THESIS

IIIHEWMHE

122%

     

WW

   

I

 

([W

 

 

 

 

 

75f? 6E ‘5‘?"
MHHNJJJ vhf: ”as
gig :‘v‘f‘ - . I - » wl‘L b
33‘ V’wu Q3: ”’7‘!

 

PLACE IN REFURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINFS return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

Egg; 5; fiuon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1/98 cJCIRC/DateDuepGS-m 4

COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION AND UNWILLINGNESS TO COMMUNICATE
AS PREDICTORS OF COMPLIANCE-GAINING STRATEGY SELECTION

By

Randall J. Koper

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Communication

1981i

ABSTRACT

COMMUNICATION APREHENSION AND UNWILLINGNESS TO COMMUNICATE
AS PREDICTORS OF COMPLIANCE-GAINING STRATEGY SELECTION

By

Randall J. Koper

Recent research in persuasive strategy selection has resulted in
findings which indicate that individual personality traits may be
important determinants of the compliance-gaining tactics chosen by the
potential persuader. One such individual difference is the degree to
which a person desires interaction with others and finds such
interaction rewarding. These characteristics, as well as anxiety or
apprehension about communicating, comprise an attitudinal and
behavioral complex which can be referred to as communication reticence.
Based on a conceptualization of reticence as a dysfunctional
personality syndrome, it was hypothesized that reticent individuals
would be more willing to rely on negative (antisocial) strategies in
attempting to gain the compliance of others. Results provide evidence
that communication apprehension and biological gender are weak
predictors of strategy selection, however, an individual's tendency to
avoid, or devalue, interaction with others was found _to be a
significant and useful predictor of antisocial strategy selection.
Limitations of the study and implications for future research are

'discussed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is impossible to thank all of those persons who helped me reach
this point in my academic career. It seems appropriate, however, to
begin such an attempt by acknowledging the guidance of Professor Michael
Burgoon, who directed this thesis. Whatever capabilities I may possess
as a scholar of human communication are due in large part to his
efforts. More than giving me just his assistance, he introduced me to
the true art of thinking.

My special thanks go to my committee members, Dr. Judee Burgoon and
Dr. Gerald R. Miller, for providing an environment conducive to
intellectual growth and for demonstrating a sense of professionalism to
which I can aspire. The lessons that l have learned from this committee
will stay with me throughout my professional career.

In addition to the people in the academic world who supported my
efforts, I also must thank my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Arthur P. Koper, for
their kind encouragement and honest interest in my work. I owe them so
much which can never be repaid.

Last, but most important, I thank my best friend and my future
wife. Patty, to whom I dedicate this thesis. lt was her sacrifices,
encouragement, and help that made this thesis possible, and her love
that makes it meaningful.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Chapter Page

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

d

The Communication Apprehension Construct . . . .

The Unwillingness-to-Communicate Construct . . . .
Apprehension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Anomia-alienation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
lntroversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll
Self-esteem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

d
OCDO‘W

II. METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IS
Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l5
Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l5
Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l6

Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zl

III. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

IV. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3i

NOTES 0 0 O 0 O O O O D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O #1
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . #2

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A7

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Descriptive statistics for reticence measures
Intercorrelations of reticence measures . . .

Mean likelihood-of-use ratings for the sixteen
Marwell and Schmitt strategies . . . . . . .

Correlations between the predictor measures
and the sixteen Marwell and Schmitt strategies

Regression equations for the sixteen strategies

Page

. 23

. 25

.26
. 29

Figure

‘0

LIST OF FIGURES

Marwell and Schmitt strategies .

Page
18

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Much recent research has been devoted to better understanding the
process by which individuals choose what communication strategy to
employ in attempting to gain the compliance of others. The influence
of individual differences in the selection of persuasive messages has
been of particular interest in communication research. For example,
Roloff and Barnicott (I978) examined the effect of Machiavellianism, a
personality trait characterized by highly manipulative behavior, on
compliance-gaining strategy selection. The results of their work
indicate a greater willingness by high Machiavellians to use
compliance-gaining strategies, that is, they were found to be more
persuasively active than low Machiavellians. Also, Machiavellianism
was found to be significantly correlated with the use of both prosocial
and psychological force techniques.

Continuing their research on the influence of personality traits
on persuasive message selection, Roloff and Barnicott (1979) next
focused on dogmatism, an individual characteristic which is typified by
rigid thinking and deference to authority. They found high dogmatics
significantly more involved in compliance-gaining activity than low
dogmatics. Also, highly dogmatic individuals were more likely to use
all types of strategies, regardless of their relationship with the

target of the persuasive attempt.

Persuasive Strategy Selection

2

More recently, Lustig and King (l980) explored communication
strategy choices as influenced by communication apprehension (CA),.but
they found no effect for CA in their data. Generally, most of this
work has resulted in findings which claim that individual persuaders
differ systematically in their approach to compliance-gaining. Miller
and his associates (Miller, Boster, Roloff, 5 SieboId, I977) are most
succinct in their conclusion that "message choices are probably
directly related to the characteristics of the potential
persuader" (p. 37).

When focusing on individual characteristics, previous work by
psychologists and communication researchers taking a
psychological-trait approach has resulted in research in which
personality traits are often the variables measured. However, there
are at least two major problems with using personality trait variables
as predictors of communication behavior. First, there is considerable
difficulty in even identifying specific communication behaviors which
are generally associated with personality syndromes. Indeed, general
psychological dysfunction can manifest itself in abundantly diverse
ways. Second, this approach is of limited utility in current
communication research. Frequently it is difficult, impractical, or
impossible to identify a particular personality type, and even then,
knowing the characteristic personality type allows only indirect
prediction of actual communication behaviors. For these and additional

reasons, Burgoon and Burgoon (l97h) conclude that a better approach for

Persuasive Strategy Selection

3

communication research to follow would focus on general communication
behavior sets, or patterns, rather than personality traits. This would
allow a more diredt prediction of communication outcomes based on
actual predispositions toward communicative interaction. The present
study is an attempt at estimating the influence of such a communication
behavioral set on persuasive message selection.
The Communication Apprehension Construgt

Oral communication apprehension has been defined by McCroskey
(I977) as ”an individual's level of fear or anxiety associated with
real or anticipated (oral) communication with another person or
persons" (p. 78). Current research suggests several generalizations
that are warranted by experimentally consistent results. First, highly
apprehensive individuals tend to avoid many social situations and
thereby engage in less frequent social intercourse (Daly 8 McCroskey,
I975; McCroskey 5 Anderson, I976). Additionally, apprehensives also
tend to interact less in those social situations which are unavoidable
(Fenton & Hopf, I976; Sorenson 8 McCroskey, I977). Possibly as a
result of this lack of practice at social interaction, it appears that
high apprehensives are perceived less favorably and less competently
than less apprehensive individuals (Friemuth, I976; Burgoon s Koper, in
press). In short, this conceptualization portrays the highly
apprehensive individual as a communication avoider, inept and
unpracticed when interacting under even moderately stressful

situations, and either unable or unwilling to adapt to varying

Persuasive Strategy Selection

A

situational communicative demands.

Lustig and King's (I980) study assessing the effect of
communication apprehension on communication strategy choices initiated
a probe on the impact of this trait on persuasive message use. Using
volunteer undergraduates as respondents to a Likert-type item
questionnaire, the investigators attempted to evaluate the impact of
communication apprehension on the usage of the l6 compliance-gaining
strategies identified by Marwell and Schmitt (I967). 'The two
situations used in the study differed in the consequences if the
persuader failed. In the short term consequence situation, the
respondents were asked to imagine a situation in which they must
persuade a steady boy/girlfriend to allow him/her to break a date in
order to visit with an I'old acquaintance passing through town“. In the
long term consequence situation, the persuasive task was to convince a
close friend of the opposite sex to accompany the persuader on a
permanent move to a city over IOOO miles distant.

