Three experiments were conducted to test the effectiveness of a rejection-thenmoderation procedure for inducing compliance with a request for a favor. All three experiments included a condition in which a requester first asked for an extreme favor (which was refused to him) and then for a smaller favor. In each instance, this procedure produced more compliance with the smaller favor than a procedure in which the requester asked solely for the smaller favor. Additional control conditions in each experiment supported the hypothesis that the effect is mediated by a rule for reciprocation of concessions. Several advantages to the use of the rejection-then-moderation procedure for producing compliance are discussed.
This study examined links between anxiety pertaining to having one's skin evaluated by others and intention to participate in sport/exercise, general self-esteem and dermatological quality of life. Data assessing dermatological-related social anxiety, perceived acne severity, intention to participate in sport/exercise, self-esteem and dermatological quality of life were obtained from 50 acne patients. Results showed dermatological-related social anxiety to be negatively associated with intention to participate in sport/exercise, self-esteem and dermatological quality of life. The relationship between patient-rated acne severity and outcome variables was found to be partially mediated by reported levels of dermatological-related social anxiety. The current findings suggest that how one perceives their skin to be evaluated by others has implications for self-perceptions and may act as a barrier to sport/exercise participation.
An experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis that a person positively biases his assessment of the intelligence of a person whom he is able to persuade easily. In one condition, persuaders and observers saw a subject confederate easily convinced by the persuaders' arguments. In two other conditions, the confederate either was not convinced by the persuaders' arguments or did not indicate how he was affected by the arguments, According to prediction, it was found that relative to observers of the influence attempts, persuaders attributed higher levels of intelligence to yielders than to nonyielders. This effect resulted from a tendency of persuaders to enhance the intelligence of yielders and a tendency of observers to derogate the intelligence of yielders. The findings were interpreted in terms of a desire to promote a sense of internal control.In a recent article, Kelley (1971) has suggested that we may often bias our attributions about people and events in a way that serves to reinforce an "internal control" orientation: "attribution processes are to be understood, not only as a means of providing the individual with a veridical view of his world, but as a means of encouraging and maintaining his effective exercise of control in that world [p. 22]." A sense of competence (White, 19S9), "originship" (deCharms, 1968), or internal control (Rotter, 1966) is seen as highly desirable from Kelley's perspective, and biased attribution is seen as a technique for perpetuating and promoting such an orientation to one's environment.Support for this formulation can be seen in studies investigating locus of causality attributions under conditions of success and failure. Subjects tend to attribute causality to themselves when their efforts have produced favorable outcomes but attribute causality to other factors when the outcomes are unfavorable (e.g., Johnson, Feigenbaum, & Weiby, 1964;Jones, Gergen, & Davis, 1962; Streufert & Streufert, 1969). Kelley (1971) has contended that such data are consistent with l The authors would like to thank Harold H. Kelley for his helpful comments on an earlier version of this article. Thanks are also due George Thomas for his aid in the running of subjects.Requests for reprints should be sent to
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.