Between a rock and a hard place: Self-concept regulating and communicative properties of distancing behaviors.

Abstract

This study investigated 2 properties of distancing behaviors-a class of deliberate and inadvertent behaviors that insulate persons from the consequences of negative self-discrepant behavior and signal that they should not be associated with that behavior. In Phase 1, high-choice Ss in a multiple audience variation of the induced compliance paradigm who read counterattitudinal essays on affirmative action in the presence of a Black woman did not show typical dissonance-induced attitude change. Phase 2 found that this absence of attitude change was significantly related to the extent to which Ss distanced themselves from theiressays before reading them. In Phase 3, distancing behaviors also served as discounting cues for naive observers and were significantly related to their ratings of Ss' attitudes. These results are discussed in terms of the self-regulatory and communicative roles of distancing behaviors in social interaction.

Smile when you say that: Effects of willingness on dispositional inferences

“…Interestingly, although Fleming and Darley (1989) did find effects of the target's delight or disappointment on inferred attitudes, this information preceded the content of the speech. Also, in Fleming and Rudman's (1993) research, distancing cues occurred prior to the essay, during the essay, and after the essay, but distancing cues were highest prior to the essay. In contrast, in Schneider and Miller's work the manipulation of enthusiasm was concurrent with the speech.…”

“…In a related study (Fleming & Rudman, 1993), pro-affirmative action participants read an essay that opposed affirmative action while being observed by an AfricanAmerican confederate. When the participants displayed relatively few distancing behaviors (e.g., excuses, negative facial expressions), observers inferred correspondent attitudes.…”

On Being Consistent: The Role of Verbal–Nonverbal Consistency in First Impressions

“…Extant research suggests that people who exhibit behavioral inconsistency are likely to elicit negative evaluations. For example, individuals who exhibit discrepant verbal and nonverbal behavior appear to be deceptive or confused (Argyle, Alkema, & Gilmour, 1971;Fleming & Rudman, 1993;Heinrich & Borkenau, 1998;Zuckerman et al, 1982). Dishonesty is associated with negative evaluations (e.g., Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007), and there may be evolutionary precedents for such patterns (cf.…”

“…Even after people reach adulthood, behavioral coherence remains important: Adult judgments of facial emotion are strongly disrupted by inconsistent emotional information from other channels of communication (Aviezer et al, 2008;de Gelder & Vroomen, 2000;de Gelder, Bocker, Tuomainen, Hensen, & Vroomen, 1999;Ethofer et al, 2006;Massaro & Egan, 1996;Van den Stock, Grezes, & de Gelder, 2008). In fact, adults often believe that others are being deceptive when the words and nonverbal behaviors of those others are inconsistent (Fleming & Rudman, 1993;Heinrich & Borkenau, 1998;Zuckerman, Driver, & Koestner, 1982). In general, then, the absence of behavioral coherence impairs the clarity and perceived validity of communication.…”

Mediating ambiguity: Narrative identity and knowledge workers

“…The aspects of the change that risk damaging claims to specialist expertise are 'written out' out of the story as an act of insincere compliance. Any actions that conform, and are therefore at odds with the story but not written out, can still be accounted for through processes such as mystification or external compulsion in the infinite narrative malleability of the past (Fleming & Rudman, 1993;Strangleman, 1999).…”