The Effect of Assertive Language and Psychological Distance on Perceived Dominance and Compliance Intention
Master Thesis
MSc. Communication Science – Persuasive Communication Track
Supervisor :
Mw. Dr. M.L Fransen
Student:
Willem E. Plasterk
Student ID:
6181813
2
Abstract
The current study examines whether the effect of the use of assertive language on perceived dominance and compliance intention is moderated by the psychological distance between the sender and the receiver of a persuasive message. An online survey was used to gather data from a total of 143 participants. Participants were either presented a message using assertive language or a message using non-assertive language, and were informed that the sender of the message was either a ‘close friend’ representing low psychological distance, or a ‘distance co-worker’ representing high psychological distance. In line with previous research, results indicate that assertive language significantly increases perceived dominance and significantly reduces compliance intention. However, no significant interaction effect was found when psychological distance was introduced as a moderating variable. Additionally, no significant mediation effect was found using perceived dominance as mediator for the effect of the use of assertive language has on compliance intention.
Keywords: Assertive Language, Perceived Dominance, Psychological Distance,
Compliance Intention, Persuasive Messages, Reactance, Politeness Theory, Face Threatening Acts
3 The Effect of Assertive Language and Psychological Distance on Perceived
Dominance and Compliance Intention
The adaptation of assertive language in, amongst other, political and environmental health messages is apparent in the media on a daily basis. Statements of what we “have to do” or “must act against” are a common sight. Research has repeatedly shown that the use of assertive language in persuasive messages induces resistance towards persuasion (Brehm, 1966; Brehm, & Brehm, 1981; Jones & Brehm, 1970). However, when looking at contemporary politics we find that the use of assertive language is still a regular occurrence. The question why it is still used so often therefore comes to mind. Could there be a positive side to adopting such language? Could it be adopted to enhance persuasiveness? It is often the case that convincing and compelling arguments alone do not lead to persuasion. A primary reason for this occurrence is that receivers of persuasive messages show signs of resistance (Jenkins & Dragojevic, 2011). The core of resistance is that it is a reaction against change (Knowles & Linn, 2004). Resistance to persuasion is known to anyone who has tried to offer advice, sell something, or attempted to convince others into certain engagement or action and failed in the effort to do so.
Related to the field of persuasion and resistance, is the acknowledgement that the manner in which language used to encode a certain persuasive message, is an expression of the relationship between the sender and receiver of the message (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Goldsmith, 2008). The use of assertive language influences how the receiver of the message evaluates the message and their relationship to the sender. The overall tendency of individuals is to form their message in such a way that it maintains the face of both sender and receiver. When the receiver believes the message to be unjustified within the source-receiver relationship however, the message will be perceived as a threat to one’s face and the reaction can be expected to be defensive (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Trees, Kerssen-Griep, &
4
Hess, 2009). In such a way resistance to persuasion is a defensive reaction to an unjustified encoding of the message by the sender as perceived by the receiver (Jenkins & Dragojevic, 2011). Using assertive language in a message can be perceived as being unjustified, which in turn will increase reactance and induce negative reactions towards the message.
One could argue that the relationship between the sender and the receiver thus influences the effect language has on attitude towards the message. More specifically, it is interesting to examine how the psychological distance between sender and receiver affects how messages are received. For example, if you get a message using assertive language from a close friend (low psychological distance), will the reaction be different compared to receiving the same message from a distant co-worker (high psychological distance)?
A concept closely related to assertive language is dominance. First of all, the use of assertive language can lead to increased levels of perceived dominance, and both concepts can be used to signal strength and power. Furthermore, both assertiveness and dominance can trigger reactance (Brehm, 1966; Brehm, & Brehm, 1981; Jones & Brehm, 1970). It is possible that when the psychological distance is low, the adaptation of assertive language has positive effects. A lower psychological distance could lead to reduced perceived dominance as compared to a high psychological distance, and in turn increase positive reactions to the message, such as increased compliance intention.
This research will focus on how psychological distance and the use of assertive language affect perceived dominance of the sender of the message, and compliance intention toward the message itself. Therefore, the research question of this thesis will be as follows:
“To what extend does the use of assertive language and psychological distance affect perceived dominance of the sender of the message and compliance intention toward the content of the message?”
5
Besides the scientific relevance of the research it also adds practical relevance in the field of persuasion and resistance. It shows how one can effectively adopt, or choose to avoid certain language in order to increase the compliance intention towards the message. Especially in fields where persuasion is key, the importance of being able to improve compliance intention toward a message is critical.
