Corresponding author: Agnieszka Gałkowska ( agn.galkowska@gmail.com ) Academic editor: Tomasz Grzyb
© 2018 Agnieszka Gałkowska, Anna Czerniak, Szymon Czapliński, Ryszard Stach.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Gałkowska, A., Czerniak, A., Czapliński, S., & Stach, R. (2018). Serving two masters – What kind of resistance to influence allows maintaining a positive image? Social Psychological Bulletin, 13(4), Article e30544. https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.v13i4.30544
|
Research on social influence proves that an important motive of compliance is the need for a positive evaluation from others. However, there is little knowledge of how people responding to social influence in a resistant way are assessed. This study including 187 people concerns the evaluation of communion and agency of people (protagonists of the story) who, in a situation of unwanted social influence, reacted either with consent or presented one of three types of resistance: reactance, scepticism or inertia. The results showed that the evaluation of the protagonist’s agency was highest when s/he reacted to persuasion with reactance, and lowest for those who behaved compliantly. However, the assessment of the communion of the same behaviours was completely opposite. Such substantial asymmetries between the evaluation of communion and agency of the protagonists reacting in different ways to attempts to influence were noted for each of the types of behaviour except for inertia. In this one case, the evaluation of communion and agency of the protagonist turned out to be almost identical. The results are reflected in terms of self-presentation, politeness theory and the importance of norms in evoking submission to social influence.
resistance to social influence, agency, communion, social perception, reactance, inertia, scepticism, self-presentation
In a world with abundant influences and influential experts, there is an increasing number of situations in which people do not want to be influenced by others, to undertake actions they are coerced into, to agree with an opinion which is forced upon them, to take advice, to accept reasoning or even to consent to somebody’s request. Nevertheless, influence is rarely rejected in a direct way, which is documented by a series of experiments based on the Asch or Milgram paradigm, along with their contemporary replications (e.g.,
The reasons for these findings can be found in the social nature of human life, in our crucial needs: maintaining bonds with others, obtaining acceptance and positive thinking about oneself (
According to self-determination theory, autonomy, independence and control over the situation constitute an exceptionally important aspect of the self (
Studies undertaken in this field, which are considerably less numerous than those regarding the efficiency of techniques of influence, have focused on various areas in which resistance can be manifested and operationalised in various ways. Arguably, resistance to influence can be related both to characteristics evaluated in a positive way and to those that produce much worse associations. It was noted that obedience is manifested or hidden for strategic purposes, i.e., to make an impression on the environment or to protect a sense of identity (
The present study investigated social perception of different types of resistance to social influence. On the basis of
In psychology the term resistance is understood in several ways, depending on the context in which it is discussed. Most of them (including therapy, interpersonal impact, education, rebellion, disobedience, organizational behaviour) have been analysed by
In light of the above, it seems justified to define resistance in relation to social influence, as suggested by Sagarin and Miller Henningsen: “it is an active or passive process, which reduces the interaction with a potential source of influence, i.e. both intentional pressure, the application of techniques of exerting influence and unintentional pressure, e.g. the mere presence or behavioral role model of others” (
In the context of resistance, reaction to changes, disobedience and succumbing to group pressure are most frequently examined. These are slightly different phenomena and the negative response to social influence causing such types of behaviour cannot be explained away by referring to the theory of reactance, if, after
Three different types of resistance are specified in the concept by
Resistance directed at the very situation of influence or the person exerting the influence is seen as reactance, as defined by Brehm’s approach (
People who respond to attempts of influence by means of reactant resistance, most frequently demonstrate it directly, often with anger. Those who react with scepticism – discuss, consider, analyse, evaluate, and point out the disadvantages of a proposition or request. Resistance in the form of inertia is least powerfully expressed – neither the validity of the influence nor its subject is questioned, yet the activity that is compatible with the intention of the influence does not ensue. Sometimes, it may conceal the strategy of stalling for time in the hope that the problem created by the order/request/suggestion will disappear by itself and the whole situation will be resolved.
Differences between types of resistance specified by
The concept of two basic dimensions of social perception, defined as communion and agency, has been germinating in the scientific psychological thought for a long time. There are many terminologies: good-evil socially and good-evil intellectually (
By definition, the dimensions of agency and communion are independent. Nevertheless, the results obtained from research practice show their negative but also positive correlation. A positive relation occurs, for example, when evaluating a person, the halo effect takes place and other positive characteristics will be assigned based on only one positive feature (e.g.