The results of their experiment showed no significant effect for
level of CA, although situation was a significant predictor of
strategic differences. However, a problem with the stimulus materials
is worth noting. The short-term consequence situation failed to
specify whether the "old acquaintance” is of the same or opposite sex,
and for that matter how "close" the relationship used to be. In other
words, depending on how the respondent interpreted the question, the

situation may be innocent or threatening. Since the relational

Persuasive Strategy Selection

5

consequences of compliance and the persuadee's right to refuse have
been identified as relevant variables in message selection (Cody,
Woelfel, 5 Jordan, I983), this situation may be expected to elicit data
which contains unacceptable levels of error.

Furthermore, implicit in the long-term consequence situation is
the assumption that the opposite-sex friend will not merely accompany
the persuader to the far away city, but that the two would also live
together. Certainly, it requires little imagination to appreciate the
potential confounding of the dependent variable with moral values,
family ties, current career status, and any number of other potential
considerations in such a decision. Even random assignment of subjects
to conditions is an insufficient precaution when the sample is as
homogeneous as "university students”, i.e., typically middle-class and
upwardly mobile. The resulting nonsignificant findings in this
experiment are not attributable to lack of power (>.99 for medium
effects) or any other clear methodological or technical flaws.
Therefore, in _generalizing the results to the relationship of
communication apprehension and strategic communication, caution must be
exercized. However, there does seem to be a conceptual rationale for
predicting a relationship between CA and strategy selection, and the
null findings in this study should not be considered the last word.

Clearer conclusions regarding this relationship might be drawn if
the context of the persuasive attempt were situated in a more typical

day-to-day problem. Also, although research interests may pursue other

Persuasive Strategy Selection

6

variables in tandem, situations should be constructed that minimize the
confounding of context and other potentially relevant variables.

Because of the ambiguity of previous findings, no clear empirical
basis exists for predicting the relationship of CA and strategy
selection. Thus, in an attempt to replicate the Lustig and King study
and further probe these issues, the following research question is
posed.

RQl: Is communication apprehension significantly
related to the likelihood of employing
specific compliance-gaining message strategies?

The Unwillingness-to-Commgnicgte Constrggt

The problem of anxious or avoided communication attempts has been
the focus of many researchers with various conceptual and operational
approaches other than McCroskey's communication apprehension construct.
The result has been a plethora of terms available to refer to a general
class of oral communication dysfunction. For example, reticence
(Phillips, I968) and shyness (Zimbardo, 1977) overlap conceptually in
that both refer to a trait of a individual which results in that
individual remaining silent rather than participating in interaction.
Although various forms of communication-bound anxiety have been
explored (e.g., McCroskey, I970; Mulac 5 Sherman, I97h), the usual
characterization of the anxious communicator is that of a nervous,

timid, and easily threatened individual who tends to avoid interaction.

Persuasive Strategy Selection

7

A more recent construct, predisposition toward verbal behavior was
found to impact assertiveness of verbal behavior, influence, and the
credibility of the speaker (Arntson, Mortensen, 5 Lustig, I980); a
person with a low predisposition toward verbal behavior would most
likely be less willing to communicate with others. Finally, J.
Burgoon has developed an instrument designed to measure unwillingness
to communicate (UCS), a chronic predisposition to avoid and/or devalue
oral communication. Factor analysis of several data sets resulted in
the emergence of two clear dimensions of UCS, i.e., an
approach/avoidance dimension (AA) and a perceived reward dimension (R)
(Burgoon, I976). The AA dimension taps the individual's generalized
level of desire to communicate and be with others, and the R dimension
is a measure of the perceived reward in communicating with others.

Clearly, these related lines of research combine to provide
evidence that a generalized attitude and behavioral set exists for some
individuals to be less willing to communicate with others. However,
while all the constructs specified above are designed to tap, in part,
the individual's unwillingness to communicate, most measure other
personality dimensions also.

For example, reticence and shyness, as previously noted, are both
conceptualized as non-participative character traits. Speech anxiety
is conceptually a transient physiological (and psychological) response
to stress (not an unwillingness-to-communicate predisposition) and

therefore has limited utility as a predictive measure. Also,

Persuasive Strategy Selection

8

predisposition toward verbal behavior taps, at least, personality
assertiveness in addition to communication behavior.I Additionally,
subsequent validation of the UCS has shown the construct to not be
unidimensional (Burgoon, I976), and therefore any single personality
variable would be less able to substitute for the entire communication
behavior set. It should be noted that Burgoon (I976) found CA to
correlate .53 (p<.05) with the total UCS score, .69 (p<.05) with the AA
dimension and .0l (p>.l0) with the reward factor. This would seem to
indicate that the PRCA and the UCS (AA dimension) are tapping a similar
predisposition, but that the UCS (R dimension) is identifying a factor
to which the PRCA is not sensitive.

In assessing the antecedents of a generalized unwillingness to
communicate, Burgoon offers four causal agents: apprehension,
anomia-alienation, lntroversion, and low self-esteem. It is reasoned
that clear understanding of the causes of this syndrome may aid in
positing its effects on persuasive behavior; therefore, each causal
element will be examined in turn.

Apprehension

Apprehension, particularly in regard to communication interaction,
is seen as a response to perceived or actual stress (Beatty, Behnke, 5
McCallum, I978; Burgoon 5 Koper, in press). Spielberger (I966) makes a
case for distinguishing chronic from situational apprehension, however,
this issue is of greater importance to clinical psychologists treating

the syndrome than to communication researchers for at least two

Persuasive Strategy Selection

9

reasons.

First, the behavioral correlates of trait and state anxiety are
indistinguishable in many circumstances. A comparison of the reported
behavioral correlates of high (trait) communication anxiety (McCroskey,
I970) and an individual experiencing speech anxiety (Mulac 5 Sherman,
I97h) demonstrate the consistency of stress effects on both state and
trait variables. A brief discussion of the dubious heuristic value of
the state-trait distinction in communication research can be found in
Burgoon and Koper (in press). Second, it is likely that situational
apprehension interacts with chronic apprehension, blurring the
distinction in even mildly stressful situations and minimizing its
usefulness. It is not difficult to imagine the communicator with a
trait anxiety predisposition in circumstances which would normally
elicit some apprehension for even low apprehensives (e.g., a job
interview or a public speaking performance). It is doubtful that under
circumstances that would elicit the normal response pattern to
situational stress there would be overtly identifiable differences in
the communicative behavior of individuals with trait anxiety and those
who are experiencing situation-bound anxiety. The Burgoon and Koper
(in press) studies support such a contention.

If an individual cannot effectively cope with anxiety, he or she
will turn to defense mechanisms as a means of minimizing awareness of
the aversive nature of anxiety. These defense mechanisms may include

avoidance, denial, accomodation, and aggression (Levitt, I967). Given

Persuasive Strategy Selection

IO

a persuasive situation (which would require confronting the persuadee),
avoidance and denial would clearly be unlikely defense mechanisms.
While accomodation may be an acceptable approach for situations in
which passive acquiescence will forestall relational enmity, many
situations do not allow this option. Aggression is therefore indicated
hypothetically as the predominant response to anxiety in situations
which obviate accomodation; avoidance, or denial and in which other
coping mechanisms are inadequate or inappropriate.
Anomia-alienation

Anomia has been defined as "the failure to understand or
internalize society's norms and values” (Burgoon, I972, p. I2). As a
result, the anomic will feel that "he cannot act as an entity directing
his own life, or change other people's attitudes toward him, or
effectively influence the world around him" (May, I953, p. 22). This
overall view of external reality as a powerful force to be reckoned
with may encourage the anomic to lead a frustrated and submissive life.

Indeed, Roberts and Rokeach (I956) found anomia and alienation to
both correlate with authoritarianism, a construct identified by extreme
deference to authority and use of ’authority-centered appeals. Bloom
(I970) found anomics to express such characteristics as general
anxiety, negative self-evaluation, negative affect states, and
aggressive impulses. McClosky and Shaar (I965) conclude that
”anomie...reflects patterns of communication and interaction that

reduce opportunities to see and understand how society works, and what

Persuasive Strategy Selection

II

its goals and values are" (p. I9). More recently, Parks (I977) found
anomia to be negatively related to interpersonal communication skills.