Literature Overview
Assertiveness and Persuasion
An assertive message or request is one that adopts an imperative form that leaves no option for refusal (e.g. ‘do such and such’, ‘vote against this’) (Bron & Levinson, 1987). In a content analysis on the presence of assertive language in persuasive environmental messages and advertisements of consumer good products, Kronrod, Grinstein, and Wathieu (2012) found that approximately 19% of slogans in consumer good products and 57% of the slogans in environmental messages were assertive. This finding is remarkable as research in consumer behaviour, psycholinguistics, and communication science has repeatedly shown that gentler and polite phrasing is more effective than adopting assertive language when attempting to reach consumer compliance. In fact, the adaptation of assertive language can even have severe negative effects on, amongst others, the persuasiveness of the message (Dillard & Shen, 2005; Dillard, Wilson, Tusing, & Kinney, 1997; Edwards, Li & Lee, 2002; Gibbs, 1986; Holtgraves, 1991; Lord, 1994; Quick & Considine, 2008; Shrum, Lowrey, & McCarty, 1994; Wilson & Kunkel, 2000). The general reasoning behind the evidence is that assertiveness conflicts with the drive to freedom present in individuals (Kronrod et al., 2012).
In an effort to understand the resistance individuals might experience towards persuasive messages the politeness theory and reactance theory can be adopted (Brown & Levison, 1987). In short, psychological reactance theory states that individuals experience a
6
fundamental need for autonomy, and when the freedom of behaviour faces a threat by, for example, a persuasive message, reactance is induced (Brehm, 1966; Brehm, & Brehm, 1981; Jones & Brehm, 1970). Reactance is reactive, not proactive in the sense that it only occurs when there are forces motivating individuals to give up a certain freedom, and choose to adhere to the perceived threat (Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Miron & Brehm, 2006). Reactance can be classified as a motivational state, and therefore has properties able to drive people to engage in freedom-restoration behaviours (Miron & Brehm, 2006). In case a freedom cannot be restored, the attractiveness of the proposed change decreases while the denied option becomes more attractive. Persuasive messages assume that individuals have a certain opinion or perform a certain behavior (Jenkins & Dragojevic, 2011). As such, persuasive messages are intrinsically threatening to one’s authority as the message attempts to alter the current opinion or behaviour. Especially when forceful or assertive language is used the perceived threat becomes apparent; the threat of losing face (Park & Guan, 2009) As persuasive messages are inherently threatening, the adaptation of assertive language additionally increases the threat of losing face. If the goal is to avoid reactance one may thus opt to adopt language that will not be perceived as dominant. Reactance theory is the most frequently theory used to explain the phenomenon of resistance to persuasion nowadays (Jenkins & Linn, 2004).
Additional to reactance theory, politeness theory can be adopted to explain how psychological distance can play an important role concerning the persuasiveness of messages. Politeness is defined as a reflection of the social distance between sender and receiver, and serves to both signify and create such social distance (Stephan, & Liberman, 2010). Similar to reactance theory, politeness theory suggests that individuals have a need for autonomy and negative face, and additionally suggests that people simultaneously have a need for approval, acceptance and positive face. Positive face is defined as “the positive consistent self-image or
7 ‘personality’ (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactions” (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 66). Negative face is defined as “the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction—i.e., to freedom of action and freedom from imposition” (p. 66). When dealing with social interactions,
individuals need to maintain and protect face, acts that violate or fail to satisfy face needs are known as face-threatening acts (FTAs) (Brown & Levinson, 1987). The use of assertive language can lead to additional threats in persuasive messages, as they tend to violate face needs.
Resistance and persuasion
The overarching topic of the current study is resistance and persuasion. There are several key concepts that briefly have to be explained in order to get a complete understanding of the current topic. An early definition of resistance is offered by McGuire (1964) as “the ability to withstand a persuasive attack” (As cited by Knowles & Linn, 2004, p. 4). According to Jenkins and Dragojevic (2011), resistance can be perceived in several occasions: when an intended change in attitude does not occur, when a boomerang effect occurs leading to the opposite of the desired attitude change, or when receivers engage in source derogation.
The field of persuasion and resistance has witnessed an increase in scholarly attention in the past several decades. Especially with the major increase in amount of persuasive messages faced in our society, the need to be able to increase resistance towards persuasion or the need to be able to deal with this increase in resistance is ever more important. Psychological resistance has seen many definitions and uses over the years, and is generally accepted as a phenomenon with a clear core but with blurry edges (Knowles & Linn, 2004). Whilst the field of resistance is studied extensively over the past several decades, there are still numerous opportunities for research.