If different people or groups are compared, the attribution of characteristics of both dimensions can be compensatory.
Sometimes it is not worth showing one’s positive communal qualities, for example, compassion and inclination to help, if there is a suspicion that the request for help is manipulative. The label of a person susceptible to being abused, or even duped, is related to the evaluation of that person as naive, which raises doubts about their cleverness/intelligence. Consequently, care for the image of competence can motivate people to show resistance to social influence.
Data on self-presentation are also compatible with these findings:
The objective of this study was to investigate the evaluation of consenting and resisting behaviour (in particular, the three types of resistance as identified by
It was assumed that a version of the story would differentiate the evaluation of the protagonist with regard to agency and communion. In particular, the following findings were expected:
H1 A higher evaluation of the agency of “resistant” protagonists compared to those who agree/yield to influence;
H1 a) in reactions of resistance: the highest evaluation of agency for sceptical protagonists, and the lowest for the inertial ones. The expression of scepticism appears to be more controlled and balanced in comparison to reactance which is often motivated by anger. The leading role of emotions instead of reason is more closely connected with communion than agency (
H2 A lower evaluation of communion in resistant protagonists than in those who agree/yield to influence;
H2 a) in reactions of resistance: the lowest evaluation of communion for protagonists who responded with reactance, and the highest for those who displayed inertia.
H3 Higher evaluation of agency than communion for resistance reactions (scepticism and reactance), while in the case of consent/yielding to influence, the opposite was expected: higher evaluation of communion than agency. With regard to inertia, the evaluation of which was difficult to predict, no hypothesis was formulated.
One hundred eighty-seven students of the Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Krakow University and Rzeszow University of Technology took part in the survey (151 women and 36 men), age range: 17-43 years (M = 21.92; SD = 3.56).
The research subjects were presented with a story in which the protagonist, described as “not being a fan of a healthy lifestyle”, is given a personalised plan of diet and exercises by his acquaintance. The protagonist had not asked for this plan but is forcefully persuaded to implement it. Depending on the version (the main independent variable), the reaction of the protagonist expressed one of the three forms of resistance: reactance, scepticism or inertia but also consent in order to not offend the acquaintance. In addition, the study controlled the influence of the gender of the research subject and of the protagonist. Each respondent was presented with only one version of the story
The collected data was analysed using variance analysis with repeated measurements
The Average Ratings of the Protagonist’s Agency and Communion Depending on Her/His Response to the Social Influence (Version)
Agency | Communion | |||
Version | M | SD | M | SD |
consent | -0.55 | 0.46 | 0.85 | 0.53 |
inertia | 0.26 | 0.60 | 0.37 | 0.37 |
reactance | 0.60 | 0.65 | -0.21 | 0.49 |
scepticism | 0.47 | 0.57 | 0.16 | 0.60 |
The performed variance analysis showed insignificant main effects of the story version, F (3, 183) = 2.44, p = .066, η2 = .038 and the repeated measurement, F (1, 183) = 2.30, p = .131, η2 = .012. However, the interactional effect of the story version and repeated measurement is crucial for the verification of the hypotheses. The effect proved to be statistically significant, F (3, 183) = 68.02, p < .001, η2 = .527, which is shown in Figure
Contrast analyses showed significant differences in the evaluation of the protagonist manifesting each of the resistance reactions vs. consenting reactions in the agency domain (higher agency for resistance reactions). A significantly lower evaluation of agency in the case of consent in comparison with a higher evaluation of this dimension for an inertial response, F (1, 183) = 44.96, p < .001; with a sceptical response, F (1, 184) = 73.31, p < .001, and the highest score of agency with reactance reaction, F (1, 183) = 91.11, p < .001, confirm hypothesis H1. A significantly lower evaluation of agency in the case of inertial behaviour in comparison with the highest evaluation of this aspect for reactant response, F (1, 183) = 8.34, p = .004, was also noted. However, there was no significant diversification between the agency of protagonists showing reactance and scepticism (an insignificantly higher agency was assigned to a reactant person), F (1, 183) = 0.81, p = .369, and between inertial and sceptical responses, F (1, 183) = 3.83, p = .052 (higher agency was assigned to a sceptical protagonist – the results close to statistical significance). In conclusion, the results are only partially compatible with H1a) hypothesis – with regard to the relatively lower evaluation of the agency in inertial protagonists compared to other reactions of resistance.