Given this conceptualization of the anomic, several possibilities
seem apparent in positing the effect of anomia on strategic
communication. First, it seems reasonable to suggest that the anomic
will avoid persuasive communication if possible. This is clearly
consistent with Burgoon's conclusions. However, given the necessity of
confronting an unpleasant situation, the strategic decisions made by an
anomic are posited to differ from those choices made by less
constrained individuals. For example, the characteristics cited above
suggest that the anomic may behave aggresively when "authority" is
perceived to support such a choice. Indeed, Putney and Middleton
(I962) support such a conceptualization of the ethically relativistic
nature of the anomic.
lntroversion

lntroverts are characteristically quiet and shy. They tend to
withdraw from others, be generally more introspective and
inner-directed, and less sociable (Eysenck, I97l). It can be concluded
that either introverts find communicating with others anxiety-producing
(and therefore aversively stimulating) or unrewarding. to the extent
that the effort required to do so is not justifiable. Available
evidence suggests that introverts are less likely to engage in
interpersonal communication than extroverts (Eysenck, I971; Burgoon,

I976). This is frequently demonstrated during interaction when

Persuasive Strategy Selection

I2

introverts less often speak first and participate less assertively in
group discussions (Carment, Miles, 5 Cervin, I965). While it could
probably be argued that introverts would be less likely to engage in
any kind of persuasive venture and would accomodate others to a great
degree, the predictive task at hand is to posit the style used in
compliance-gaining attempts. Since interaction can be seen as
aversively stimulating or unrewarding, a typical introvert's approach
to an imminent persuasive task might be characterized as "whatever
works”. Efficiency is of course most important when interaction
attempts are fewest, and if indeed communication situations are
aversive to introverts, it is not a great leap to suppose that they
would not hesitate to exercise social influence styles that are also
inherently aversive in nature.
Self-esteem

Self-esteem, or self-image, has been a central _ issue in
discussions of personality (e.g., Secord 5 Bachman, I965) and
interpersonal communication (e.g., Bales, I970). The conclusion drawn
by theorists and researchers is that the perceptions one has of self
significantly affect the attitudes and behaviors of the individual.
Considerable research has attempted to assess the role of self-esteem
in the individual's routine communicative functioning. For example,
Jourard (l97l) has studied the relationship between self-esteem and
self-disclosure behavior. In summarizing a number of studies in this

area, McCandless (I970) concludes that "the literature is consensual

Persuasive Strategy Selection

13

that a good self concept is related to other indices of social
adjustment” (p. #56).

Literature addressing the problems inherent in such communicative
dysfunctional syndromes as communication apprehension (McCroskey, I970)
and unwillingness to communicate (Burgoon, I976) has painted a picture
of the reticent communicator as "tight-lipped, uncommunicative, shy,
diffident, fearful, apprehensive, and antisocial" (Phillips, I968,
p. ho, emphasis mine). Other researchers have obtained results which
support such a conceptualization, and which also suggest that
communication reticents avoid competitive situations (Giffin 5 Gilham,
I97l), have less trust in others' communicative attempts (Giffin 5
Heider, I967), and feelings of isolation and ineffectiveness in social
activities (Low 5 Sheets, l95l).

Taken together, this work suggests that there exists a
relationship between self-esteem and communication reticence, and that,
when given the choice, highly reticent individuals will avoid
interaction, and particularly social influence attempts. In
circumstances where such an individual is involved in gaining the
compliance of another, a likely course of action consistent with the
personality profile outlined would be to exercise the most efficient
strategy available. Since reticents lack trust in the communicative
attempts of others, there is little reason to believe they will
demonstrate highly trusting or prosocial persuasive attempts. 0n the

contrary, it would appear that they would engage in fewer socially

Persuasive Strategy Selection

lh

acceptable behaviors and, because they find interaction punishing,
would not hesitate to exercise aversive strategies.

The above discussion warrants a conceptualization of the reticent
communicator as a frustrated and detached person, perhaps with an
outwardly submissive demeanor, that may turn to aggressive tactics when
situational constraints limit his or her ability to avoid an unpleasant
interaction. From the literature cited it would appear that there is a
cluster of predispositions within the unwilling communicator which are
potentially able to influence persuasive communication behavior. On
this basis, the following hypothesis can be formally stated:

HI: Unwillingness to communicate will predict a greater
likelihood of employing antisocial compliance-gaining

message strategies and a lesser likelihood of employing
prosocial compliance-gaining strategies.

Persuasive Strategy Selection

15

CHAPTER 2

METHOD

Sample

Subjects were 285 university undergraduates recruited from lower
division communication courses at Michigan State University. Data
collection took place during regular class hours in order to maximaize
participation. However, all potential respondents were explained their
option to not take part in the research project if they preferred.
Volunteers received no class credit or tangible reward for their
participation. Three questionnaires were eliminated from the analysis
due to missing data, reducing the total N to 282. The sample was 5&2
female.

Materials

All questionnaires were identical and consisted of the 20 PRCA
Likert-type items and the 26 UCS Likert-type items randomly ordered
with about half of the items reflected so as to minimize response set
bias. The following description of a typical persuasive situation was

the stimulus:

Persuasive Strategy Selection

16

”You and your roommate share a two bedroom apartment near
campus. While you make every effort to do your share of the
housekeeping chores (i.e., vacuuming the floors, dusting,
cleaning the bathroom and kitchen, etc.), your roommate prefers
to let you do most of these tasks. You decide that it is only
fair for your roommate to help with these chores, and so you
decide to talk him (her) into doing his (her) share of the work.”
Subjects were asked to rate their likelihood of using each of the
l6 Marwell and Schmitt strategies on a 7-item bounded-interval scale
anchored by "definitely would not use” and "definitely would use" with
a higher score indicating greater likelihood of use. (See Appendix).
Measurement
McCroskey's (I970, I978) 20 item version of the Personal Report of
Communication Apprehension (PRCA) and J. Burgoon's (I976) 26 item
Unwillingness-to-Communicate Scale (UCS) provided the operational means
of identifying various degrees of communication reticence. Both scales
have proven in many experiments to be reliable measures of the concept
with reliability coefficients consistently above .90 (McCroskey, I970;
McCroskey, Daly, Richmond, 5 Falcione, I977; Burgoon 5 Burgoon, l97h;
Burgoon, I976) Additionally, recent evidence indicates that the PRCA,
the approach-avoidance (AA) dimension of the UCS, and the reward (R)
dimension of the UCS tap into different (although not independent)
aspects of the communication reticence syndrome (Kelly, I982; Burgoon 5
Koper, in press).
The construct and criterion-related validity of both measures has

been demonstrated using a correlational approach with other related

measures. Communication apprehension was found to be positively

Persuasive Strategy Selection

I7

correlated with anxiety, dogmatism, and external control, and
negatively correlated with cyclothymia, emotional maturity, dominance,
surgency, character, adventurousness, confidence, self-control,
tolerance for ambiguity, and need to achieve (McCroskey, Daly, 5
Sorensen, I976). Statistically significant relationships were found
between the UCS measure and tension, alienation-anomia, communication
anxiety, and small group participation (Burgoon, I976). Although
recently some controversy has arisen over the nature of the reticence
syndrome and its measurement (Porter, I98l), both measures are
considered by most practicing researchers in the field to be
satisfactory measures of the communication reticence syndrome.

In this study, as in many previous studies, the taxonomy of
persuasive strategies required to operationalize the dependent variable
has been the category system outlined by Marwell and Schmitt (I967).
Culled from an extensive review of the persuasion literature, the
strategies are a collection of frequently used techniques of social
influence. Although Marwell and Schmitt make no claim that their list
is exhaustive, the typology offers a wide range of approaches and has
proven useful in numerous studies (e.g., Miller, Boster, Roloff, 5
SieboId, I977; Roloff 5 Barnicott, I978, l979: Lustig 5 King, I980;
Burgoon, Dillard, Koper, 5 Doran, in press). The strategies specified

by Marwell and Schmitt are presented and defined in Figure I.

Jr bolu—
0

O‘U‘l

7.

8.

9.

IO.
ll.
l2.
I3.
IA.
l5.
l6.

Persuasive Strategy Selection

l8

FIGURE I

MARWELL AND SCHMITT STRATEGIES*

Promise - If you comply, I will reward you.

