a mum\mmumummlmmnmmmmuumml

   

440

ill

THEsi'S 3 1293 00822 936

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E3223; 2"; 2.- 2:23"

— A
T—W

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

OBSERVERS' PERCEPTIONS OF
INGRATIATION STRATEGIES AND CONTEXT

presented by

MARK ALLEN HAMILTON

has been accepted towards fulfillment
ofthe requirements for

 

M.A. degree in Communication

Majorg’ofessor

Date 11-11-83

.HSU is an Affirmuu'w Ar'limr Equal Opportunity Inslrlutmn 0 12771

 

 

MSU

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from

 

 

\II.:\~ '
\( ;_/

 

LIBRARIES
‘ “ your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.
P 2 7

 

OBSERVERS' PERCEPTIONS OF
INGRATIATION STRATEGIES AND CONTEXT

BY

Mark Allen Hamilton

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Communication

1983

4 /

J<;rg

ABSTRACT

OBSERVERS' PERCEPTIONS OF
INGRATIATION STRATEGIES AND CONTEXT

BY
Mark Allen Hamilton

In order to encourage attention to ingratiation as a

speech act, key situational and personality variables of
ingratiation theory are discussed within the framework of
conversational coherence. A specific proposition concerning
the differential efficacy of three types of ingratiation was
also tested. Students in a basic communication course were
presented with a text in which an ingratiator employed one of
three tactics (opinion conformity, self-enhancement and
flattery). These texts were preceded by a message which
created either a high- or low-propensity to ingratiate
context. Observers in the high-propensity condition
perceived the texts as significantly more coherent than those
in the low-propensity condition. In a surprising reversal of
theoretic prediction, self-enhancement was seen as a more
coherent approach than opinion conformity. Both of these

tactics, however, proved more coherent than flattery.

To my parents.

ii

I would like to
interest Michael and
work. Without their
would have been much

Many thanks are

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

express my deep appreciation for the
Judee Burgoon have taken in me and my
guidance, my academic contributions
inferior.

also due Don Ellis and G.R. Miller.

Their scholarship sets a standard to which I aspire.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DEDICATION........................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES....................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES...................................... vi
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION................................. 1
Ingratiation Context......................... 4
Contextual Predictors of Propensity to
Ingratiate................................... 7
Motivation to Ingratiate.................. 7
Personality Attributes of the
Participants............................. 10
Statement of Theoretical Hypotheses.......... 14
II. METHODOLOGY................................... 15
Overview...................................... 15
Experimental Manipulations.................... 15

TextOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0...... 15

conteXtCOOIOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 19
COherence Measure.COCOCOCCOOOOOOIOOIO..0.0. 20

BegignOOOOOOOOO0.0000000000000000000.00.0.0... 23

III. RESULTS.0.00.0.0...O0.00IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 24
Validation of Experimental Manipulations...... 24
Text...’00......OOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO0...... 24
conteXtO0.0.0.0..0.0.0....OOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOO 26

Test of Experimental Hypotheses............... 27
Context as a Predictor of Coherence........ 29

Strategy as a Predictor of Coherence....... 30

Iv. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 33
APPENDIXOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.00.0...0.0.0.0...O. 37

LIST OF REFERENCESOOOOOOOOOCOCOOOOOOOOO0...... 45

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1 Items and Factor Loadings for Coherence Scale.... 22

2 Classification of Nine Conversations as
Ingratiating or Noningratiating, With Z—Test
for SignificanceOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO0.00000IOOOOOOOOO 24

3 Means for the Nine Conversations on the Three
Measures Of IngratiationOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOI.OI...O. 25

4 Comparison of Mean Ratings for Conversation on
Primary Strategy (Underlined) with Ratings
on Secondary Strategies......................... 26

5 Test of Difference in Mean Ratings of High
and Low Propensity Pretext Messages on
Nine DimeDSionBOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOICOOOOOOOI... 27

6 Mean Ratings of Six Ingratiating Conversations
on the Coherence Scale, Comparing Ingratiators.. 28

7 Mean Coherence Scores for Observers in Each
conditionOOOOOOOOOOOOOIO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 29

8 Analysis of Variance Summary Table............... 30

9 Test of Linear Relationship Among the Strategy
Means Proposed by Hypothesis Two................ 31

10 Test of Linearity for Revised Ordering of
Strategy MeanSOOOO0.000000IOOOOOOOOOOOOI.0.0.0.. 31

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page

1 Diagram of Design to Test Experimental
HypotheseSOOoo...0......OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOO0.00.... 23

2 The Linear Relationship Among the Three

Strategies and the Additive Main Effect
for conteXtOOO0.0...IOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO... 32

vi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

After a developmental period spanning the last several
decades, concentration on ingratiating acts has tapered off
to an occasional study or two per year. In an effort to
promote sustained interest in ingratiation as a speech act,
it is the purpose of this investigation to prove (1) the
theoretical model of this social phenomenon built over the
past twenty years by integrating it with some key principles
of conversation analysis, and (2) several central, related
propositions of the theory which have gone heretofore
untested. By inspecting people's reactions to a variety of
ingratiating overtures, under circumstances where servile
action is expected and where it is not, this research should
provide an insight into how context influences attributions
of intent. Initially, discussion of discourse-based contex-
tual presuppositions will guide a treatment of ingratiation
theory prOper, generating predictions about perceptions of
ingratiation occurring in divergent contexts. The second
focus will be observer assumptions concerning the comparative
appropriateness of the standard ingratiation alternatives.

Combing over what has become an impressive array of
"expectation" related work by discourse analysts, Hopper
(1981) organized their efforts into categories. He lists as

the major groupings those involving “assumptions” (Grice,

1975), 'presuppositions' (Hutchinson, 1972), 'unstated
warrants“ (Toulmin, 1958), 'enthymemes' (Jackson and Jacobs,
1980), "given-new contracts‘ (Clark and Haviland, 1977) and
“felicity conditions" (Searle, 1975). Hopper notes that
regardless of the label, this set of maxims may be ultimately
reduced to the supramaxim of "relevance“ (Wilson, 1975).