The perceived agency and communion of the protagonist depending on his/her response to the social influence
Contrasts analyses also showed significant differences in the evaluation of the protagonist manifesting each of the resistance reactions vs. consenting reactions in the communion aspect (higher communion for consent). A significantly higher evaluation of communion in the case of consent in comparison with the lower evaluation of: inertial response, F (1, 183) = 20.80, p < .001, sceptical F (1, 184) = 41.42, p < .001, and reactant behaviour, F (1, 183) = 100.68, p < .001, confirm hypothesis H2. A significantly lower evaluation of communion in the case of reactance in comparison with each form of resistant responses was also noted; The assessment of communion of the person manifesting scepticism (M = 0.16, SD = 0.60) was significantly higher than in the case of reactance F (1, 183) = 12.61, p < .001, and also significantly lower than the evaluation of an inertial protagonist, F (1, 183) = 24.97, p < .001. Among the persons who reacted to the attempts of influence with resistance, the highest level of communion was attributed to those who behaved in an inertial way (M = 0.36, SD = 0.37). The results of contrast analyses show that hypothesis H2a) is confirmed in this study.
Finally, contrast analyses were applied to look for differences between the two aspects (agency and communion) of the evaluation for each version. It was found that only for inertia were there no significant differences, F (1, 183) = 0.85, p = .357, Significantly higher evaluations of agency than communion were found for reactance, F (1, 183) = 52.53, p < .001, and scepticism, F (1, 183) = 8.52, p = .004, while for consent – significantly higher evaluations of communion than agency, F (1, 183) = 143.67, p < .001, i.e., according to the assumptions of H3.
As shown above, the main effect of the version factor in the applied model of analysis proved to be insignificant since it takes into account the joint evaluation in terms of agency and communion. As seen in the chart, agency and communion constitute almost a mirror image of themselves so, if treated jointly, they mutually eliminate the diversification. Only the analysis of the interaction between the story version and an aspect of evaluation (agency/communion), supported by the analysis of contrasts, showed differences in the evaluation of protagonists reacting by way of reactance, scepticism, inertia or consent, with regard to every aspect of the evaluation. It may be concluded that the version of the story differentiates the evaluation of the protagonist, if every aspect of evaluation is considered individually. This can be proven by additionally performing two separate one-factor analyses, where the independent variable is the version of the story, while the dependent variable is only agency or only communion. In both cases the relevant main effects are obtained: for agency, F (3, 183) = 36.65, p < .001, η2 = .375, while for communion, F (3, 183) = 34.91, p < .001, η2 = .364, the description of which is unnecessary since it would repeat the conclusion of the analysis of interaction, which has already been discussed.
The obtained results confirmed the assumptions about different social perceptions of showing various reactions to social influence. The protagonist of the story, persuaded by an acquaintance to adopt a diet and a schedule of exercises, was evaluated in a different way depending on whether they consented unwillingly or showed resistance.
Reactant behaviors turned out to be perceived as the most agency related, skeptical -only slightly less so. The evaluation of inertial behaviour in the agency domain was significantly lower than that of the other two reactions of resistance, but was still significantly higher than the ratings obtained for consenting behaviour.
These results can be related to the perception of activeness on the part of a subject of influence and directness of the manifestation of his unwillingness or objection to persuasion, which is compatible with, for example, Coetsee’s approach who, specifically in the dimension of activeness, describes various reactions to the introduction of changes in an organisation (
Also
In the realm of communion, the consenting subject received the highest rating, while reactant behaviour scored the least points. The top score of consent is almost self-explanatory. An interesting case is presented by inertial reaction to unwanted influence, which appears to be communion-related. Arguably, the lack of a directly expressed objection enables the perception of the actor as being respectful of the rules of politeness towards others and being considerate of their well-being. According to politeness theory (
The results obtained in our research indicate a lack of significant differences between the evaluation of skeptical and inertial reactions to social influence (in terms of both communion and agency). Admittedly,
The study has shown a marked asymmetry between the perception of agency and communion with regard to particular types of resistance to influence and consent to undertake actions compatible with the persuader’s intentions. The more a given behaviour was perceived as communion-related, the lower score it obtained in the agency dimension. This is demonstrated in the present study, and especially in the scores for the reaction of consent to social influence. Its low rating in the agency dimension could have many reasons.