8
As an example of opportunities for research, Kronrod et al. (2012) propose that level of assertiveness used in environmental campaigns is guided by perceived importance of the issue at hand. They state that when the issue is perceived to be important, the negative effect assertiveness has on consumer compliance can be reduced or even reversed (Kronrod et al., 2012). They additionally state that when a message is not perceived important by the receiver, assertive requests will most certainly not lead to the required response. One of the major reasons supporting the adaptation of assertiveness in messages is related to this finding, as assertiveness may support notions of perceived urgency and issue importance (Burgoon, Hunsaker, & Dawson, 1994).
Assertive language and perceived dominance. When looking at attitudes and
compliance intention towards messages, the context of the message plays a critical role. There are major differences when examining persuasion and resistance to regular advertisements, health campaigns, or political messages. It is generally accepted that regular advertisements by brands or organizations have a commercial goal and can be met with higher resistance towards the message compared to messages without commercial goals. Health campaigns attempt to increase the general quality of life and can induce resistance as a result of loss of public faith, increased skepticism, and distrust towards science, medicine, and health professionals (Crossley, 2002).
Besides the tendency to be found in environmental messages, assertiveness is also highly regular in contemporary politics. “We must”, “stop now”, “no more”, “have to support” and many other examples of assertive messages can often be found in newspapers and campaign messages. Besides the fact that the use of assertive language signals importance of the issue at hand, it can also provide the sender of the message a critical factor: dominance. The decisiveness and singularity of assertive messages can signal power, which is central to theories attempting to explain and predict behaviour and its consequences
9
(French & Raven, 1959; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). Inherent in the conceptualization of dominance is that individuals often face opposition and those who are determined to beat their opposition, with possible use of strong assertive language, can be considered dominant (Burgoon, Johnson, & Koch, 1998). Also, the use of assertive language influences ones positive face as it affects how the relationship between the sender and the receiver of the messages is perceived. It is therefore interesting to study how the use of assertive language in persuasive messages influences the perceived dominance of the sender of the message. The expectation is that the use of assertive language will increase the perceived dominance of the sender. Therefore, hypothesis 1 is as follows: ‘The use of assertive language will induce a
higher level of perceived dominance of the sender compared to the use of non-assertive language’.
Dominance and compliance intention
As previously mentioned, a message can be perceived to be dominant when assertive language is adopted. Such language can be used to signal certainty and strength over the receiver of the message. Dominance also plays a critical role in another topic that is central in this thesis: compliance intention. Specifically, in this thesis it is assumed that higher levels of perceived dominance will trigger reactance in the receiver of the message (Brehm, 1966; Brehm, & Brehm, 1981; Jones & Brehm, 1970). This is can be accounted to the use of face-threatening acts (FTAs) in messages, and due to the restriction of freedom(Brown & Levinson, 1987). Following the reasoning of psychological reactance, the perception of dominance will trigger reactance. Therefore when messages adopt assertive language it can be expected that due to reactance individuals will show signs of increased resistance towards the message. Ultimately this leads to more negative reactions towards the message, including lower compliance intention. Therefore, hypothesis 2 states: ‘The use of assertive language
10 will induce a lower level of compliance intention toward the message compared to the use of non-assertive language’.
In the current study the concept of dominance has multiple purposes. First to examine whether the use of assertive language in a message indeed leads to increased levels of perceived dominance (Burgoon et al., 1998). Second to determine whether increased levels of perceived dominance indeed ultimately lead to lower compliance intention due to higher levels of induced reactance (Brown & Levinson, 1987). When a message is already perceived as dominant, we can assume that the receiver of the message has already formed a strong opinion and will react to reduce the threat to face (Brown & Levinson, 1987). As such, based upon the reactance theory, hypothesis 3 proposes that: ‘Perceived dominance mediates the
effect of assertive language on compliance intention such that higher levels of perceived dominance reduces compliance intention’.
Psychological distance
The tone and politeness of the forms used in conversations are a reflection of the relationship between the sender and the receiver of the message (Stephan et al., 2010). For example, when addressing a close friend we would adopt different language compared to when addressing a co-worker, a client, a judge or a professor. According to Brown and Levinson (1987) there are three aspects of interpersonal situations related to politeness: the relative power the sender has over the receiver of the message, the degree of imposition of the required action, and the social distance between the sender and the receiver. They further argue that people adopt a more polite tone when addressing others who have a high status compared to when addressing others with a low or equal status when asking for a favor (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Research additionally shows that, consistent with politeness theory, politeness is positively related to the size of the request made, the higher the status of the receiver of the message, and the psychological distance between the sender and receiver
11
(Holtgraves & Yang, 1992). Here, psychological distance is defined as “the gap between
individuals (social distance), present and future (temporal distance), physical location and faraway places (spatial distance) or imagining something and experiencing it (experiential distance)” (Hamilton, 2015, p. 116).