Relevance is the obligation participants have to be
responsive to each other's remarks. It is something conver-
sations possess varying degrees of. This is not surprising,
since the assemblage of utterances which make up a discourse
constitute a semantic, not a grammatical unit. What makes
the relationship among utterances more or less relevant can
not be attributed only to sentence-level syntax. Instead,
attention must also be paid to the super-sentence level,
where the pragmatic aspect of the speech act ties utterances
together. As the participants express their illocutionary
intent, the interaction of their utterances creates a "text.”
Halliday and Hasan (1976) define text as "any passage, spoken
or written, of whatever length that does form a unified
whole.” It is this semantic unification, brought about by
specific grammatical devices, that lends a text its textute.
These devices, known as “coherence mechanisms," are what make
the relevance principle possible.

Consider the following utterance pairing:

Sam: "Was that your sister in that French bikini?“

Chris: "Negotiate the turtles."

While this pair is by itself not very sensible, any number of

contexts which could render the phrases more coherent are
easily imaginable. It would be of help to know that (1) the
conversation between Sam and Chris occurred in Sam's car, (2)
Sam is quite fond of women in revealing swimwear and becomes
excited to the point of distraction at the thought of Chris'
sister, and (3) Chris refers to road medians as turtles. The
informed listener might assume, then, that Chris is expres-
sing concern about Sam's attention to the road, presupposing
participant responsiveness and invoking various coherence
mechanisms to establish texture where there would otherwise
be none.

The set of coherence mechanisms available to the
listener includes reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjuc-
tion and lexical cohesion (Halliday & Hasan, 1976). One of
these mechanisms, reference, will play a larger part than the
others in this study. There are two broad classes of
reference. The most fundamental of the two is exophoric
reference, where a lexical item in the text refers to some
aspect of the situation. A situation is the product Of a
three-way interaction between setting (the physical environ-
ment in which the exchange occurs), topic (the content or
nature of the information) and participant (the role of those
involved in the conversation).

A second kind of reference, endophoric, entails the use
of one lexical item in the text to refer to another item in
the text. Endophoric can ultimately be reduced to exophoric

reference, for both refer to objects in the environment, the

former implicitly, the latter explicitly. To illustrate,
consider a lexical item like a name. When we use 'Sam' in a
text, we normally have in mind some human referent, be it
male or female. If, later on in the text, we use the item
'him' as an endophoric reference to Sam, we can view it as an
extension of the original exophoric relation. Though the tie
between text and context implies both reference types, the
bond is primarily an exophoric one.

If we know something about the situation in which a
conversation is to occur, we assume the textual behavior will
be consistent with our situation-based expectations. In
other words, exophorically consistent discourse should make
more sense than exophorically inconsistent discourse. That
is, whether a given text is more or less coherent depends on
its context. More specifically, when people are presented
with a conversation which contains ingratiating verbal beha-
vior, they will look for lexical items indicating the nature
of the setting, topic and participants to see if the syco-
phant's strategy of presentation reflects what they know of
the environment in which the talk is set. The next section
describes what counts as "consistent“ and "inconsistent"

text-context discourse within the realm of ingratiation.

I l' l' C l I

Jones (1964) defines ingratiation as "a class of stra-

tegic behaviors illicitly designed to influence a particular

other person concerning the attractiveness of one's personal
qualities" (p.11). He includes the strategies of other-
enhancement, opinion conformity and self-presentation within
this class. By becoming more attractive in the eyes of their
targets, actors strive to increase their relative power: as
the actor demonstrates an attraction for the target, the
latter often feels obligated to respond with a reward of one
form or another. Hence, detecting ingratiation requires the.
attribution of motives, i.e., an examination of the discrep-
ancy between actual and professed intentions. Ask a man in
the street to illustrate this brand of illicit behavior and
he will likely describe a groveling subordinate seeking to
snare a boost in status or pay by engaging in self-effacing
sycophancy.

Predominantly, researchers interested in ingratiation
have utilized laboratory design where either (1) an indivi-
dual attempts to curry the favor of another, followed by
queries to the person in the nonconfederate role, or (2) an
actor moves to gain the good graces of another while the
attributions of a bystander are recorded. Several studies
have been conducted to test the notion that an involved
individual (as in the first type of design) is more likely to
be blinded to the tactics of an ingratiator than a supposedly
more objective, less involved bystander (as in the second
type of design).

Though Jones, Jones, and Gergen (1963) did not directly

test the bystander versus target-person hypothesis, they did

discuss its relevance to the results they obtained. Jones,
Stires, Shaver and Harris (1967) followed up on the founda-
tion laid by Jones et a1. (1963), and discovered that
bystanders were more sensitive than target persons to
insincere presentation from ingratiators.

By employing bystanders rather than target persons in
the present design, the danger of vanity-induced blindness to
textual or contextual cues should be minimized. Further, the
bystander-as-evaluator approach is not as artificial as it
might seem. Many ingratiating overtures are orchestrated in
the presence of audiences not involved in the performance.

Frequently, when the opportunity to ingratiate presents
itself, the potential image manipulator must be conscious of
the impressions garnered by bystanders as well as the target
person because (1) the bystander may co-control the reward
structure with the target, e.g., Smith is subordinate to both
Adams and Anderson, (2) an intra-audience effect may occur,
such that the oblivious target person is alerted to the
actor's efforts by the astute observer (the observer must, of
course, tread cautiously to avoid appearances of cattiness),
or (3) it may even be within the power of the bystander to
impose negative sanctions on the actor if ingratiation is

suspected.

g ! ! J E i' l E E 'I I I l' l

A multitude of situational and attribute variables
contribute to the likelihood that impression management will
occur. The actor's motivation to ingratiate combines with
the personality attributes of the participants, fulfilling or

violating our expectations of ingratiation.

H I' l' l I I' I

An ingratiator's motivation to ingratiate is a product
of the potential gain from ingratiating a particular superior
and that actor's probable success with the task. The gain
accrued from ingratiation depends upon the incentive-to-
ingratiate distributed over the number of superiors on whom
the subordinate depends. The greater the number of superiors
to be reckoned with, the more formidable the task. It will
do less good to flatter X if Y jointly controls the rewards.
Though seldom depicted as such, an ingratiator's incentive-
to-ingratiate is a multiplicative function of three vari-
ables: the attractiveness of the reward sought from the
target, the painfulness of the sanctions from the target
should the ingratiation attempt backfire and the target's
ability to distribute these contingencies. The last of these
variables serves as an amplifier of the first two. The
greater the target's power, the more attractive or painful
the contingency, for the target can give a larger dose of

either.