Threat - If you do not comply, I will punish you.
Positive Expertise - If you comply you will be rewarded
because of the ”nature of things".

. Negative Expertise - If you do not comply you will be

punished because of the "nature of things".
Liking - Actor is friendly and helpful to get target in
”good frame of mind" so that he will comply with request.
Pre-giving - Actor rewards target before requesting
compliance.
Aversive Stimulation - Actor continuously punishes target
making cessation contingent on compliance.
Debt - You owe me compliance because of past favors.
Moral Appeal - You are immoral if you do not comply.
Positive Self-feeling - You will feel better about
yourself if you comply.
Negative Self-feeling - You will feel worse about
yourself if you do not comply.
Positive Altercasting - A person with "good" qualities
would comply.
Negative Altercasting - Only a person with ”bad"
qualities would not comply.
Altruism - I need your compliance very badly, so
do it for me.
Positive Esteem - People you value will think better
of you if you comply.
Negative Esteem - People you value will think worse
of you if you do not comply.

*Constitutive definitions of strategies taken from Marwell

5.

Schmitt (I967).

Persuasive Strategy Selection

19

In order to operationalize the l6 Marwell and Schmitt strategies,
a situation was developed which was considered to be as generic a
setting as possible. It was reasoned that, although many situations
have been developed for studies similarly using the Marwell and Schmitt
typology, all too often the situations are too highly specific. For
example, the Lustig and King (I980) situation in which one member of a
romantic couple gets a job offer for a position in a distant city is
far from being a general context for social influence. The persuasive
task is to convince the partner to make the move to the new city.
Clearly, this is a highly atypical situation with far-reaching
implications. It also seems that the outcome would very likely be
independent of the persuasiveness of the subject, which probably would
have some impact on the strategic approach taken by the potential
persuader.

A second problem in many compliance studies is that persuasive
situations are too often not relevant or easily identified with by the
subject population, i.e., college students. An example of this can be
found in the Miller et a]. study; one of the four operationalizations
of the I6 strategies involved convincing a neighboring homeowner to cut
down a tnee on the property line. This type of situation is clearly
not one which normally occurs in the typical college student's average
day. Responses to such unlikely situations are probably not indicative

of "real” persuasive behavior and therefore are suspect.

Persuasive Strategy Selection

20

The situation which was developed for this study was premised on
the assumption that most of us, including non-students, share a
residence with at least one other person. Although in the non-college
environment roommates are frequently family, university students in
particular often share a dwelling with non-relatives (ranging from best
friends to complete strangers). Further, in all but the most unique
circumstances, household chores are, to some degree, the responsibility
of the residents of the living unit. Consequently, a common persuasive
task would likely involve seeking the assistance of roommates in
maintaining the residence.

It is this task which provided the theme for operationalizing each
of the Marwell and Schmitt strategies. Although this could reasonably
be described as a short-term consequence situation, the potential
relational implications for non-compliance may be expected to be long
range.

Procedures

After a brief explanation of the nature of the study, all subjects
agreed Ito participate. Questionnaires were then distributed to class
members, who were given as much time as they needed to complete all of
the items. After all. of the questionnaires had been returned, the
respondents were debriefed in detail and thanked for their

participation.

Persuasive Strategy Selection

2I

Analysis

An initial Pearson correlation matrix was calculated with the
reticence measures correlated with each of the sixteen strategy
Iikelihood-of-use scores. Data were then subjected to a series of
stepwise multiple regression analyses. The predictor variables were
the reticence measures, i.e., PRCA, AA, and R, for which high scores
indicated high apprehension, avoidance, or lack of reward,
respectively, and subject gender. The criterion variables were the l6
Marwell and Schmitt strategy usage scores taken individually.
Traditional levels of significance (p<.05) were deemed appropriate as
cut-off limits for interpreting the results. In addition,
intercorrelations of the reticence measures and measurement reliability

estimates were computed.

Persuasive Strategy Selection

22

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS

Inspection of the scale means and standard deviations indicate
that the reticence measures contained sufficient variance to provide a
test of the hypothesized relationships. The descriptive statistics

were as follows:

TABLE I

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR RETICENCE MEASURES

RANGE MEAN ST. DEV. ALPHA2

PRCA (20 items) ZO-IhO 69.9I 20.h5 .9]
AA (IA items) lh-98 h2.26 I5.09 .90

R (12 items) I2-8h 2h.l8 9.62 .85

Persuasive Strategy Selection

23

Internal reliability of the construct measures (as indicated by
Cronbach's alpba) was found to be high for all three reticence
measures. Deleting any of the items in the measurement scales would
have resulted in a decrease in the reliability coefficient. Thus,
further analyses were warranted.

In order to further examine the reticence measures,
intercorrelations were calculated. The results of this analysis are

presented in Table 2.

TABLE 2

INTERCORRELATIONS or RETICENCE MEASURES3

AA R

PRCA .71 .33
(p<.01) (p<.0l)

AA .39
(p<.OI)

Unlike Burgoon's (I976) results, in which the reward dimension was
not significantly correlated with the PRCA, all three measures are
statistically significantly intercorrelated. Presumably, each measure
is tapping both common and unique elements of the reticence syndrome.
Results reported by Kelly (I982) are consistent with these findings.

It is unclear why orthogonal dimensions of the construct would be found

Persuasive Strategy Selection

2A

to be significantly correlated, however, it is possible that
situational variables interact with reticence, obscuring the unique
contribution of each dimension to the overall profile. The overlap of
communication apprehension and the approach-avoidance dimension is
particularly noteworthy (R2-.50). The correlation of the PRCA and the
reward dimension accounted for IIX of the variance (R2-.ll) and the
correlation of the two dimensions of the UCS accounted for I52 of the
variance (R2-.I5).

The mean likelihood ratings for the l6 strategies are presented in

Table 3.

 

Persuasive Strategy Selection

25

TABLE 3

MEAN LIKELIHOOD-OF-USE RATINGS FOR

THE SIXTEEN MARWELL AND SCHMITT STRATEGIESh

STRATEGY MEAN ST. DEV.
Negative Self-feeling 2.20 l.h0
Pregiving 2.h2 1.62
Moral Appeal 2.h6 l.7l
Promise 2.52 l.79
Threat 2.56 l.82
Aversive Stimulation 2.80 I.90
Positive Self-feeling 3.03 l.73
Positive Esteem 3.I9 l.8h
Debt 3.38 I.96
Negative Esteem 3.h3 l.85
Negative Altercasting 3.78 2.06
Liking h.lh I.97
Positive Altercasting b.5h I.9h
Negative Expertise 5.I8 l.80
Altruism 5.86 l.h8
Positive Expertise 5.87 I.hl

Although it was expected that primarily positive strategies would
populate the high end of the spectrum, the pleasant, affiliative
strategies and the unpleasant, coercive strategies seem fairly evenly
distributed. This result calls into question the value of Hunter and
Boster's (I978) empathy model, which predicts that strategies will be
arranged in a Guttman-simplex pattern ranging from pro- to antisocial
strategies. Apparently, the sample felt that a wide range of strategic

choices were appropriate for the persuasive task.

Persuasive Strategy Selection

26

Pearson product-moment correlations between the reticence measures

and each of the l6 Marwell and Schmitt strategy use scores are shown in

Table A.

association between the predictor and the criterion variables.

Stepwise multiple regression procedures (in which the

variable

that

TABLE A

This provides the first general test of whether there

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE PREDICTOR MEASURES AND

THE SIXTEEN MARWELL AND SCHMITT STRATEGIES

Negative

Pregiving

STRATEGY

self-feeling

Moral Appeal

Promise
Threat
Aversive
Positive
Positive
Debt
Negative
Negative
Liking
Positive
Negative
Altruism
Positive

Stimulation
Self-feeling
Esteem

Esteem
Altercasting

Altercasting
Expertise

Expertise

* indicates p<.05

accounts

for

PRCA

.I3*
.ll*
.03
-.07
.03
.IA*
.02
-.06
.l6*
.03
.05
.Ol
-.0I
.00
-.08
-.08

the most variance

AA

.I8*
.08
.08
.03
.06
.22*
.I0*

.I7*
.06
.08
.00
.05
.03
-.06
-.IA*

.07
.02
.I5*
-.06
.l5*
.2I*
.00
-.IO
.II*

.II*
-.08
-.05

.00
-.l5*
-.20*

is

I regression equation first, the variable accounting for the most of

an

independent

is entered into the

the

Persuasive Strategy Selection

27

remaining variance, second, and so on) were utilized to further assess
the predictive value of the communication reticence measures. 0f the
sixteen strategies, eight proved to be not significantly predicted
based on reticence levels and gender: promise, positive self-feeling,
pregiving, liking, positive altercasting, positive and negative esteem,
and negative expertise.