In a study by Park and Guan (2009) the effect of relationship type on the amount of face threats is examined. They state that as friends are more intimate and more likely to share personal space, they are more tolerant of negative face threat than strangers, but they are also more likely to expect approval and appreciation and are therefore less tolerant of positive face than strangers (Park & Guan, 2009). Thus, it could be that when receiving a message from a close friend, the use of assertive language does not lead to increased perceptions of perceived dominance. Moreover, as presented in the study by Park and Guan (2009) the relationship between individuals has a significant effect on positive and negative face, such that offending acts were more face-threatening toward a stranger than toward a friend. This suggests that assertive messages from a high psychological distant source would induce increased levels of perceived dominance, and in turn a more negative effect on compliance intention compared to assertive messages from low psychological distant sources. Therefore, hypothesis 4 will be as follows: ‘Psychological distance moderates the effect of assertive language on perceived
dominance such that the lower the psychological distance, the lower the perceived dominance will be’. In this thesis, low and high psychological distance to the source will be
examined by showing participants messages from either a ‘close friend’ or ‘a distant
co-worker’, representing respectively low- and high psychological distance.
In an article by Hamilton (2015) the importance of being able to overcome psychological distance is exemplified. She states that in all kinds of situations, from closing deals with clients to dealing with junior employees the solution to challenges are all the same at heart: success depends on bridging psychological distance (Hamilton, 2015). When
12
looking at psychological distance from an empirical perspective, it is interesting to create a distinction in social distance between sender and receiver of the message, and examining how this difference influences compliance intention toward a message. When dealing with friends, the psychological distance is low, and therefore requires less effort to close compared to when dealing with someone with whom individuals have a professional relationship with a higher psychological distance. Besides the expected influence of psychological distance on perceived dominance, psychological distance is also expected to play a moderating role on the effect of the use of assertive language upon compliance intention toward the message. The overall expectations are that an interaction effect can be found between the level of psychological distance and the use of assertive language, such that when psychological distance is low, compliance intention is increased when assertive language is used. Therefore hypothesis 5 states that: Psychological distance moderates the effect assertive language has
on compliance intention such that lower levels of psychological distance increases compliance intention.
Research is required in order to confirm the previous suggestions and hypotheses. It is on that gap in the research that the current research question is grounded. As such, the research question of this thesis will be:
“To what extend does the use of assertive language and psychological distance affect perceived dominance of the sender of the message and compliance intention toward the content of the message?”
13 Figure 1 Conceptual framework
Method
Participants and Design
In total 233 individuals participated in this study, which was administered online. The study had a 2 (message using assertive language condition vs. message using non-assertive language) x 2 (low psychological distance condition vs high psychological distance condition) design resulting in four conditions. A total of 63 participants did not fully complete the questionnaire or did not answer all questions. After adjusting for unusable data entries due to incompleteness a total of 170 participants remained: (98 Male; 72 Female, Mage
= 25.75 years, SD = 6.35). As the study is focused upon psychological distance, participants were either showed a message from a ‘close friend’ or a ‘distant co-worker’.
A brief manipulation check showed that a total of 27 participants did not correctly recall the reported sender of the message and were retained from further analysis. A total of 143 participants (80 Male; 63 Female; Mage = 25.84 years, SD = 6.46) correctly answered the
manipulation check and were the remaining participants of which the data was used.
Participants were randomly assigned to one out of four conditions, which were set to spread the participants evenly over the conditions. A total of 69 participants were shown the non-assertive stimulus, out of which 31 participants were in the high psychological distance condition, and 38 participants in the low psychological distance condition. A total of 74
14
participants were shown the assertive stimulus, out of which 37 were in the high psychological distance condition, and 37 in the low psychological distance condition.
Procedure
Participants entered the study by clicking a link which directed them to the quantitative survey website Qualtrics. The study was presented as having two parts, the first part where they were shown a stimulus, and a second part in which several questions were asked about the stimulus and regarding their perception of the sender of the message. Stimuli were made for these 4 conditions (see Appendix). The questionnaire was spread through the use of social media (Facebook), email, word of mouth, and network of the author, which therefore consisted mostly of university students.