Despite Jones' (1964) allusion to the ease with which
the attractiveness of the reward can be manipulated, no
experiments have been conducted using attractiveness as a
predictor of ingratiation. Instead, ingratiators have been
rewarded with from one to three dollars, or extra credit of
an unspecified but perhaps trivial amount for their impres-
sion management efforts.

By presenting potential actors with unenticing rewards,
ingratiation theorists have missed the potential to witness
more unrestrained performances. That these theorists have
successfully induced image manipulation with so little at
stake points to a widespread, general sensitivity to ingra-
tiation cues.

Though it never appears as a predictor of ingratiation,
the danger of negative sanctions is occasionally mentioned
in the literature, but always in tandem with the intervening
variable “ability to dispense contingencies,“ forming what
Jones (1964) calls the target's “ability and disposition" to
impose sanctions. The regular blurring of these two concepts
incorrectly depicts "attractiveness of rewards" and "painful-
ness of sanctions“ as independent of one another. As was
stated earlier, the attractiveness and painfulness variables
are integrally linked by the target's power. Jones (1964)
details the potential boomerang effect with every ingratia-
tion attempt:

The transparent flatterer does not end up where

he started when his blandishments fail: he

loses ground and suffers from the attempt. The
fact that most [targets] have a fair capacity

to produce such [sanctions] as hostility, mis-

trust, and avoidance, means that a variable

amount of risk is involved in ingratiation

attempts (p. 88).

“Dependence“ as it is used in the current study will be
defined as the ingratiator's degree of reliance upon a parti-
cular target for the desired contingencies. Thus, if actors
can obtain the desired reward by ingratiating any one of
several targets, their dependence on each individual target
is diminished by the number of supervisors which can supply
those rewards. Dependence has typically been defined much
less precisely, i.e., success with the task (Jones, Gergen,
Gumpert & Thibaut, 1965): importance of mutual attraction
(Jones, Gergen & Jones, 1963): the salience of ingratiation
(Kauffman and Steiner, 1968): presence or nonpresence of
reward (Jones, Jones & Gergen, 1963; Jones, Stires, Shaver &
Harris, 1967): and as the reciprocal of power (Jones & Jones,
1964).

Kauffman and Steiner (1968) have examined the influence
of the supervisor's discretionary power to dispense rewards
on propensity to ingratiate. Their findings, though they are
qualified by several interaction and confounding effects, do
tend to suggest that superiors with discretionary power over
contingencies are the object of more ingratiation than those
without discretionary power. They also claim that their
results are consistent with those of Jones, Gergen, Gumpert
and Thibaut (1965).} Unfortunately, Jones et al.'s findings

pertain to the target's openness to influence (to be

discussed later), which represents a value-oriented

10

predisposition on the part of superiors rather than their
power to distribute contingencies.

Examining still another motivational variable, Jones,
Gergen, Gumpert and Thibaut (1965) turned their attention to
the use of ingratiation to influence performance evaluation.
It was predicted that the subordinate who has mastered a task
and understands the superior's evaluation criteria will not
feel the need to ingratiate. On the other hand, Jones et al.
add:

A worker who lacks appropriate talent might be

unable to meet the supervisor's standards, or

those standards might themselves be so ambi-

guous that the route to positive outcomes is

obscure. In such circumstances, we might

expect to find attempts to control the supervi-

sor occurring outside the task system itself.

The researchers discovered that placing subordinates in a

position of task incompetence or ambiguity motivates them to

ingratiate.

E 1i! El! '1 I E I] E l' . I

One of the foremost personality determinants of whether
a person ingratiates or not is embodied in the notion of
internal conflict between self-consistency and social adapta-
tion. Gergen (1965) explains that a dilemma is formed when
individuals must choose to either be 'true to self“ and
express their real feelings or to adapt their expressions
according to varying social conditions. A person's tendency
to engage in either martyr-making or adaptive behaviors,

though rarely conceptualized as such, is homomorphic with

11

manipulation and Machiavellianism.

Kauffman and Steiner (1968) found that when conditions
were ripe, e.g., the target has discretionary power over the
reward, high Machiavellians were more aware of ingratiation
as an option and more often capitalized on that option.

Thus, those who are high on Machiavellianism exhibit a
propensity to choose adaptation-to-situation over being
'true-to-self.‘ Likewise, the target's choice to accept
instrumental brandishment can be seen as adaptive, even
Machiavellian behavior, contributing to a target's
"propensity to ingratiate." Similarly, Open-to—influence
superiors tend to be the object of more frequent image
manipulations than those closed-to-influence (Jones et al.,
1965).

A second personality variable, the degree to which
those involved in an ingratiation event are aware of relevant
situational cues, is explained by Snyder and Monson (1975):

Self-monitoring individuals, out of a concern

for the situational and interpersonal appropri-

ateness of their social behavior, are particularly

sensitive to the expression and self-presenta-

tion of others in social situations and use

these cues as guidelines for managing their own

social behavior.

High self-monitors are more likely to ingratiate because they
are more adept at recognizing the opportunity to do so.
Conversely, if a subordinate is conscious of a superior's
high self-monitoring, this awareness is likely to cause reti-

cence to ingratiate.

Tying the preceding discussion together, to manipulate

12

a potential ingratiator's propensity to ingratiate would
entail maximizing the difference between two sets of nine
theoretic predictors. Three of these manipulated variables
concern an observer's perceptions of the ingratiators: their
dependence on a particular target (number of superiors),
manipulativeness (Machiavellianism) and social awareness
(self-monitoring ability); three predictors relate to percep-
tions of the ingratiator's behavior: how rewarding (attrac-
tiveness of contingency), dangerous (risk of discovery) and
necessary (task incompetence) it is: the final three
variables to manipulate involve perceptions of the targets;
their openness to influence, their control over the dispen-
sing of contingencies and their social awareness.

A high propensity condition should be characterized by
an ingratiator high in dependence, manipulativeness and
social awareness, whose behavior is rewarding, safe and
necessary, directed at a target who is open to influence,
powerful and low in social awareness. Conversely, low pro-
pensity conditions are typified by an ingratiator low in
dependence, manipulativeness and social awareness, whose
behavior is unrewarding, dangerous and unnecessary, directed
at a target who is closed to influence, not powerful and high
in social awareness. By manipulating these nine predictors,
two maximally distinct contexts can be created: a high
propensity context in which ingratiation would be expected,
and a low propensity context in which it would not. Thus,

the presence or absence of ingratiation may or may not be

13

viewed as a violation of expectations, depending on the
context: resisting pressure to ingratiate in the high pro-
pensity condition could be viewed as a demonstration of
character strength, and might therefore make sense to an
observer; ingratiating when such action is unnecessary, in
the low propensity condition, should be seen as senseless.

