Two experiments are conducted to test a politeness theory-derived process model of resistance to persuasion. Experiment 1 demonstrates that messages with more forceful language, compared to messages with less forceful language, produce an overall threat to face (i.e., negative and positive face). A second experiment was conducted to replicate the findings of Experiment 1 and to extend the process model by testing the hypothesis that controlling language produces a threat to face because of the meta-communicative content (i.e., unsubstantiated claim of relative power) implied by the language selected by the source. Overall, the data provide support for a politeness theory based understanding of resistance to persuasion.
AmbadyN.KooJ.LeeF.RosenthalR. (1996). More than words: Linguistic and nonlinguistic politeness in two cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 996-1011.
2.
BohnerG.RuderM.ErbH. P. (2002). When expertise backfires: Contrast and assimilation effects in persuasion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 495-519.
3.
BrehmJ. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York, NY: Academic.
4.
BrehmS. S.BrehmJ. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York, NY: Academic.
5.
BrownP.LevinsonS. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In GoodyE. (Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 56-310). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BrownP.LevinsonS. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BurgoonM. (1990). Social influence. In GilesH.Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 51-72). London, UK: Wiley.
8.
BurgoonM.AlvaroE.GrandpreJ.VoulodakisM. (2002). Revisiting the theory of psychological reactance: Communicating threats to attitudinal freedom. In DillardJ. P.PfauM. W. (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 213-232). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
9.
BurgoonM.MillerG. R. (1985). An expectancy interpretation of language and persuasion. In GilesH.St. ClairR. (Eds.), Recent advances in language, communication and social psychology (pp. 199-229). London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
CanslerD. C.StilesW. B. (1981). Relative status and interpersonal presumptuousness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 459-471.
11.
CarsonC. L.CupachW. R (2000). Facing corrections in the workplace: The influence of perceived face threat on the consequences of managerial reproaches. Applied Communication Research, 28, 215-234.
12.
CraigM. J.TracyK.SpisakF. (1986). The discourse of requests: Assessments of politeness approach. Human Communication Research, 12, 437-468.
DillardJ. P.ShenL. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72, 144-168.
15.
DillardJ. P.WilsonS. R.TusingK. J.KinneyT. A. (1997). Politeness judgments in personal relationships. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16, 297-325.
16.
FrenchJ. R. P.Jr.RavenB. H. (1959). The basis of social power. In CarwrightD. (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Research Center for Group Dynamics, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
17.
GodinG.KokG. (1996). The theory of planned behavior: A review of its applications to health-related behaviors. American Journal of Health Promotion, 11, 87-98.
18.
GoldsmithD. J. (2008). Politeness theory: How we use language to save face. In BaxterL. A.BraithwaiteD. O. (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 255-268). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
19.
GoldsmithD. J.MacGeorgeE. L. (2000). The impact of politeness and relationship on perceived quality of advice about a problem. Human Communication Research, 26, 234-263.
20.
HayesA. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408-420.
21.
HoltgravesT. (1986). Language structure in social interaction: Perceptions of direct and indirect speech acts and interactants who use them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 305-314.
22.
HoltgravesT. (1997). Yes, but . . . positive politeness in conversation arguments. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16, 222-239.
23.
HoltgravesT.YangJ. N. (1990). Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based on their use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 719-729.
24.
HoltgravesT.YangJ. N. (1992). Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: General principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 246-256.
25.
HuL.T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
26.
HunterJ.GerbingD. (1982). Unidimensional measurement, second order factor analysis, and causal models. Research in Organizational Behavior, 4, 267-320.
27.
HunterJ. E.HamiltonM. A. (1992). CFA.BAS [A program in BASICA to do confirmatory factor analysis]. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
28.
HunterJ. E.HamiltonM. A. (1995). PATH [A least squares path analysis program in BASICA]. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
29.
JonesR. A.BrehmJ. W. (1970). Persuasiveness of one- and two-sided communications as a function of awareness there are two sides. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 47-56.
30.
KimM., S.HunterJ. (1993). Relationships among attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behavior; A meta-analysis of past research, part 2. Communication Research, 20, 331-364.
31.
LimT.BowersJ. W. (1991). Facework solidarity, approbation, and tact. Human Communication Research, 17, 415-450.
32.
MillerC. H.LaneL. T.DeatrickL. M.YoungA. M.PottsK. A. (2007). Psychological reactance and promotional health messages: The effects of controlling language, lexical concreteness, and the restoration of freedom. Human Communication Research, 33, 219-240.
33.
PenmanR. (1990). Facework and politeness: Multiple goals in courtroom discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7, 101-121.
34.
QuickB. L.ConsidineJ. R. (2008). Examining the use of forceful language when designing exercise persuasive messages for adults: A test of conceptualizing reactance arousal as a two-step process. Health Communication, 23, 483-491.
35.
RainsS. A.TurnerM. M. (2007). Psychological reactance and persuasive health communication: A test and extension of the intertwined model. Human Communication Research, 33, 241-269.
36.
SheeranP.TaylorS. (1999). Predicting intentions to use condoms: A meta-analysis and comparison of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 29, 1624-1775.
37.
SheppardB. H.HartwickJ.WarshawP. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325-343.
38.
SparksJ. R.AreniC. S. (2002). The effects of sales presentation quality an initial perceptions on persuasion: A multiple role perspective. Journal of Business Research, 55, 517-528.
39.
SparksJ. R.AreniC. S. (2008). Style versus substance: Multiple roles of language power in persuasion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(1), 37-60
40.
TreesA. R.Kerssen-GriepHessJ. A. (2009). Earning influence by communicating respect: Facework’s contribution to effective instructional communication. Communication Education, 58, 397-416.
WatzlawickP.BeavinJ.JacksonD. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
43.
WicklundR. A.BrehmJ. W. (1970). Effects of threats to attitudinal freedom as a function of agreement with the communicator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14(1), 18-22.
44.
WilsonS. R.AlemanC. G.LeathamG. B. (1998). Identity implications of influence goals: A revised analysis of face-threatening acts and application to seeking compliance with same-sex friends. Human Communication Research, 25(1), 64-96.