Participants were asked to report their age, gender, and highest level of education. Afterward the stimulus was presented. In order to restrain participants to be able to instantly click next without reading the text, a timer of twenty seconds was introduced. When the twenty seconds were over, participants were able to continue with the questionnaire. First, the manipulation check was shown, testing whether participants correctly read the stimulus and recognized the correct sender. Following the manipulation check were the questions regarding perceived dominance of the sender and compliance intention toward the message.
Assertive language. To manipulate assertiveness of the message we created two
messages. Whilst the content of the messages is similar, the language used is vastly different. The message using assertive language was written in a forceful tone, whilst the other message used very polite language. In the message the respondents were asked to vote Yes for a hypothetical referendum regarding the opening of the boarders for political refugees from the middle east. For example, the non-assertive message ended with the following statement:
“Whilst it can be invisible, there is a humanitarian crisis close to our homes, and I ask you not to ignore it. Please use your right to vote, and if you agree with me, vote Yes”. The
15
message using assertive language ended with: “It is undeniable that there is a humanitarian
crisis going on close to our homes, and we should not be allowed to ignore it. You must use your right to vote, and vote Yes. It is the only option”. Whilst the messages both ask the
participant to vote yes, the manner of doing so is clearly distinct.
Social distance. Above the message containing the assertive or non-assertive
language, participants were presented with a brief paragraph stating that they would have to imagine that the sender of the message was a close friend or a distant co-worker. A close friend represented the low psychological distance condition, a distant co-worker represented the high psychological distance condition. This was to give participants a feeling of social distance toward the sender of the message. As mentioned, a manipulation check afterwards test whether respondents correctly recalled the sender of the message.
Compliance Intention. The first variable measured was compliance intention. Compliance
intention was measured using six items adopted from Chandran & Morwitz (2005), namely: ‘How plausible is it that you would vote Yes based on the message?’, ‘How certain is it that
you would go and vote Yes because of the message?’, ‘How sure are you that Yes is the right choice based on the message?’, and ‘What are the chances that you will vote, and vote Yes because of the message?’. A 7-point Likert scale was used to measure the variables (1 = very unlikely/very uncertain/very unsure/very low; 7 = very likely/very certain/very sure/very high). The four items were combined into one scale by taking the mean score (α = .92, M =
3.59, SD = 1.56)
Perceived dominance. Perceived dominance was measured using the IPIP
(International Personality Item Pool) Dominance scale, using six items: the sender of the message ‘bosses people around’, ‘likes having authority over others’, ‘insists that others do things my way’, ‘makes demands on others’, ‘has a strong need for power’, ‘is known as a controlling person’ (Goldberg, Johnson, Eber, Hogan, Ashton, Cloninger, & Gough, 2006.
16
All items were answered using a 7-poin Likert scale (1 = Completely Disagree; 7 =
Completely Agree). The six items were combined into one scale by taking the mean score (α=
.91, M = 4.11, SD = 1.32).
Results
As stated in the procedure section, the manipulation check showed that 27 out of the 170 participants were unsuccessful in correctly recalling the sender of the message. The following results are based upon the data of the remaining 143 participants. A randomization check was used to check whether the male and female participants were evenly assigned to the four conditions in order to avoid possible bias in the results. The analysis indicated that the participants were evenly divided over the conditions (X2 = 2.198, p = .14).
Psychological distance
To determine the effect of assertive language in combination with psychological distance on perceived dominance another two-way ANOVA was conducted. Results indicate a significant main effect of the use of assertive language upon perceived dominance (F(1,142) = 27.20 , p < .001). Hypothesis 1 is therefore confirmed. Furthermore, whilst psychological distance had a significant direct effect upon perceived dominance (F(1,142) = 4.59, p = .034) the results indicated that the interaction was insignificant (F(3,142) = 2.16, p = .14)1 (see ‘Graph 1: two-way ANOVA Perceived Dominance’ in the appendix for plot). Hypothesis 4 is therefore rejected.
Another two-way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether an interaction effect could be found between the use of assertive language and psychological distance on compliance intention. A significant effect of the use of assertive language upon compliance
1
when the analysis was run with the data set including the 27 participants removed due to the manipulation check, the data was marginally significant (F(3,170) = .2.95, p = .088). However, as the participants were removed due to inability to correctly recall the sender of the message these results are unreliable.