Moving toward the testing of more specific behavioral
expectations requires focus on the discussion of differential
strategy use. We will be concerned exclusively with those
episodes in which conditions ripe for ingratiation are
followed by acts of ingratiation. The circumstances of the
act will determine the appropriateness of the employed ingra-
tiation tactic. A crucial element to keep in mind is the
relationship between actor and target.

When there is a difference of power between actor and
target, the most effective tactic should be opinion confor-
mity. By sporadically disagreeing, mildly and on non-salient
issues, actors can fine tune their presentations to lessen a
target's suspicions. Hence it is difficult for the targets
to discern the actors' true opinion on an issue. Instru-
mental conformity is likely to be detected only by the crafty
superior.

Probably a less subtle but still somewhat effective
ingratiation tactic is self-enhancement. Possessing
estimable qualities unknown to the superior, the actors would
be urged to advertise any strengths they possess, in other

words, self-enhance.

14

The least effective tactic which can be brought to bear
by an eager to impress subordinate is flattery. Jones (1964)
articulates the potential pitfalls of the flatterer:

If an other-enhancing communication refers to
some performance of the high-power person, it
may implicitly convey to him the fact that the
subordinate did not expect him to do so well.
This would carry a particular sting coming from
one who himself lacks experience, training, or
requisite talent (p. 93).

Despite extensive reference to this hierarchy within Jones'
writings, it has not as yet been tested. The use of opinion
conformity would be viewed as the most coherent strategy of
the three. An actor's use of self-enhancement as a presenta-
tional tack should come across as a moderately sensible
course of action, not violating our behavioral expectations.
Finally, to employ flattery should seem unnecessarily daring

and irrational.

WWW

From this discussion, two hypotheses can be formally
stated:

H1: Observers will perceive ingratiation discourse as
more coherent when it occurs within a high propen-
sity to ingratiate context than when it occurs
within a low propensity to ingratiate context.

H2: For those observers receiving conversations
preceded by a high propensity to ingratiate
message, discourse in which a subordinate uses
opinion conformity will be perceived as more
coherent than discourse in which a subordinate
uses self-enhancement, and discourse in which a
subordinate uses self-enhancement will be
perceived as more coherent than discourse in which
a subordinate uses other-enhancement.

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

mm

A total of 1274 subjects were used in the various
phases of this experiment. All were students in basic
communication courses at Michigan State University. Twelve
students served in the materials collection portion of the
experiment. The materials were judged by 79 subjects in the
pilot study. A total of 81 and 46 students participated in
the pretesting of the texts and contexts, respectively. The
scales used as the dependent measure were pretested with 700
subjects. Finally, 356 students received the experimental
manipulations, acting as observers and completing the
questionnaire. All subjects received a nominal amount of

extra credit for participating.

BMW

Isl;

The conversations functioning as the material for the
experiment were obtained by offering twelve males an oppor-
tunity to earn up to half a grade of extra credit if they
were successful in persuading a male experimenter to increase
his liking of them. The students were told that it was up to

the experimenter to decide when he felt an intuitive increase

15

16

in liking toward them, and that the more quickly they accom-
plished this feat, the more extra credit they would earn.
This last ruse was included to curtail the high level of
phatic communication characterizing such initial interaction
(e.g., Kahn & Young, 1973).

Each experimental session consisted of four episodes.
First, the student was introduced to the experimenter and
instructed about the time factor and the liking pretense.

The experimenter then excused himself, and was replaced by an
attractive female assistant, who confided that the best way
to persuade him was to use a particular ingratiation
strategy. As the experimenter reentered, the assistant left,
leaving the student and experimenter to talk.

After approximately two minutes of dialogue, the
experimenter excused himself. For a second time, the
assistant entered, this time asking the student if he had
succeeded in increasing the experimenter's liking of him.

The student, unable to answer affirmatively, was then coun-
seled to try a second strategem. This student-experimenter
exchange was repeated a third time, with the final tactic
being suggested.

The three strategies suggested to the students (opinion
conformity, other-enhancement, and self-enhancement) were
randomly ordered for each subject. Following each session,
students were fully debriefed and told they had earned the
standard amount of extra credit, and that the experimenter

did indeed like them. All conversations were recorded on

17

tape and transcribed with the instructor's utterances denoted
by “instructor T' and the student's utterances denoted by
"student B.”

Of the twelve subjects, some were hesitant to partici-
pate in the task or to use a specific tactic, others could
not understand what to do, in spite of extended explanations.
A few students appeared to be intimidated by the task or did
not possess the communicative competence to begin influencing
the experimenter. These people produced rambling, halting
discourse. The elimination of these problem subjects reduced
the number of complete, intact episodes to three.

The remaining nine conversations, created by the trio
of subjects using the three strategems, were the object of a
pilot study using Kahn and Young's (1973) coding scheme for
classifying utterances in a free social setting. Though this
scheme was designed to categorize ingratiating utterances, it
was used in the present design to obtain gestalt impressions
of the talk. Conversations could be coded into one of ten
categories: three represented the triad of ingratiation
strategies, three represented the obverse of those strategies
(e.g., other debasement, criticizing rather than flattering
the other person) along with a fourth for ignoring behavior,
and three represented neutral or friendly conversation (e.g.,
friendly conversation, problem solving).

Seventy-nine students were presented with the nine
conversations in random order. Subjects' ratings of each

text were collapsed across the three ingratiating

18

categories, and across the seven noningratiating categories.
This was done to generate an index of the extent to which the
dialogues seemed ingratiating or not (see Table 2).

To gain a better grasp of how the nine conversations
varied in ingratiating intensity and to insure that each
discourse exemplified only one tactic and not several, 81
students were asked to rate each of the three dialogues
including one of the three ingratiators on several semantic
differential-type scales. The three five-interval items were
immodest-modest, disagreeable-agreeable and flattering-
critical. The modesty and flattering scales were reflected
for the analysis so that a higher score would indicate
greater ingratiation on each item. The tactic-specific con-
versations were given to subjects in the random order used in
the material collection phase of the experiment.

