Social Influence Strategies Among Japanese and American College Women

Abstract

Social influence strategies of 40 Japanese and 41 American college women were compared. With the use of a free‐response format, respondents were asked to describe how they get their way with their mother, father, male teacher/boss, female teacher/boss, male friends, and female friends. Contrary to expectations, content analysis indicated that Japanese women reported using strong and neutral strategies more frequently and weak strategies less freguently than American women. American women used manipulation (especially sexual manipulation) more frequently and reasoning less frequently than Japanese women. Analyses by target of influence indicated that these differences were not found when the target was a female friend but were demonstrated across most of the other targets.

Social Influence in One-to-One and Group Situations: Predicting Influence Tactics from Basic Group Processes

“…Later studies developed influence tactics questionnaires further, applying them to influence within organizations (Deluga, 199 1 ;Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988;Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980;Krone, 1992;Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990;Yukl & Falbe, 1990), personal relationships (Buss, Comes, Higgins, & Lauterbach, 1987;Cowan, Drinkard, & MacCavin, 1984;Dunn & Cowan, 1993;Falbo & Peplau, 1980), and other influence situations (Falbo, 1977;Marwell & Schmitt, 1967;White & Roufail, 1989). These studies found similar factors of influence.…”

Reactions of Heterosexual African American Men to Women's Condom Negotiation Strategies

“…Other studies (e.g., Dunn & Cowan, 1993; Lam & Barnhart, 2006; Lam, Mak, Lindsay, & Russell, 2004) have indicated there may be potential influence of ethnicity or culture on negotiation attempts. This may be important, as HIV risk reduction messages are increasingly targeted to populations identified as being at greater risk for infection.…”

“…Seal & Palmer-Seal, 1996). Numerous studies have examined the influence of cultural norms and values on sexual decision-making; of these, several(Belk, Snell, Garcia-Falconi, Hernandez-Sanchez, Hargrove, & Holtzman 1988; Dunn & Cowan, 1993; Lam & Barnhart, 2006; Lam, Mak, Lindsay, & Russell, 2004; Steil & Hillman, 1993) have examined cultural context as a possible determining factor in the use of influence strategies. Lam and colleagues (Lam, Mak, Lindsay, & Russell, 2004) found that Asian American students used verbal indirect strategies (e.g., deception, flattery, dropping hints) significantly more than White American students.…”

Influence Attempts in the Consumption Domain: Examining the Concept of a Persuade Package and the Sequencing of Influence Strategies used by Young Adults

“…One frequently cited taxonomy 182 L. Mallalieu of influence strategies was developed by Frazier and Summers (1984 This typology, as with most, includes both coercive and non coercive strategies Influence strategies are often dichotomized in a manner that amounts to a strong versus weak or a coercive versus non-coercive categorization (e.g. Cowan and Avants, 1988;Dunn and Cowan, 1993;Howard et al, 1986;Payan and McFarland, 2005). Although different labels have been applied to this distinction by other researchers, in essence, researchers appear to be distinguishing between strategies that are deemed coercive or manipulative, and those that are not.…”

“…Based on several researchers' (e.g. Buss et al, 1987;Dunn and Cowan, 1993;Yukl et al, 1993) descriptions of strategies and definitions of ''soft'' versus ''hard'' strategies, a coercive strategy is defined as a strategy that is used intentionally to compel or force compliance; whereas a non-coercive strategy does not have that same feeling of pressure associated with it. Marwell and Schmitt (1967) were among the first to examine dimensions of influence strategies.…”