The UCS demonstrated significant predictive power for seven of the
remaining strategies. Specifically, the approach/avoidance dimension
predicted likelihood of using aversive stimulation, debt, and negative
self-feeling, and the reward dimension predicted use of threat and
moral appeal and the disuse of positive expertise and altruism.
Supplementary analyses resulted in finding that gender significantly
predicted the likelihood of using the remaining strategy, negative
altercasting, and entered strongly into the regression for aversive
stimulation. Males were- more likely than females to use both
strategies in the experimental situation. The PRCA added little to the
variance accounted for in any of the I6 strategies beyond what the UCS
had already partialled out.

For those strategies that demonstrated a significant relationship
with any of the independent variables, the results were as follows.
The regression of AA on the likelihood of using an aversive stimulation
strategy produced significant results (F-lk.50, d.f.-I,276, p<.05), and
when gender was added (F-I2.7h, d.f.-2,275, p<.05) the R2 for the

equation was .09. The likelihood of using a debt strategy (being

Persuasive Strategy Selection

28

regressed on the predictor variables) resulted in AA emerging as the
only significant predictor (F-7.87, d.f.-l,276, p<.05) with an R2 of
.03. The likelihood of pp; using positive expertise strategies was
found to be significantly predicted by the reward dimension (R) of the
UCS (F-8.I6, d.f.-l,276, p<.05) accounting for about 32 of the variance

2

(R -.03). The other predictor variables were unable to add

significantly to the model. Threat strategies were also predicted by
the reward dimension (R) (F-h.93, d.f.-l,276, p<.05) with and R2 of
.02. Like positive expertise, the reward dimension was found to be
negatively related to likelihood.of using altruism strategies (F-5.h3,
d.f.-l,27h, p<.05); R2 was .02. The UCS reward dimension again proved
useful in predicting use of moral appeal strategies (F-5.20,
d.f.-l,27h, p<.05), accounting for 22 of the variance (R2-.02). Again
the other predictor variables added little to the simpler model. The
likelihood of using negative self-feeling strategies was predicted by
the AA dimension of the UCS (F-9.98, d.f.-I,27h, p<.05) resulting in an
R2 of .Oh. One last result linked the willingness to use negative
altercasting strategies with gender (male) (F-9.h0, d.f.-I,276, p<.05)
accounting for 33 of the variance (R2-.03).

Table 5 provides the regression equations for the significant

relationships found in this study.

Persuasive Strategy Selection

29

TABLE 5

REGRESSION EQUATIONS FOR THE SIXTEEN STRATEGIES5

Negative Self-feeling y - l.h5 + .02A
Pregiving not significant
Moral Appeal y . l.8h + .02R
Promise not significant
Threat y - I.92 + .03R
Aversive Stimulation y - l.70 + .03A + .396
Positive Self-feeling not significant
Positive Esteem not significant
Debt y - 2.h5 + .02A
Negative Esteem not significant
Negative Altercasting y - 3.82 + .38G
Liking not significant
Positive Altercasting not significant
Negative Expertise not significant
Altruism y I 6.h3 - .02R
Positive Expertise y I 6.52 - .02R

The present results can be seen as a replication of Lustig and
King's (I980) findings for the PRCA as a nonsignificant predictor of
strategy use. Since the PRCA failed to significantly predict even a
single strategy, it must be concluded that public speaking anxiety and
more general communicative apprehension is not related to strategic
communication choices. With the exception of pregiving (r-.ll, p<.05)
which was not significantly correlated with either dimension of the
UCS, those few strategies that did correlate with the PRCA, i.e.,
aversive stimulation (r-.lh, p<.05), debt (r-.I6, p<.05), and negative
self-feeling (r-.I3, p<.05), were even more highly correlated with the

approach-avoidance dimension of the UCS. It is therefore reasonable to

Persuasive Strategy Selection

30

conclude that after AA had been entered into each regression equation,
the PRCA was unable to account for any further significant variance,
probably due to the intercorrelation of the PRCA and AA.

The research question posed in this study must be answered
cautiously. While communication apprehension is related to four of the
sixteen strategies, the UCS (AA dimension) appears to be more sensitive
in three cases to the same aspects of the predisposition. Therefore,
it can be concluded that the PRCA is a very weak predictor of the
likelihood of using particular persuasive strategies.

The approach-avoidance dimension of the UCS clearly predicts three
of the most antisocial (or at least interpersonally unpleasant)
strategies - aversive stimulation, debt, and negative self-feeling.
The reward dimension is more sensitive to threat and moral appeal
strategies, but is also able to predict that communicators who find
communication unrewarding are less likely to use the more prosocial
approaches of altruism and positive expertise. Despite no significant
findings for the other eight strategies, the supporting evidence is
strong enough to warrant the conclusion that the hypothesized
relationships exist for a number of important compliance-gaining

strategies.

 

Persuasive Strategy Selection

3I

CHAPTER h
DISCUSSION

The results from this study provide a first look into the
relationship between communication reticence (unwillingness to
communicate) and compliance-gaining message selection. It was
hypothesized that individuals who avoid interaction or who find
communicating with others unrewarding would rely on fewer prosocial
persuasive techniques and, instead, use more antisocial approaches to
accomplish desired outcomes.

Rushton (I979) provides a general definition of prosocial as ”that
which is socially desirable and which in some way benefits another
person or society at large" (p. 323). He included four categories of
. prosocial behavior: altruism, friendliness, self-control, and fear
diminution. Although not specified by Rushton, antisocial behaviors
would presumably include selfishness, unfriendliness, lack of
self-control, and instilling fear to accomplish personal goals.

A more specific distinction' between prosocial and antisocial
actions which focuses on strategic communication behavior has been

offered by Roloff (I976):

Persuasive Strategy Selection

32

”Prosocial communication strategies reflect people's
attempts to obtain relational rewards by techniques

that facilitate understanding of their attitudes and
needs...These strategies would be expected to facilitate
relational growth and development. 0n the other hand,
antisocial communication strategies represent people's
attempts to obtain relational rewards by imposing their
position on another through force or deception. Such
use of force or deception might be expected to impede
relational growth or development.” (p. l8l)

Avoiders of communicative interaction reported that they are
significantly more likely to use aversive stimulation, debt, and
negative self-feeling strategies than individuals who are more willing
to engage others in verbal interaction. Clearly, aversive stimulation,
which was operationalized as acting irritated and refusing to talk to
the persuadee until compliance was accomplished, is not likely to
facilitate understanding or relational growth, and the persuader may be
characterized as unfriendly and lacking in self-control.

Debt strategies, which remind the persuadee of past favors
received and then call for payment of the debt, are a form of force, or
coercion. A typical response in describing someone's use of such
tactics might be, "I didn't want to do it, but what could I say? I
owed him the favor.“ Again, this manner of ”collecting payment" for
favors done is unlikely to facilitate understanding or relational
growth, and such selfish behavior may in fact jeopardize a
relationship.

Negative self-feeling strategies, which remind the persuadee that

he will feel badly about himself if he does not comply, ostensibly hold

that it is in the best interest of the persuadee to comply. This is

 

Persuasive Strategy Selection

33

nothing short of deceitful when the persuader is really the beneficiary
if compliance is obtained. This approach is also meant to instill an
especially unpleasant form of fear - loss of self-esteem. Thus, these
three strategies that were found to be related to communication
avoidance can reasonably be described as antisocial, lending support to
the stated hypothesis.