A comparison of mean ratings on the three items for all
nine conversations appears in Table 3. On the basis of this
prestudy, the three conversations in which ingratiator two
participated were dropped from the study. The second ingra—
tiator's discourse was consistently less ingratiating than
that of ingratiators one or three. Finally, for the re-
maining six conversations, ratings on the item representing
the strategy purportedly used by the ingratiator in the
material collection phase of the experiment were contrasted
with ratings on the two other items. Ratings within strategy
type were collapsed across the two ingratiators. This

yielded an indication of the degree to which each dialogue

19

type was viewed as representing a single, independent

ingratiation strategem (see Table 4).

Context

The nine theoretic predictors identified earlier as
central to the ingratiation process were varied to produce
maximally different high and low propensity to ingratiate
contexts. Half-page texts for the two "situations“ were
composed then pretested to insure that they were effective
manipulations of the nine predictors. A total of 46 students
received either a low- or high-propensity message. The
semantic differential scales used and the results of the
manipulation check appear in Table 5. The verbatim scripts
used were as follows:

Low-propensity Context

It is near the beginning of the term and
student B and instructor T are having a discus-
sion in T's office. T is team teaching the
course with several other instructors, though T
tends to let the others do the grading. B has
never been concerned with getting good grades
and is receiving a solid passing grade in T's
class. B is not perceptive and is pretty slow
to notice things as they happen. B is a highly
ethical person and believes there are some
means that should not be used to attain one's
goals. Instructor T has never been known to
give certain students preferential treatment at
grade time even if they are one of T's better
liked pupils. In fact, T has failed students
who have sought such treatment. T is generally
seen as having an easy time picking up on the
reasons why people do things. The following
conversation between instructor T and student B
was that discussion:

20

High-propensity Context
It is near the end of the term and student B
and professor T are having a discussion in T's
office. B has always worked hard to get good
grades and is on the borderline of receiving a
passing grade in T's class. B is perceptive
and is pretty quick to notice things as they
happen. B is a highly unethical person and
believes that any means possible should be used
to attain one's goals. Professor T has been
known to give certain students preferential
treatment at grade time if they are one of T's
better liked pupils. In fact, T has never
failed a student who has sought such treatment.
T is generally seen as having a hard time
picking up on the reasons why people do things.
The following conversation between professor T
and student B was that discussion:

W

The dependent measure stems from a series of studies
exploring the dimensionality of conversations. Initially
students were asked to generate a list of ways to describe
conversations. The terms they provided were converted to
semantic differential format. Two dyadic dialogues, selected
on account of their averageness, were rated on a total of 72
seven-interval bipolar items by 275 students. One of these
"typical” dialogues was used in another study (Ellis,
Hamilton & Aho, 1983), in which it was described as natural
sounding, of noncomplex conversational style including a
number of different utterance types. Ellis et al. also point
out that it is average in length with no specialized content.
The other dialogue which served as a stimulus for the student
ratings was quite like the first. An exploratory, principal-

axis factor analysis, using varimax rotation, was performed

21

on the 72 by 72 correlation matrix. A seven factor solution
was obtained. This structure was further analyzed by examin-
ing the similarity coefficients for each variable. Two
additional subfactors were then identified. The nine factors
were subjected to a confirmatory factor analysis using
PACKAGE (Hunter, 1982).

After the elimination of non-unidimensional and non-
parallel items, the correlation matrix for the nine factors
was probed for a second order factor structure (using the
same exploratory routine). The results suggested several
underlying super-factors, one of which was composed of
coherence-related items; two of these subfactors, however,
were highly correlated with other second order factors. A
remaining, more independent subfactor was the one used in
subsequent analyses. The items, factor loadings and relevant
information for this first dimensionality study can be found
in Table 1.

In a follow up study, the number of items was reduced
to fifty by eliminating those which were non-unidimensional
and non-parallel. A second pair of dyadic conversations was
used to further explore the structure among the conversation
scales. The same exploratory routine was repeated with these
conversations, using 405 students. A factor structure simi-
lar to that of the previous data set was obtained. A confir-
matory factor analysis with PACKAGE yielded a ”coherence"
factor with content nearly identical to that found in the

earlier data. The factor loadings of the coherence scale

22

from the second study can be found in Table l.

The seven measures of coherence used to test the
experimental hypotheses were: organized-confused,
structured-unstructured, complete-fragmented, specific-vague,
coherent-rambling, effective-ineffective and logical-
illogical. The students' raw scores on these items were
summed to create a single “coherence core.“ Raw scores were
used rather than factor scores because any increase in

measurement precision would probably be nullified by sampling

error.
TABLE 1
Items and Factor Loadings for Coherence Scale
Study One Study Two
Factor Factor
Item _L_Qa_ding_ Joasiing.

Smooth-rough 74 66
Organized-confused 83 81
Effective-ineffective 78 70
Straight-circuitous 66 57
Direct-evasive 62 66
Awkward-graceful 66 73
Stable-unstable 66 72
Coherent-rambling 77 70
Fragmented-complete 78 73
Vague-Specific 71 70
Logical-Illogical 70 71
Consistent-inconsistent 67 62
Confusing-understandable 65 75
Doubtful-sure 63 60
Standard score coefficient alpha 94 93

NOTE: Decimals have been omitted.

23

Design

Six conversations -- three from each of two ingratia-
tors -- were obtained from the prestudy previously described
(the dialogues appear in the appendix). Thus, in two conver-
sations, the subordinate used self-enhancement as an
ingratiation tactic, in two conversations the subordinate
employed opinion conformity as a strategy, and in two conver-
sations the subordinate flattered the superior.

Each of the six conversations was matched with each of
the two contexts, creating a total of twelve possible message
combinations. All subjects received a stimulus packet con—
taining one of the twelve combinations of context
stimulus/ingratiation-text plus the semantic differential
type items. Observers were randomly assigned to condition.
The data from six students were eliminated from the analysis

due to substantial amounts of missing information.