In the story presented to respondents the status of its protagonists was similar and the points of emphasis were placed on reluctance on the part of the subject of influence (thinks that it is a very bad idea). Consent can be interpreted in this regard as unnecessary submissiveness since there are no grounds to think that it is employed to obtain some benefit. Therefore consent can be perceived as weakness, irrationality, a mistake or lack of control over the situation. Still there are some benefits, if only in terms of a comfortable social interaction and a good rapport. Although this benefit is reaped by the agent of influence, the norm of reciprocity, which is fundamental to the existence of communion, is satisfied.
A strong asymmetry also concerns reactance, which is highly rated as being agency-related but scores very poorly in relation to communion. A possible explanation with respect to communion was discussed earlier; the explanation of its high score for agency, apart from such factors as activeness and power, could be that people who behave in this way focus on their own needs and interests which they actively protect. Possibly, some inconsistencies obtained in the results of research on self-presentational aspects of reactance, as discussed by, inter alias,
There is a strong effect of negativity in evaluating the morality of other people, i.e., negative items of information are considered more diagnostic, more important and sought after in comparison to positive ones. The effect is not found, however, with reference to competence-related traits (
The least profitable strategy in terms of image in the communion dimension is reactance, which received the highest score in the agency domain. Resistance, as mentioned above, is not a frequently expressed reaction, except in teenage rebellion (
As demonstrated in the present study, the discrepancies between the evaluation of reactions in the domains of communion and agency, as well as the fact that social costs related to a lower rating in one are compensated by gains in the other – are compatible with the previous findings about the relationship between the two domains.
Our results seem to be compliant with the above statements: between the rejection of influence (disadvantageous to communion) and submission to it (disadvantageous to agency), there seems to be a place for inertial “basically yes, but not just yet.” Also the specialist literature on the subject of social influence (
Given the paucity of sources published on the subject, our research performs an exploratory function. The stories presented to the respondents described a relatively “weak” situation of influence: the influence was direct but unconnected with a relation of power, was exerted by an acquaintance - a person familiar enough to visit the subject of influence; however, the protagonists were not related by strong interpersonal bonds and the influence concerned an issue of little importance to the influenced party (the request was neither pro- nor anti-social), although potentially positive in nature (the implementation of the program of exercises and a diet). We assumed that if differences emerged in the evaluation of people who consent and who oppose in a ‘weak’ scenario of influence like ours, in cases of stronger influence we would obtain differences of degree rather than of quality. Nevertheless, the area of study requires further research that might develop along the following lines: the use of requests and instructions of a pro- and anti-social nature (to manipulate the force of coercion thus presenting a varying degree of justification to resistance); adoption of the influenced person’s perspective (unlike in the present study – that of an observer) and focusing research on inclinations to choose a specific strategy of resistance or consent in response to factor manipulation. Another worthwhile research task would be to diversify the descriptions of the stories with a view to bringing out the respective interests of the sender and the receiver of influence.
An important limitation of our study is the fact that only fictionally described protagonists were assessed instead of people who act in real life. Accordingly, in the next investigations it would be worth focusing on the actual behaviour of people who resist influence and on those witnessing such behavior.
In addition to outlining the direction of further research, the findings can also have a practical application: knowing that the assessment of people with different responses to social influence is compensatory in nature - lowering it in one dimension entails raising it in another one - can help, for example, in solving self-presentation dilemmas, in encouraging people to resist negative influences, and can be useful in projecting a more effective impact on others in the areas of positive social importance (health, education, etc.).
The research has been financed from the resources for the statutory activity of the Faculty of Psychology and Humanities WPiNH/DS/5/2016, continued in the year 2017 (WPiNH/DS/5/2016-KON).
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
The authors have no support to report.
The data analyzed in this paper are freely available via the PsychArchives repository. For further information see the "Supplementary Materials" section.
Data and codebook of this study are accessible via the PsychArchives repository.
Gałkowska, A., Czerniak, A., Czapliński, S., & Stach, R. (2018). Supplementary materials to "Serving Two Masters – What Kind of Resistance to Influence Allows Maintaining a Positive Image?". PsychOpen. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.2343