Upgrade to remove ads
Upgrade to remove ads
Unformatted text preview:

88SUCCESSFUL PERSUASION: PREDICTING GROUP RESPONSE5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.rameters of Social Influence in the AutokineticSituation,”Sociometty, Vol. 27 (1964), pp. 88–98;T. M. Scheidel, “Sex and Persuasibility,” SpeechMonograph, 30 (1963), pp. 353-58.R. P. Abelson and G. S. Lesser, “The Measure-ment of Persuasibility in Children, ” in Janis andHovland, eds., Personality and Persmibility, pp.141-66.C. W. Carmichael, “Frustration, Sex and Per-suasibility,” Western Specb, Vol. 34, No. 4(1970), pp. 300-07.S. L. Bern,“Androgyny vs. the Tight LittleLives of Fluffy Women and Chesty Men, ” Psy -chlogj Today, Vol. 9 (1975), pp. 58–62.T. D. Peterson,“The Relationship betweenCertain Attitudes of Parents and Children,” inH. H. Remmers, ed., Further Studies in Attitudes,Purdue Studies in Higher Education, Series 2, VO1.37 (1936), pp. 12744; C. Morgan and H. H.Remmers,“Liberalism and Conservatism ofCollege Students as Affected by the Depres-sion,”School and Society, vol. 41 (1935), pp.7 80–84; S. C. Fisher, Relationsb+s in Attitudes,Opinions and Values among Family Members, Uni-versity of California Publications in Culture andSociety, 1948, vol. 2, no. 2; R. Bassett, “Opin-ion Differences within the Family, ” Public Opin-ion Quarterly, vol. 13 (1949), pp. 11 8–20; J.Himelhoch, “Tolerance and Personality Needs,”American Socwlogical Review, vol. 15 (1950), pp.79-88.Robert D. Hess and Judith Torney, Tbe Develop-ment of Political Attitudes in Children (New York:Anchor Books, 1967).Kenneth P. Langton, Political Socialization (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1969).C. Atkin (Unpublished telephone survey of stu-dents atMichigan State University, EastLansing, Michigan, October, 197 1).J. H. Barrett, Gerontological Psychology, (Spring-field, 111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1972), p. 154.R. S. Lynd and H. M. Lynd, Middktown: AStudy in Contemporary American Culture (NewYork: Harcourt Brace and Co., 192’3. also seeR. S. Lynd and H. M. Lynd. Middktown inTransitwn: A Study in Cultural [email protected] (NewYork: Harcourt Brace and Co., 1937).14. “Middletown Revisited,” Time. Vol. 112, No.16 (Oct. 16, 1978), pp. 106-09.15. S. M. Lipset and J. J. Linz, “The Social Basesof Political Diversity In Western Democracies, ”unpublished manuscript reported in B. Berelsonand G. Steiner, Human Behavior: An Inventory ofSciersttjic Findings (New York: Harcourt, Brace16.17.18.19.20.21.22.2324.25.26.27.28.29.30.31and World, 1964), p. 424.J. F. Short and F. Strodtbeck,GrOup prows andGang Delinquency (Chicago: University of Chi-cago Press, 1965).R C. Try On, “Identification of Social Areas bYCluster Analysis: A General Method with anApplication to the San Francisco Bay Area,”Univenity of Calfornia Publications in psychology,University of California Press, 1955.CBS News, Special Report on Youth, 1970.P. H. Rossi and A. S. Rossi, “Some Effects ofParochial School Education in America,” Dae&-lus (Spring 1961), pp. 300–328.P. F. Lazarsfeld, B. Berelson and H. Gaudet,Tbc Peopk’s Cboiee (New York: Duell, Sloan andPearce, 1944).“The Effects of Segregation and the Conse-quences of Desegregation: A Social ScienceStatement,”Minnesota I.uw Review, vol. 37(1953), p. 435.T. Newcomb,“Attitude Development as aFunction of Reference Groups: The BenningtonStudy,”in E. E. Maccoby, T. H. Newcomband E. L. Hartley, eds., Readings in Social Psy-chology(New York: HoIt, Rinehart andWinston, 1958), pp. 265-75.G. C. Homans, Tbe Human Group (New York:Harcourt, Brace and World, 1950).E. Bettinghuas, “Michigan Survey of ~-teenage Smoking Behavior, ” mimeo Mlch%anYouth Council, State of Michigan, 1970.S. E. Asch, “Effects of Group Pressure upon theModification and Distortion of Judgment,” inH. Guetzkow, ed.,Groups, Ltadersbip, and Men(Pittsburgh, Pa.: Carnegie Press, 195 1)M. Sherif and C. Sherif, An Outline of Social l’sY-cbology (New York: Harper and Row, 1956).A. E. Siegel and S. Siegel, “Reference GroupslMembership Groups, and Attitude change!journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, VO~ 55‘(1957), pp. 360-64.E. Maccoby, R. Mathews and A. Mo(tOn’“Youth and Political Change,” Public OptntonQuarterh, vol. 19 (1954), pp.” 23–39.John (Klempner) Bear,“People Who Write In:CommunicationAspectsof Opinion-htterWriting,” (Ph. d. Dissertation, Michigan StateUniversity, 1966).G. M. Gilbert, “Stereotype Persistence andChange among College Students,“[email protected] of Ab-normal and Social Psycbocbgy, VO~.46 (1950, PP~–;” W byte, Street Corner Socitty (Chicago:University if Chicago Press, 1955).INFLUENCE OF THE COMMUNICATORSome communicators are better atpersuasion than others. Two speakers candeliver exactly the same speech, and one speaker will be rated bet~er than theother. lMost receivers are aware of differences in the communicators they at-tend to, although they might not be able to specify why they feel as they do.They may say something like,“I don’t know why! But I do know that somepeople have it, and some don’t.”If we were to push them a bit further, suchreceivers might give us reasons such as, “He is a smooth speaker;”“Shesounds better;” “He looks great in that suit;” “She had all the better argu-ments;” “He sounded really honest and sincere;” or “He makes you stop andthink. ” Even when persuasion is looked at as an interactive process, with twoor more individuals attempting to persuade one another, the onlooker is usu-ally impressed with the fact that few of these situations ever conclude in re-sults that appear to be equal for both individuals. One person seems to com-promise or to give up more than the other. One person will seem to have moreinfluence On the final decision than the other. This chapter examines thecornmunicator>s role in ~rsuasion, attempting to pinpoint what that quality is‘hat ‘ome people have and others apparently do not. We shall look at ways inwhich communicators can improve their abilities as sources of communicationand can thus become more influential with their audiences. Finally, we shallexamine a series of studies that suggest that persuasion may be enhanced if wecan get receivers to activelY participate in the persuasive process.“rhe belief that the source of any message is important to the eventual effect‘f the message is not new It can be traced at least to the ancient Greeks.‘ristOtle regarded the speaker as a force just as important as the receivers or.90THE INFLUENCE OF


View Full Document
Download The Influence of the Communicator
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view The Influence of the Communicator and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view The Influence of the Communicator 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?