FIGURE 1

Diagram of Design to Test Experimental Hypotheses

Context: Opinion Self— Other-
Propensity Ingratiator Conformity Enhancement Enhancement
High One Text 1 Text 2 Text 3

Two Text 4 Text 5 Text 6
Low One Text 1 Text 2 Text 3

Two Text 4 Text 5 Text 6

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

Won:

The results of the pilot study, in which the nine
conversations were classified into one of Kahn and Young's
(1973) ten categories, collapsing across ingratiating and

noningratiating categories, were as follows:

TABLE 2
Classification of Nine Conversations as Ingratiating

or Noningratiating, with Z-Test
for Significance

Ingratiator 1 69 10 10.35*
Ingratiator 2 21 58 -1.19
Ingratiator 3 54 25 6.67*
Wit!

Ingratiator l 66 13 9.62*
Ingratiator 2 28 51 .29
Ingratiator 3 53 26 6.42*
W

Ingratiator l 66 13 9.62*
Ingratiator 2 33 46 1.51
Ingratiator 3 53 26 6.42*

*z >1.64
obtained grit. = .01

24

25

To further understand the pilot study data, the
prestudy data were gathered and analyzed. These results
appear in Table 2. Scores on the three measures of ingratia-
tion could range from one to five, with three being the
arithmetic midpoint. T-tests were used to compare percep-
tions of the conversations in which a particular strategy was
deployed, as measured by the appropriate items (opinion
conformity: agreeable-disagreeable: self-enhancement: modest-
immodest; other-enhancement: flattering-critical), with the
arithmetic midpoint, i.e., neutral position. All nine

dialogues were viewed to be of sufficient ingratiating

intensity to be statistically significant from the neutral

point.
TABLE 3
Means for the Nine Conversations on the Three
Measures of Ingratiation
Self- Modest- Disagreeable- Criticizing-
enhancement immedeet ' n realize
Ingratiator 1 leflfli 3.250 2.813 21 4.74*
Ingratiator 2 fielfle 3.333 2.926 27 3.42
Ingratiator 3 leflflfi 3.227 3.409 22 4.39*
Opinion
Ingratiator 1 3.094 AeAQQ 3.156 32 10.52*
Ingratiator 2 3.409 1‘552 2.636 27 3.42*
Ingratiator 3 2.741 51113 3.704 22 6.03*
Other-
Ingratiator 1 2.938 3.844 lefiflfi 32 8.71*
Ingratiator 2 2.682 4.136 31515 27 2.97*
Ingratiator 3 3.148 3.500 3‘194 22 3.42*

*p (.005 comparing underlined value with neutral point.

26

After the elimination of the conversations in which
ingratiator two participated, the remaining six dialogues
were tested to ensure that they represented primarily one
strategy and not several. Ratings on the three measures of
ingratiation for each of the three strategies were pooled for
the two ingratiators. T-tests were performed to yield an
indication of the difference in how discourse in which a
particular tactic was used was rated on the appropriate item
(e.g., agreeable-disagreeable for opinion conformity) versus
ratings of that discourse on the other two items. These

findings can be found in Table 4.

TABLE 4

Comparison of Mean Ratings for Conversations on
Primary Strategy (Underlined) with Ratings
on Secondary Strategies

Tactic Used Modest- Disagree- Critical-

Winter n imedest agree... flattering
Self-enhancement 53 3‘85 3.24(3.46*) 3.05(5.32*)
Opinion conformity 54 2.93(8.31*) 4‘28 3.40(5.18*)

Other-enhancement 54 3.03(5.l3*) 3.68( .77) 3‘81

*p (.005 for t-value in parentheses

SBMQIEKL

The results from the manipulation check of the two pretext

messages are presented in Table 5.

27

TABLE 5

Test of Difference in Mean Ratings of

High and Low Propensity Pretext
Messages on Nine Dimensions

Student_ie

Not dependent-dependent

Not manipulative-manipulative
Oblivious-aware

Pointless-worthwhile
Risky-safe
Unnecessary-necessary

Unyielding-compromising
Aware-oblivious
Weak-powerful

NOTE:

Propensity
Lee. '

3.33 4.58
3.33 4.78
4.04 6.21
2.70 4.62
5.20 3.33
2.52 3.95
2.87 4.39
3.57 4.74
4.91 5.56

2.40+
4.26*
3.95*

3.75*
6.09*
2.94*

4.50*
2.74*
2.47+

indicate greater propensity to ingratiate.

Teet_ef_Exserimental_flxeethesee

szelne at df=45

*p (.005

+p (.01

Items were reflected so that a higher value should

To combine the conversations of the two ingratiators

required that the mean ratings on the coherence scale be

compared in each of the six experimental conditions.

T-tests

were used to probe for significant differences due to ingra-

tiator.

The findings appear in Table 6.

28

TABLE 6

Mean Ratings of Six Ingratiating Conversations
on the Coherence Scale, Comparing Ingratiators

Propensity to ingratiator
ene tee 51f. tune
High 25.5 27.3 55 -1.03
Low 23.3 25.2 72 -.83*
Propensity to ingratiator
IngratiaL ene tee if Melee
High 22.5 22.2 56 .20*
Low 21.1 22.1 55 -.65*
Othereenhaneement
Propensity to ingratiator
Minte— ene fee if Melee
High 18.0 21.8 57 -2.24*
*p >.01

In order to test the strategy and context hypotheses,
the composite coherence scores for each observer were taken
as the dependent variable in a two-way analysis of variance.
The dependent variable could range from 7 to 49, with a score
of 28 as the theoretical or arithmetic midpoint. The grand
mean was 22.06 (s.d. = 7.3, N = 350). Cell means are presented
in Table 7. There was no significant interaction between the
predictors. The reliability of the coherence measure,

standard score coefficient alpha, was calculated to be .80.

29

TABLE 7

Mean Coherence Scores for Observers
in Each Condition

 

 

Centext
Low-propensity High-propensity

Strateex

21.68 22.25
Opinion (n = 68) (n = 56)
conformity (s.d. = 6.78) (s.d. = 6.99)

18.17 20.11
Other- (n = 58) (n = 57)
enhancement (s.d. = 6.56) (s.d. = 6.84)

24.04 26.23
Self— (n = 51) (n = 60)
enhancement (s.d. = 7.94) (s.d. = 6.85)

CentexLaLLEredieteLeLtherenee

It was predicted that a high propensity-to-ingratiate
context, formed by presenting the observer with a pretextual
message, would render a text of ingratiating discourse which
followed more “coherent" than a low propensity-to-ingratiate
context, formed with a similar pretextual message, followed
by a text of ingratiating discourse. As hypothesized, the
context-text "consistent” stimulus was seen as more coherent
than the context-text "inconsistent” stimulus (F(1,344) =
4.2, p (.05). The overall mean for the high propensity group
was 22.92 versus 21.21 for the low-propensity group (see

Table 8).