17
intention was found (F(1,142) = 9.30, p = .003). As such, hypothesis 2 is confirmed. The analysis also indicated that psychological distance did not significantly affect compliance intention (F(1,42) = .94, p = .33). Results additionally indicate that no interaction effect was found (F(3,142) = .59, p = .45). As such, hypothesis 5 can additionally be rejected2 (see ‘graph 2: two-way ANOVA Compliance Intention’ in the appendix for plot).
Due to the lack of a significant effect, an analysis of a moderated mediation using both assertiveness and psychological distance as independent variables and perceived dominance as mediator became obsolete.
Assertive Language, perceived dominance, and compliance intention.
In order to examine whether a mediation effect of perceived dominance on the effect the use of assertive language has on compliance intention, an analysis using PROCESS model 4 (Hayes, 2013) was performed. The mediation effect appeared to be insignificant (β = -.13, SE = .12, t = -1.02, p = .31). The 95% confidence interval (1000 bootstrap sample) went from -.42 to .12 indicating that partial mediation could not be confirmed.
The expected direct effect of assertive language on perceived dominance was significant, as well as the negative effect the use of assertive language has on compliance intention. The expected mediation effect however turned out to be insignificant. Therefore hypothesis 3 can be rejected.
Furthermore, the analysis confirmed the direct effect of the use of assertive language on compliance intention (hypothesis 2) (β = -.078, SE = .26, t = -3.05, p = .03). The analysis also confirmed the direct effect use of assertive language on perceived dominance to be significant (hypothesis 1) (β = 1.05, SE = .20, t = 5.16, p < .001).
2 Including the 27 removed participants to the analysis still resulted in insignificant results, yet the
18 Discussion
The aim of the current paper was to examine to what extent the use of assertive language in persuasive messages and the psychological distance between the sender and the receiver of the message influence perceived dominance of the sender and compliance intention towards the message. Previous literature indicated that the use of assertive language in persuasive messages has severe negative effects (Brehm, 1966; Brehm, & Brehm, 1981; Jones & Brehm, 1970). These negative effects can be explained by the psychological reactance theory (Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Miron & Brehm, 2006; Jenkins & Dragojevic, 2011) and politeness theory (Brown & Levison, 1987), which can be accounted to the use of face-threatening acts in messages in. Still, the use of assertive language in persuasive messages and politics is still a regular occurrence. By introducing psychological distance, this study aimed to see whether the use of assertive language could have some positive effects.
The expectations were that psychological distance moderates the effect assertive language has on perceived dominance. Park and Guan (2009) stated that friends are more tolerant of each other than they are of strangers, or others to whom they have a high psychological distance. When receiving assertive messages from close friends, the increased tolerance could lead to lower perceived dominance and increased levels of compliance intention. The results indicate that no significant moderation effect was found using psychological distance as moderator for the effect of the use of assertive language on both perceived dominance and compliance intention. A possible reason for the insignificant effect could be that even though participants were told to imagine that they received the message from either a close friend or a distant co-worker they based their answers mainly upon the content of the message without explicitly imagining getting the message from either of the senders. On the other hand, it is possible that psychological distance simply does not play a significant role in the current context.
19
Furthermore, the expected mediation effect of perceived dominance on the relation between the use of assertive language on compliance intention was insignificant. This indicates that perceived dominance does not clarify the nature of the effect assertive language has upon compliance intention. .
Further expectations were that assertive language directly increases perceived dominance of the sender, which in turn reduces compliance intention. This was expected as research extensively found that assertive language reduces persuasiveness of the message (Dillard & Shen, 2005; Dillard, Wilson, Tusing, & Kinney, 1997; Edwards, Li & Lee, 2002; Gibbs, 1986; Holtgraves, 1991; Lord, 1994; Quick & Considine, 2008; Shrum, Lowrey, & McCarty, 1994; Wilson & Kunkel, 2000), and strong language using FTAs will trigger reactance (Brown & Levinson, 1987). As such, increased levels of perceived dominance can be expected to lower compliance intention.
We found that the use of assertive language has a significant effect upon perceived dominance, such that when assertive language is used in messages the perceived dominance of the sender significantly increases. Additionally, as expected increased levels of perceived dominance has a significant negative effect upon compliance intention toward the message. Furthermore, analysis using perceived dominance as mediator between the use of assertive language and compliance intention did not find a significant mediation effect.
Some limitations of the study that have to be mentioned. Where 233 participants started the survey, the data of only 143 participants was ultimately used for final analysis. An increased respondent size could not only increase the validity of the study, analysis indicate that the results will be far more significant. It could be that when the all 233 participants had successfully completed the questionnaire and correctly answered the manipulation check, there would be more power which would increase reliability of the results. As the direction of
20
the pattern of the results are in the expected direction, an increase in reliability could lead to more significant results.