The second dimension of unwillingness to communicate, which taps
perceived lack of rewards for communicative attempts, was found to be
positively related to threat and moral appeal strategies and negatively
related to altruism and positive expertise strategies. Threats of any
type are designed to gain compliance based on the fear that the threat
will be carried out. Additionally, such coercion is highly unlikely to
facilitate relational growth, understanding, or any apparent positive
affect for either the persuadee or the persuader.

Moral appeal strategies are similar to negative self-feeling
tactics in that they are an attempt to coerce the target into complying
out of the fear that their self-esteem will be adversely affected. For
example, if others label me as immoral for my behaving (or failing to
behave) in some way, might that not force me to question my
self-concept as a moral individual? Certainly, even if that is not my
response to the labeling, it is undoubtedly the purpose of the Iabelers
to cause such fear. The use of moral appeals attempts also to force
the issue into a ”higher court”, where perhaps God is on the side of

the persuader.

Persuasive Strategy Selection

3h

While individuals that find communication unrewarding are
significantly more likely to report the use of threat and moral appeal
strategies, they also reported a significantly lower likelihood of
using altruism and positive expertise, both of which are relatively
pleasant and potentially likely to engender positive affect. In
operationalizing each strategy, the notion of relational and domestic
harmony was the clearly identifiable concern of the persuader.

It remains unclear why the other strategies that were tested, some
of which were just as clearly pro- or antisocial, yielded
nonsignificant results. However, it can be argued that some of these
strategies - promise and pregiving, in particular - are relatively
ambiguous and assume that the persuader is willing to expend the effort
to "do something really nice” for the persuadee, either as a reward for
compliance or in anticipation of compliance. Since these two
strategies are two of the four least likely rated strategies for the
sample as a whole, it is reasonable to conclude that perhaps the
inherent ambiguity of the stimulus militated against the selection of
these strategies.

An alternative explanation for the reticence measures' inability
to predict prosocial strategy selection may lie in the approach used to
measure the dependent variable. Subjects were asked to rate their
likelihood of using each of the I6 strategies individually. 0f the
five strategies that the sample as a whole rated above the neutral

point (h.00) on the scale, four would be considered prosocial - liking,

Persuasive Strategy Selection

35

positive altercasting, altruism, and positive expertise. Thus, several
of the prosocial strategies are rated by most people as likely
selections. Because of this widespread preference for prosocial
techniques, the reticence measures were unable to significantly predict
likelihood of use of the positive strategies. However, while
persuaders with more positive attitudes toward communicating with
others limit themselves to the strategies at the positive end of the
spectrum, reticent communicators have demonstrated a significantly
greater likelihood to report that they would use the antisocial
strategies as well. This would indicate a less restrained range of
potentially usable compliance-gaining strategies for unwilling
communicators, while potential persuaders that are low in reticence
restrict themselves to more prosocial means of accomplishing strategic
goals.

As evidence accumulates on the impact of communication reticence
on behavior patterns, it is becoming clear that its influence extends
beyond unfamiliar situations and people and to the core of the
afflicted individual's personal relationships. The evidence presented
in this report suggests that communication avoiders and individuals who
have received few rewards for their communicative efforts will be more
likely to resort to antisocial attempts in securing the compliance of a
roommate. Evidence from other recent investigations has begun to
explicate the general interaction patterns of communication reticents

(Burgoon 5 Koper, in press). In particular, Burgoon and Koper found

Persuasive Strategy Selection

36

that in dyads comprised of strangers, reticent communicators were
perceived as sending more negative relational messages, i.e., more
negative arousal, noncomposure, more nonimmediacy and detachment, more
submissiveness, and less intimacy and similarity. When interacting
with friends, reticents exhibited nonverbal cues which suggested
anxiety, less positive affect, more detachment and nonintimacy, and
less facial pleasantness than less reticent communicators. Despite
these nonverbal messages, the friends failed to recognize or attribute
negative meanings to them, perhaps making allowances for their friends'
discomfort. However, it can be concluded that the nonverbal relational
message behavior of communication reticents reflects negative attitudes
toward both interpersonal and noninterpersonal communicative
encounters.

The nonsignificant findings for communication apprehension may be
interpreted in a number of ways. First, due to the moderately high
correlation between the PRCA and the AA dimension of the UCS.
multicollinearity may have been a problem in this study. A separate
set of regression analyses run without attempting to include the PRCA
as a predictor variable yielded nearly identical regression
coefficients for the significant relationships. It can reasonably be
concluded that multicollinearity may be obscuring the nature of the
relationships in these results. In short, after the best predictor
(the UCS in every case) had been entered into the regression equation

and its variance partialled out, the PRCA was simply unable to add

Persuasive Strategy Selection

37

significantly to the variance accounted for in the model.

Second, in an argument similar to a position articulated by Parks
(I980), it is likely that the PRCA is a measure of public speaking
anxiety more than a measure of generalized trait anxiety. One needs
merely to inspect the PRCA questionnaire items to notice the high
percentage related to anxiety about public speaking performances.6 If
it is true that the PRCA is more a measure of a predisposition to be
intimidated and fearful in public speaking situations, then it would
not be expected that such a measure would predict behavior in a purely
interpersonal context, as was the case in this study.

The unwillingness-to-communicate scale, on the other hand, has
demonstrated its utility as a predictor of communication behavior (at
least as self-reported by the respondents). This adds support to
Burgoon and Burgoon's (I97h) contention that the "advantage of (the
UCS) is in its directness in measuring communication attitudes...”
(p. 36). Using communication behavior "sets" to predict communication
outcomes is clearly a useful and productive approach, and future
research will benefit by applying this principle.

A third possibility to explain why the PRCA was unable to predict
strategy use may lie in focusing on the nature of the apprehensive
communicator. It has been suggested that high CAs have the same

repertoire of persuasive techniques as low CAs, but that there is a

differential ability to implement them (Lustig 5 King, I980). Although‘

this was not directly tested in this study, it would appear that high

 

Persuasive Strategy Selection

38

and low communication apprehensives make similar situational
adaptations in strategy selection (Lustig 5 King, I980), but that their
actual communication performance differs. The repertoire of available
choices was the sixteen Marwell and Schmitt strategies for all
subjects, but in reporting on paper what message ‘selections the
respondents would make, the implementation stage was never reached.
Therefore, any differences in the implementation of persuasive
strategies between high and low apprehensives would not be revealed in
this study. Consistent with this explanation is the notion that the
state anxiety aspects of CA are less likely to appear without
situational stressors present or anticipated (Burgoon 5 Koper, in
press).

Supplementary analysis resulted in finding biological gender
significantly related to the use of aversive stimulation and negative
altercasting; males reported a higher liklihood of use for both
strategies. It would appear that males are not opposed to using
techniques that are not very pleasant in dealing with their (male)
roommates. It would be interesting to vary the sex of the target of
the persuasive message to determine if these results are generalizable
to mixed-sex persuasive encounters.

Future research in the area of individual differences in
compliance-gaining message choices might benefit by departing from an
approach which offers a fixed repertoire of choices, e.g., the I6

Marwell and Schmitt strategies, and measures the dependent variable

’;5

 

Persuasive Strategy Selection

39

based on the coding of subject-generated responses. Since people
probably differ in their repertoires of potential persuasive
strategies, such an approach would allow increased insight into the
actual behavioral choices that individuals make.

A second avenue for future research to pursue might be the
development and testing of other communication behavior set measures.
The success of the unwillingness-to-communicate scale as a predictive
tool should encourage communication researchers to explore other sets
of behavior which are related to communication activity. Such measures
might then be used to predict persuasive strategy selection, as in this
study, or other communication outcomes. Also, the UCS might be used to
predict communication behavior other than persuasive message selection.

Finally, any explanation of sex differences in communication
behavior will be necessarily tied to socialization differences. Given
that differences do exist in the socialization of people, it seems
plausible that there are not merely two end results, i.e., maleness and
femaleness. Rather, a broad range of sex role differentiations can
take place, this being the rationale for viewing gender as a
continuous, rather than a categorical, variable. Bem's (I975) sex-role
orientation scale is designed to look at the unique mixture of
typically male and female characteristics that make up each of us.
Measuring gender in this way allows more fine-grain distinctions than a
biological gender approach and probably more accurate judgements of

individuals' gender-related proclivities.