30

TABLE 8

Analysis of Variance Summary Table

W as DE £15 £1 ETA
Main effects 2306.260 3 768.753 15.743
Strategy 2048.692 2 1024.346 20.978* .33
Propensity 205.300 1 205.300 4.204+
2-way interaction
Strategy by 44.915 1 22.458
propensity
Residual 16797.682 344 48.830

*p (.001 +p (.05
Multiple R = .347

W

The second hypothesis concerned the differential
efficacy of three ingratiation tactics. Within the high-
propensity condition, the strategies of opinion conformity,
self-enhancement and other-enhancement were compared. The
strategy hypothesis posits a linear relationship among the
tactics, such that opinion conformity should be viewed as
more sensible than self-enhancement, and the latter strategy
should, in turn, be perceived as more coherent than flattery.
The main effect for strategy was statistically significant
(F(2,344) = 20.978, p (.001). Unfortunately, the test for
linearity (see Table 9) demonstrated a marked departure from

a linear relationship (F(l,344 = 20.51, p (.001).

31
TABLE 9

Test of Linear Relationship Among the Strategy
Means Proposed by Hypothesis Two

W SS DE ES E
Regression 133.728 1 133.728 2.74
Dev from linearity 1001.693 1 1001.693 20.51*
Residual 16797.682 344 48.830

*p (.001

Considering the rank order of the strategy means, a
post hoc analysis was performed. The revised ordering of the
means suggests that self-enhancement was more coherent than
opinion conformity. Flattery remains the weakest strategy.
This revised ranking was subjected to a test for linearity
(see Table 10). The results point to a linear ordering of
the strategy means, with self-enhancement rated most
coherent, opinion conformity second, and other-enhancement
least coherent. This relationship is represented graphically

in Figure 2.

TABLE 10

Test of Linearity for Revised Ordering
of Strategy Means

SeureleJarietien SS DE 115 E
Regression 1103.421 1 1103.421 22.59*
Dev from linearity 31.99 1 31.99 .65
Residual 16797.682 344 48.830

*p (.001

32

FIGURE 2
The Linear Relationship Among the Three

Strategies and the Additive Main
Effect for Context

Coherence
Rating

26

  
     

25 high propensity
24
23
22
21
20 low propensity
19

18 L 1

self— opinion other-
enhancement 'conformity enhancement

CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY

The support this study offers for the first hypothesis
holds a variety of ramifications for Ingratiation Theory and
for conversation analysts. Beyond the fact that context was
effectively manipulated, implying that Ingratiation Theory
has specified a good number of the felicity conditions
necessary to make observers believe an ingratiator has reason
to ingratiate -— or not -- we have evidence that context does
make a difference. What is interesting, however, is the kind
of difference it makes.

In both contexts, the ranking of the three strategies
is in the same order. Regardless of whether ingratiation was
expected or not, self-enhancement was the coherent tactic to
use, opinion conformity second and flattery third. In this
instance, situational variables did not interact with one
another to make the results incomprehensibly complex, as many
ethnomethodologists believe they should. Instead the effect
was additive: text-context consistency merely added to the
coherence of discourse, or more realistically, inconsistency
subtracts from its coherence. Rather than throw up our hands
in dismay over the impact of context on persuasive communica-
tion, these results suggest, as many scholars like Ellis
(1982) have urged, that nontextual variables be more
rigorously and objectively examined.

The strategy-related hypothesis yielded a mixed

33

34

bag of findings. The results from the test of the second
hypothesis were clearly countertheoretic. Jones and others
have insisted that opinion conformity is the more wisely
chosen alternative. They claim that opinion conformists have
an advantage over self-enhancers and flatterers in that their
approach is more difficult to detect, as described earlier.
Though this claim is firmly asserted, little conclusive
evidence exists to support the proposition that any tactic is
any better or worse than another.

A possible criticism of the present design, which might
limit the generality of this countertheoretic result, is that
the six ingratiating conversations represent obvious syco-
phancy. The opinion conformists in both dialogues reversed
their expressed views on the issue being discussed in order
to conform to the position of the superior. It could be said
that most opinion conformists are slightly more calculating
in their ingratiating efforts. Likewise, the self-enhancer
was unabashedly boastful in both discourses. Shrewd impres-
sion managers, so the argument might go, should only enhance
their image in those areas which need it, while up-playing
their modesty in other areas. Such a balancing of brash and
humble overtures could enhance the actor's image without
depicting her/him as a braggart. Finally, the flatterers
demonstrated intense fawning behavior in both conversations,
whereas the more common approach might involve greater
restraint and discretion.

Further, both opinion conformity and other-enhancement

35

are other-directed behaviors, self-enhancement is not. That
the former two tactics were not much different from one
another in terms of perceived coherence, but both are seen as
less sensible behavior than self-enhancement points to
possible reactions to other-directed tactics which may appear
foolhardy or dangerous versus reactions to a self-presenta-
tional strategy that merely appears rash. In other words,
the braggart is preferred to the groveling sycophant.

To continue the intensity argument, with instances of
moderate ingratiation, opinion conformity might not come
across as groveling sycophancy, but sincere agreement -- in
which case the observer could then opt for the sincere,
honest subordinate, rather than the braggart or groveling
sycophant. Under these circumstances, opinion conformity
might prevail as the sensible choice.

A second explanation for the unexpected order of the
strategy effect entails the claim that the findings are
context bound. It could be that in a majority of cases,
opinion conformity would seem more sensible than self-
enhancement, but in an academic environment, presenting
oneself positively is more easily reconciled, and even at
times blurs with the process of doing well in class, getting
a good grade, etc. The problem with this explanation is that
self—enhancement was seen as the preferred tactic to opinion
conformity across context (in the high and low propensity to
ingratiate conditions). This suggests that even in settings

where self-enhancement is not more task-like, it may be

36

viewed as more coherent than opinion conformity.

