influencern.