 

Persuasive Strategy Selection

hO

In summary, the unwillingness-to-communicate scale was found to be
a useful predictor of compliance-gaining behavior, whereas the PRCA and
gender were weak predictors of strategy selection. The relationship
between unwillingness to communicate and compliance-gaining message
selection can be characterized as moderate, with the UCS significantly
predicting seven of the sixteen messages provided. Consistent with the
theoretical rationale for this study, unwilling communicators reported
as likely choices several message strategies that can be characterized

as antisocial, unfriendly, and uncooperative.

 

Persuasive Strategy Selection

Al

NOTES

Items 2, h, I5, l6, l7, and I8 from the 25-item instrument reported
in Mortensen, Arntson, and Lustig (I977) would appear to be
tapping general personality assertiveness.

2 Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient.

3 Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients.

h A higher rating indicates greater likelihood of use.

5 In the regression equations, 'A' indicates the approach/avoidance
dimension, 'R' indicates the reward dimension, and '6'
indicates gender (male-l, female--l).

6 Twelve of the twenty items in the PRCA-20 specifically ask for the

subject's physical and emotional responses to speaking before

an audience.

REFERENCES

Persuasive Strategy Selection

A2
REFERENCES

Arntson, P.H., Mortensen, C.D., and Lustig, M.W. Predispositions
toward verbal behavior in task-oriented interaction.
Human Communication Research. 1980. 3. 239-252-

BaleS. R.F. Personality and Interpersonal Behavior. New York: Holt,
l9

5

Beatty, M.J., Behnke, R.R., and McCallum, K. Situational determinants
of communication apprehension. Communication Monographs, I978,
45. 187-191- '

Bem, S. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology. l975. 31. 63h-6h3.

Bloom, R. Dimensions of mental health in adolescent boys.

Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1970. 26. 35-39-

Burgoon, J.K. The effects of anomia and personal space invasion on
nonperson orientation, anxiety, source credibility, and
interaction. Unpublished Masters thesis, Illinois State
University, 1972.

Burgoon, J. K. The unwillingness- to- communicate scale: Development and
validation. Communication Monographs. l976. 43. 60- ~69-

Burgoon, J.K. and Burgoon, M. Unwillingness to communicate,
anomia-alienation, and communication apprehension as predictors of
small group communication. The Journal of Psychology. 197“. 88.
3I-38.

Burgoon, J.K. and Koper, R.J. Nonverbal behavior patterns associated
with communication reticence. Human Communication Research, in
press.

Burgoon, M., Dillard, J.P., Koper, R.J., and Doran, N. The impact of
communication context and persuader gender on persuasive message
selection. women’s Studies in Communication. in press.

Carment, D.W., Miles, C.G., and Cervin, V.B. Persuasiveness and
persuasibility as related to intelligence and extraversion.

British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 1965. 4. l-7-

 

 

Persuasive Strategy Selection

“3

Cody, M.J., Woelfel, M.L., and Jordan, W.J. Dimensions of
compliance-gaining situations. Human Communication Research.
1983. 9. 99-113-

Daly,a J. A. and McCroskey, J. C. Occupational desirability and choice
function of communication apprehension.

Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1975.22. 309-313

EYsenck. H.J. Readings in Extraversion-Introversion: Volume 2. New
York: Wiley-Interscience, I971.

Fenton, R.J. and Hopf, T.S. Some effects of communication inhibition
on small groups: Participation, member satisfaction, perceived
effectiveness, credibility, and leadership. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San
Francisco, 1976.

Friemuth, V.S. The effects of communication apprehension on
communication effectiveness. Human Communication Research. 1976.
2, 289-298.

Giffin, K. and Gilham, S.M. Relationships between speech anxiety and

motivation. Speech Monographs. 1971. 38. 770—73-

Giffin, K. and Heider, M. The relationship between speech anxiety and
the suppression of communication in childhood. The Psychiatric
Ouarterly Supplement, Part 2. 1967.

Hunter, J. and Boster, F.J. An empathy model of compliance-gaining
message strategy selection. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Speech Communication Association, November, 1978.

Jourard. S.M. Self—disclosure: An experimental analysis of the
transparent self. New York: John Wiley 5 Sons, 1971.

Kelly, L. A rose by any other name is still a rose: A comparative
analysis of reticence, communication apprehension, unwillingness
to communicate. and shyness. Human Communication Research. 1982.
8. 99-113.

Levitt, E.E. The Psychology of Anxiety. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill,
I967.

Low, G.M. and Sheets, B.V. The relation of psychometric factors to
stage fright. Speech Monographs. 1951. 18. 266-271.

Persuasive Strategy Selection

Ah

Lustig, M.W. and King, S.W. The effect of communication apprehension
and situation on communication strategy choices.
Human Communication Research. 1980. 7. 79-82-

Marwell, G. and Schmitt, 0. Dimensions of compliance-gaining
behavior: An empirical analysis. Sociometry, I967, 30, 251-270.

May, R. Man’s Search for Himself, New York: American Library, 1953.

McCandleSS. B. Adolescents: Behavior and Development. New York: Holt.
1970.

McClosky, H. and Schaar, J. The psychological dimensions of anomy.
American Sociological Review. 1965. 30. lh-AO.

McCroskey, J.C. Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent
theory and research. Human Communication Research. 1977. 4.
78-96.

McCroskey, J.C. Validity of the PRCA as an index of oral communication
apprehension. Communication Monographs. 1978. 45. 192-203.

McCroskey, J.C. and Andersen, J.A. The relationship between
communication apprehension and academic achievement among college
students. Human Communication Research. 1976. 3. 73-31.

McCroskey, J.C., Daly, J.A., Sorensen, G. Personality correlates of
communication apprehension. Human Communication Research. 1976.
2. 376-380.

McCroskey, J.C., Daly, J.A., Richmond, V.P., and Cox, B.G. The effects
of communication apprehension on interpersonal attraction.
Human Communiction Research. 1977. 3. 268-277.

McCroskey, J.C., Daly, J.A., Richmond, V.P., and Falcione, R.L.
Studies of the relationship between communication apprehension and
self-esteem. Human Communication Research. 1977. 3. 269-277

Miller, G.R., Boster, F.J., Roloff, M., and SieboId, D.
Compliance-gaining message strategies: A typology and some
findings concerning the effects of situational differences.
Communication Mbnographs. I977. 44. 37-51.

Mortensen, C.D., Arntson, P.H., and Lustig, M. The measurement of
verbal predispositions: Scale development and applications.
Human Communication Research. 1977. 3. 196-153-

Persuasive Strategy Selection

#5

Mulac, A. and Sherman, A.R. Behavioral assessment of speech anxiety.
Ouarterly Journal of Speech. 197A. 2. l3h-lh3-

Parks, M.R. Anomia and close friendship communication networks.
Human Communication Research. l977. 4. h8-57.

Parks, M.R. A test of the cross-situational consistency of
communication apprehension. Communication Monographs. I980. 47.
220-232.

Phillips, G.M. Reticence: Pathology of the normal speaker.

Speech Monographs. 1968. 35. 39-h9-

Porter, D.T. An empirical appraisal of the PRCA for measuring oral
communication apprehension. Human Communication Research, 1981,
8. 58‘71-

Putney, S. and Middleton, R. Ethical relativism and anomia.
American Journal of Sociology. 1962, 67. h32-hh3.

Roberts A.H. and Rokeach, M. Anomie, authoritarianism, and prejudice:
A replication. American Joural of Sociology. I956. 61. 355-358.

Roloff, M. Communication strategies, relationships, and relational
change. In G.R. Miller (Ed.) Explorations in Interpersonal
Communication. Beverly Hills: Sage, I976.

Roloff, M. and Barnicott, E.F. The situational use of pro- and
antisocial compliance-gaining strategies by high and low
Machiavellians. In Brent D. Ruben (Ed.) Communication Yearbook
II, New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books, 1978.