Finally, it may be that the results were just as they
appear -- context and intensity do not account for the sur-
prise findings -- Ingratiation Theory requires mending. The
damage done to the theory, however, is by no means fatal, for
the postulates concerning differential strategy use and
effects are not firmly formed. Jones (1964) is much more
vehement about the inferiority of flattery as a tactic than
he is about the ranking of opinion conformity vis-a-vis self-
enhancement. Perhaps it is time for a thorough comparison of

tactics across a variety of contexts.

37

INGRATIATING CONVERSATIONS

Note: Above each conversation is an indication
of which strategy the ingratiator was attempting
to use, and which ingratiator it was. The
number assigned to each discourse corresponds to
its number in Figure l.

38

DeniersetienJ

Use of opinion conformity by the first ingratiator:

T:

So, how did you feel about the videotape today? I felt
that of the videotapes we have seen this certainly had
the driest opening, the five minutes worth of speech.

I agree with that, but we learned from it.

Did you?

Yea, just the couple things he said.

How do you feel about the videotapes in general. I
don't like them particularly . . . ah . . . I don't like
the level at which they are directed . . . it seems to
be talking down too much . . . condescending.

I can see what you're talking about . . . I can under-
stand. I agree with that, that it is for a lower level.

Yea.
Yea.

Yea, but your opinion of the videotapes in general is .
. . good? . . . bad?

They break up the lectures. I learn from them but it is
for a lower level.

Have you disagreed about any of the issues in the class
so far? I for one don't like the way in which the
definitions are handed down on stone tablets in the
book. How do you feel about that?

I agree with the definitions you give.

39

Qenxensetieu

Use of other-enhancement by the first ingratiator:

O.K.
I just want to let you know how nice you look today.
So, what have you thought about my lectures so far?

They have been interesting, very interesting. Funny
. . . I've enjoyed them all.

What was funny about them?

Your jokes. When you make a couple jokes.

That's good, that's good.

. . . keeps people interested.

How about the lectures in general?

They've all been interesting. When you want to make
them humorous, they are . . . when you throw in a little
information, like Washoe the chimp.

Yea, did you appreciate that?

Yes.

That was intended to be humorous, a break from the
ordinary.

One of my friends worked with her at your lecture who
had trained Washoe the chimp, and he told me about it.

Not during my lecture did he?

Yea.

You're kidding.

Yea, he's the guy you were talking to earlier today.
He's her trainer?

No, he's listened to the guy who trained Washoe or
something.

Ohhh. Yea?

40
And he kept telling me about it.

How do you feel about the organization of the class?
Has it been pretty good so far?

I think it has, it's made me sure that I want to become
a communications major.

41
Cenlensatieni

Use of self-enhancement by second ingratiator:

T: What are some of the hobbies you're interested in?
B: Oh, I'm from a small farm, we raise Arabs.
T: Shieks?

B: Arabian horses. We just got two two-year-olds off the
boat. They are just beautiful! I went home this
weekend and went horseback riding. I get to train them
and stuff.

T: Are you fairly good at training?

B: Yea. I got a letter from the University. They found
out through the . . . um . . . riders association that I
have enough points to qualify for the equestrian team,
and they want me to ride for 'em next year.

T: Yea.

B: I can get a scholarship and all this, but it's just . . .
it would take too much away from my studies, cause . . .
ya know . . . you gotta be in the saddle like twenty,
twenty-five hours a week -- that's a lot of time.

T: Incredible dedication.

B: Yea, and I've had all this since I was little and I've
had trophies and stuff. I've been to the state fair a
couple of times. Yea, I did it. Now I want to move on
to something else.

T: What are you dedicated to now?

B: Really, I want to be a writer, and I want to be a
teacher, and I'm working toward those things, like this
summer I'm going to be a counselor at a camp and work
with kids. I got a book started. I might even write a
book this summer.

T: Really.

B: Yea.

42

QenxersetienJ

Use of opinion conformity by the second ingratiator:

T:

So, what did you think of class today, did you think it
was pretty good?

I liked the videotape, it was . . . I knew what it was
leading up to, that's what I liked. And that speech
that guy was rambling on and on, not really tying it
together well.

I just thought that first speech was incredibly boring.
Mmmhmmm.

They should have edited that thing out or done something
with it . . . it must have lasted ten minutes. First of
all, it was something we couldn't relate to.

Yea, we didn't know what to look for, that's for sure.

What have you thought of the lectures so far? At least
it's been a responsive class . . .

Yea, we have been talking back and forth. I like that.

43

Qenxersetienj

Use of self—enhancement by the second ingratiator:

What are some of your other interest besides . . . ah .
. . school?

You mean like hobbies?
Yea.

I do free-lancing work, I'm an amateur photographer.
That's kind of what got me interested in the video. I'm
producing a show, just for fun, on the side while at
home. I like to go hiking in Switzerland with my folks.

Uhhuh. That's nice.
I like to play tennis and watch soccer.

So, have you won any, any awards or anything for your
photography?

Not for photography but I took a real good picture over
the summer . . . real dramatic, almost surrealistic ya
know, at a national park. In terms of awards in general,
I've won a few things, I was in junior achievement, I
was vice president of personnel of the year. I won a
scholarship from Dow Chemical through junior achieve-
ment, I won a scholarship for a few hundred dollars.

I've won one-hundred percent attendance awards and
things of that sort.

That's good.

44
W

Use of other-enhancement by the second ingratiator:

T:

B:

So anyway, overall, what would you say your impressions
of the class have been so far?

Good. I mean it's a laid back atmosphere, ya know, I
like that. I mean, ya know, you don't stand up there
and preach to us. Ya know, you talk to us, and we feel
it's, it's . . . we don't have to raise our hand to
talk and all that . . . and I think it's better. It's
more, ya know, everybody can get into it more.

Yea, ahhh . . . o.k. How about the lectures as a whole,
are they fairly interesting?

Oh, well, I mean, ya know, you always go like . . . the
material you cover is what's on the test which is, ya
know, and I like that, plus what we get out of the book,
and, ya know, like you talked about the chimp and, ya
know, all that stuff -- it keeps it interesting, it
keeps our interest focused.

I try to include as much outside information as I can,
and stay away from the book as much as possible . . .

Mmmhmmm.

While covering the concepts but covering it in a
different way.

Yea, using examples, that's the best way to grasp that
anyway . . . 'cause you remember, ya know, when I think
of the chimp, then it reminds me of the, ya know, the
material we was talking about, ya know.

Good, that's good.

I like that.

"TlllilfilflfliiflflfllllliflllI