Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

THE INTERPRETATION OF COERCIVE COMMUNICATION THE EFFECTS OF MODE OF INFLUENCE, POWERFUL SPEECH, AND SPEAKER AUTHORITY

THE INTERPRETATION OF COERCIVE COMMUNICATION THE EFFECTS OF MODE OF INFLUENCE, POWERFUL SPEECH,... Social systems devise rules for member conduct and often specify punitive action for nonconformity. However, confronting and signaling the intent to punish a rule violator may be an inherently facethreatening and volatile situation. As such, in this paper we seek to add to the research aimed at minimizing the negative effects of confrontation. We conducted an experiment to examine the impact of linguistic cues and coercive potential on message categorization and on receiver perceptions of threat and facesensitivity. Results suggest that threats might be considered a special class of warnings, distinguishable by a speakerbased locus of punishment Locus of punishment did not, however, impact perceptions of having been warned. These findings thus call into question the assumed parallelism between researcher conceptualizations of threats and warnings and those of typical languageusers. Additionally, targets reported feeling less threatened and perceived more facesensitivity, in cases when the speaker was not the source of punishment. Perceptions of threat were decreased when disclaimers were employed and where the message originated from a peer rather than an authority. Power of speech had an impact in ambiguous situations. Implications for researchers and practitioners are discussed. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Conflict Management Emerald Publishing

THE INTERPRETATION OF COERCIVE COMMUNICATION THE EFFECTS OF MODE OF INFLUENCE, POWERFUL SPEECH, AND SPEAKER AUTHORITY

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/the-interpretation-of-coercive-communication-the-effects-of-mode-of-ffeNzn5S3j

References (26)

Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN
1044-4068
DOI
10.1108/eb022807
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Social systems devise rules for member conduct and often specify punitive action for nonconformity. However, confronting and signaling the intent to punish a rule violator may be an inherently facethreatening and volatile situation. As such, in this paper we seek to add to the research aimed at minimizing the negative effects of confrontation. We conducted an experiment to examine the impact of linguistic cues and coercive potential on message categorization and on receiver perceptions of threat and facesensitivity. Results suggest that threats might be considered a special class of warnings, distinguishable by a speakerbased locus of punishment Locus of punishment did not, however, impact perceptions of having been warned. These findings thus call into question the assumed parallelism between researcher conceptualizations of threats and warnings and those of typical languageusers. Additionally, targets reported feeling less threatened and perceived more facesensitivity, in cases when the speaker was not the source of punishment. Perceptions of threat were decreased when disclaimers were employed and where the message originated from a peer rather than an authority. Power of speech had an impact in ambiguous situations. Implications for researchers and practitioners are discussed.

Journal

International Journal of Conflict ManagementEmerald Publishing

Published: Feb 1, 1998

There are no references for this article.