Whilst the current study did not find a significant influence of psychological distance, further research on the topic is necessary to be certain. Multiple suggestions for future research can be made. First of all, as clearly explained in the previous paragraphs, the amount of participants should be increased. Furthermore, the manner of introducing the sender of the message should be made more explicit in order to increase the reliability of measuring the effects. The amount of participants that incorrectly answered the manipulation check was rather high, indicating that more emphasis should be placed on that part of the message. A third suggestion can be made regarding the context of the stimuli, future research should adopt a distinct context to see whether the effects can be expected across a variety of topics. It could be that the political context of the message influenced the responses and reduced significance due to preliminary opinions on the topic. Therefore it might be useful to use a less controversial topic.
Conclusion
Whilst research abundantly shows that the use of assertive language in persuasive messages has negative effects it is still a regular occurrence. This research set out to see whether there are conditions when the use of assertive language can have positive effects however. More specifically, we set out to see whether the psychological distance between sender and receiver of a message could influence perceived dominance of the sender of the message and compliance intention toward the message. In line with previous research, the results confirm that the use of assertive language negatively influences the persuasiveness of the message. This research adds to the literature as it shows that the use of assertive language additionally increases perceived dominance of the sender and reduces compliance intention to the message.
21
No significant interaction was found when including psychological distance to the analysis. This indicates that a lower psychological distance to the sender of the message does not significantly reduce the effects assertive language has on both perceived dominance and compliance intention. However, as it is possible that the lack of interaction is due to a low amount of participants, further research is required in order to make definitive statements. As presented in the results, the interaction effect was marginally significant when the amount of participants was not reduced due to the manipulation check. A replication of the study with an increased number of finished questionnaires could potentially present significant results merely based upon an increase in respondents. A different approach to testing the current hypotheses would to do it in a face-to-face experimental way. Here, the two different senders could be represented by actors, one of which acts very kind and friendly, the other very cold and distant. When done correctly, respondents would experience the feeling of psychological distance rather than simply having to imagine it.
What is clear, is that even though additional research could identify psychological distance as an effective moderator for the effect of assertive language in persuasive messages, it is far better to steer clear from its adaptation. Once again, as so often found in the literature, the use of assertive language has been proven to have severe negative effects upon the persuasiveness of messages.
22
References
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York, NY: Academic.
Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York, NY: Academic.
Brehm, J.W., & Cohen, A.R. (1962). Explorations in cognitive dissonance. New York: Wiley.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Burgoon, M. Hunsaker, F. G., Dawson, E. J. (1994). Approaches to Gaining Compliance. in Human Communication, 3d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 203–217.
Burgoon, J. K., Johnson, M. L., & Koch, P. T. (1998). The nature and measurement of interpersonal dominance. Communications Monographs, 65(4), 308-335.
CAT-personality Disorder Scales Static Form, n.d. Retrieved March 24, 2016, from
http://ipip.ori.org/newCAT-PD-SFv1.1Keys.htm#Domineering
Crossley, M., 2002. Resistance to health promotion: a preliminary comparative investigation of British and Australian students. Health Education, 102, 289–299.
Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the Nature of Reactance and Its Role in Persuasive Health Communication, Communication Monographs, 72(2), 144–68.
Dillard, J. P., Wilson, S. R., Tusing, J. K., & Kinney, T. A. (1997) Politeness Judgments in Personal Relationships, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(3), 297–325.
23
Edwards, S. M., Hairong L., & Lee, J. (2002), Forced Exposure and Psychological Reactance: Antecedents and Consequences of the Perceived Intrusiveness of Pop-Up Ads, Journal of Advertising, 31(Fall), 83–95.
French, J.R.P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power. 150-167. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
Gibbs, R. W. (1986). What Makes Some Indirect Speech Acts Conventional? Journal of Memory and Language, 25(4), 181–96.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96.
Goldsmith, D. J. (2008). Politeness theory: How we use language to save face. In L. A. Baxter, & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple Perspectives, 255-268. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Hamilton, R. (2015). Bridging psychological distance. Harvard Business Review, 93(3), 116-119.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Holtgraves, T. (1991). Interpreting Questions and Replies: Effects of Face-Threat, Question Form, and Gender. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54 (3), 15–24.
Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. (1992). Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: General principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 246–256.
24
International Personality Item Pool: A Scientific Collaboratory for the Development of Advanced Measures of Personality Traits and Other Individual Differences (http://ipip.ori.org/). Internet Web Site.