Roloff, M. and Barnicott, E.F. The influence of dogmatism on the

situational use of pro- and antisocial compliance-gaining
strategies. Southern Speech Communication Journal. 1979. 45.
37-55-

Rushton, J.P. Effects of television and film material on the prosocial
behavior of children. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic PreSS. 1979-

Secord, P.F. and Bachman, C.W. Interpersonal approach to personality.
In B.H. Maher (Ed.) Progress in Experimental Personality
Research, Volume 2. New York: Academic Press, 1965, 91-12 .

Persuasive Strategy Selection

A6

Sorensen, G.A. and McCroskey, J.C. The prediction of interaction
behavior in small groups: Zero history versus intact groups.
Communication Monographs. 1977. 44. 73-80-

Spielberger, C. Theory and research on anxiety. In C.D. Spielberger
(Ed.) Anxiety and Behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1966.

Zimbardo, P.G. Shyness. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1977.

APPENDIX

 

47

Last Four Digits of Social Security Number

 

Below are a series of statements about communicating with others. Please
indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Work quickly, indicating your first impression as your response. Please
be sure to answer every item. Thank you.
I. I would enjoy presenting a speech on a local television show.

Agree 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 Disagree
2. My friends and family don't listen to my ideas.

Agree 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 Disagree
3. I have no fear of facing an audience.

Agree 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 Disagree

A. My thoughts become confused and jumbled when I speak before an
audience.

Agree 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 Disagree

5. My hands tremble when I handle objects on the platform.
Agree 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 Disagree

6. I face the prospect of making a speech with complete confidence.
Agree 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 Disagree

7. I feel that I am more fluent when talking to people than most other
people are.

Agree 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 Disagree

8. I talk less because I'm shy.
Agree 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 Disagree

9. I believe that my friends and family understand my feelings.
Agree I 2 3 h 5 6 7 Disagree

10. While participating in a conversation with a new acquaintance I
feel very nervous.

Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree

A8

11. In conversations I prefer to listen rather than talk.
Agree l 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree

12. Other people are friendly only because they want something out
of me.

Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree
13. My friends seek my opinions and advice.
Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree
1A. I feel nervous when l have to speak to others.
Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree
15. I avoid group discussions.
Agree I 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree
I6. I find it difficult to make conversation with strangers.
Agree I 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree

l7.| feel self-conscious when I am called upon to answer a question
or to give an opinion in class.

Agree I 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree

I8. I am tense and nervous while participating in group discussions.
Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree

I9. I look forward to an opportunity to speak in public.
Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree

20. I am fearful and tense all the while I am speaking before a
group of people.

Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree
21. I like to get involved in group discussions.

Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree
22. I'm afraid to speak up in conversations.

Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree

23.

2A.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

3A.

A9

If I got into some kind of trouble, I couldn't talk to anyone
about it.

Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree
During a conversation I prefer to talk rather than listen.

Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree
| talk alot because I am not shy.

Agree I 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree
I always avoid speaking in public if possibe.

Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree

Conversing with people who hold positions of authority causes me
to be fearful and tense.

Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree
1 am afraid to express myself in groups
Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree
Talking to other people is just a waste of time.
Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree
1 find it easy to make conversation with strangers.
Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree
I don't feel nervous when I speak to others.
Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree

My family doesn't enjoy discussing my interests and activities
with me.

Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree
People just pretend to be listening when I talk.
Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree
1 find the prospect of speaking mildly pleasant.

Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree

50

35. I look forward to expressing my opinions at meetings.
Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree

36. I think my friends are truthful with me.
Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6' 7 Disagree

37. I have fears about expressing myself in a group.
Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree

38. My friends and family listen to my ideas and suggestions.
Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree

39. I am not afraid to speak up in conversations.
Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree

A0. I dislike to use my voice and body expressively.
Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree

Al. I don't ask for advice from my family and friends when I have to
make decisions.

Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree
A2. I don't think my friends are honest in their communication with me.
Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree

A3. Although I am nervous just before getting up, I soon forget my fears
and enjoy the experience of public speaking.

Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree

AA. | feel relaxed and comfortable while speaking.
Agree I 2 3 A I 5 6 7 Disagree

A5. When communicating, my posture feels strained and unnatural.
Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree

A6. Although I talk fluently with friends, I am at a loss for words
on the platform.

Agree 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Disagree

51

You and your roommate share a two bedroom apartment near campus.
While you make every effort to do your share of the household chores
(i.e., vacuuming the floors, dusting, cleaning the bathroom and kitchen,
etc.), your roommate prefers to let you do most of these tasks. You
decide that it is only fair for your roommate to help with these chores,
and so you decide to talk him (her) into doing his (her) share of the
work.

How likely would you be to use the following strategies in your
persuasive attempt?
l) I would tell my roommate that if he (she) will do his (her) share of the

housework, I will do something nice in return.

definitely would not use 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 definitely would use

2) I would act irritated and refuse to talk to my roommate until he (she)
started doing his (her) share of the housework.
definitely would not use 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 definitely would use
3) I would tell my roommate that only an inconsiderate person would not do
their share of the housework.
definitely would not use I 2 3 A 5 6 7 definitely wodld use
A) I would remind my roommate of past favors I have done for him (her) and

suggest that he (she) owes me the consideration of doing half of the
housework.

definitely would not use I 2 3 A 5 6 7 definitely would use

5) I would tell my roommate that two people can live together more
pleasantly if they both contribute to the upkeep of the household.

definitely would not use I 2 3 A 5 6 7 definitely would use

6) I would tell my roommate that I would be very proud of him (her) if he
(she) would make a greater effort to do his (her) share of the housework.

definitely would not use I 2 3 A 5 6 7 definitely would use

52

7) I would tell my roommate that if he (she) doesn‘t attempt to do his (her)
share of the housework, I will move out.

definitely would not use I 2 3 A 5 6 7 definitely would use

8) I would do something really nice for my roommate and then ask him (her)
to begin doing his (her) share of the housework.

definitely would not use I 2 3 A 5 6 7 definitely would use

9) I would tell my roommate that he (she) will feel better about himself
(herself) if he (she) does his (her) share of the housework.

definitely would not use I 2 3 A 5 6 7 definitely would use

10) I would tell my roomate that I don't have time to do all of the house-

keeping chores and that I would really appreciate it if he (she) would
help with the housework.

definitely would not use I 2 3 A 5 6 7 definitely would use

II

V

I would tell my roommate that a considerate person would do their share
of the housework.

definitely would not use I 2 3 A 5 6 7 definitely would use

12) I would try to be pleasant toward my roommate in order to get him (her)
into the right frame of mind before asking him (her) to do his (her)
share of the housework.

definitely would not use I 2 3 A 5 6 7 definitely would use

13) I would tell my roommate that it is morally wrong to not do one's share

of the household chores.
definitely would not use I 2 3 A 5 6 7 definitely would use

IA) I would tell my roommate that I will be very disappointed if he (she)
does not make a greater effort to do his (her) share of the housework.

definitely would not use I 2 3 A 5 6 7 definitely would use

15) I would tell my roommate that he (she) will feel badly about himself

(herself) if he (she) does not do his (her) share of the housework.

definitely would not use I 2 3 A 5 6 7 definitely would use

53

I6) I would tell my roommate that two people cannot live together
pleasantly if they don't both contribute to the upkeep of the
household.

definitely would not use I 2 3 A 5 6 7 definitely would use

Sex: Male Female (circle one)

Thank you very much for your participation in this research project.

 

uoimmsu] .(imnuoddo [onbg/uogzay anyouugfly an s; HSW 689150

 

'78-'72-2 919G

IOSSOJOId Jolew

 

uooBJng laeuoiw

 

 

IIOILVDI anwoo ”' 99m" 'V'N

10} swomonnbox om go
1uou1ng1n} SpIBAAOJ, poidaooe uooq seq

83d0>l 'I‘ 'I'IVONVH

Aq powoson
NOILOEI‘IEIS ADBLVHLS 9NINIV9
-33NVI'IdW00 :IO SUOLDIGEIHJ SV HLVOINDWWOD Oi
SSEINEINITIIMNII (INV NO-ISNEIHEIHcIdV N01.LVDINIIWN03

venous 8189111

sin IBLII Mom 01 Si Silll

GAN TnTE IE8

”111111111111111