Jenkins, M., & Dragojevic, M. (2011). Explaining the process of resistance to persuasion: A politeness theory-based approach. Communication Research, 40(4), 559-590.
Jones, R. A., & Brehm, J. 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.
Kelley, H.H., & Thibaut, J.W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley
Knowles, E. S., & Linn, J. A. (Eds.). (2004). Resistance and persuasion. Psychology Press, London.
Lord, K. R. (1994). Motivating Recycling Behavior: A Quasiexperimental Investigation of Message and Source Strategies. Psychology and Marketing, 11(9),341–59.
McGuire, W. J. (1961). The effectiveness of supportive and refutational defenses in immunizing defenses. Sociometry, 24, 184-197.
Miron, A. M., & Brehm, J. W. (2006). Reactance theory-40 years later. Zeitschrift für
Sozialpsychologie, 37(1), 9-18.
Papageorgis, D., & McGuire, W. J. (1961). The generality of immunity to persuasion produced by pre-exposure to weakened counterarguments. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(3), 475.
25
Park, H. S., & Guan, X. (2009). Culture, positive and negative face threats, and apology intentions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 28(3), 244-262.
Quick, B. L., & Considine, J. 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(9), 483–91.
Shrum, L. J., Lowrey, T. M., & McCarty, J. A. (1994). Recycling as a Marketing Problem: A Framework for Strategy Development. Psychology and Marketing, 11(4), 393–417.
Stephan, E., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2010). Politeness and psychological distance: a construal level perspective. Journal of personality and social psychology, 98(2), 268.
Trees, A. R., Kerssen-Griep, J., & Hess, J. A. (2009). Earning influence by communicating respect: Facework's contributions to effective instructional feedback. Communication Education, 58(3), 397-416.
Wilson, S. R., & Kunkel, A. W. (2000). Identity Implications of Influence Goals: Similarities in Perceived Face Threats and Facework Across Sex and Close Relationships. Journal of
26 Appendix
Stimulus. Below the stimulus used for the experiment are shown. There are two
conditions, one adopting the use of assertive language, the other using a neutral tone that does not adopt the use of assertive language. The stimulus is focused upon a fictive referenda concerning the European immigration problem.
Stimulus using assertive language. “You must be aware about the referendum
regarding the opening of the boarders of the European Union to political refugees from the Middle East. I write to you as you might not realize just how important this issue is. We must act in order to improve the living conditions for those in need of refuge. Therefore you need to go and vote Yes on the day of the referendum. It is undeniable that there is a humanitarian crisis going on close to our homes, and we should not be allowed to ignore it. You must use your right to vote, and vote Yes. It is the only option.”
Stimulus using non-assertive language. “As you might know there is an upcoming
referendum regarding the opening of the boarders of the European Union to political refugees from the Middle East. I ask you to spare a moment of your time to think about the current events. The referendum provides us with the ability to voice our concerns, and enables us to help improve the living conditions for those in need of refuge. I ask you to stand by me and help, and vote Yes on the day of the referendum. Whilst it can be invisible, there is a humanitarian crisis close to our homes, and I ask you not to ignore it. Please use your right to vote, and if you agree with me, vote Yes.”
Questionnaire. In the following subheadings the questions regarding perceived
dominance and compliance intention are depicted, sorted per variable.
Four questions regarding compliance intention. Please answer the following four
27 ‘How plausible is it that you would vote Yes based on the message (1 very unlikely – 7 very
likely)
‘How certain is it that you would go and vote Yes because of the message (1 very uncertain –
7 very certain)
‘How sure are you that Yes is the right choice based on the message (1 very unsure – very
sure)
‘What are the chances that you will vote, and vote Yes because of the message (1 very
low – 7 very high)
Six questions regarding perceived dominance. Please answer the following six
questions based upon your perception of the original sender of the message. Please keep in mind that the message comes from [a close friend/a co-worker].
‘He or she bosses people around’ (1 completely disagree– 7 completely agree)
‘He or she likes having authority over others’ (1 completely disagree– 7 completely agree) ‘He or she insists that others do things my way’ (1 completely disagree– 7 completely agree) ‘He or she makes demands on others’ (1 completely disagree– 7 completely agree)
‘He or she has a strong need for power’ (1 completely disagree– 7 completely agree) ‘He or she is known as a controlling person’ (1 completely disagree– 7 completely agree)
28 Graphs.
29 Graph 2: two-way ANOVA Compliance Intention
