Power Bases and Compliance-Gaining Tactics
French and Raven (1959) provided perhaps the first and the most widely recognized typology of power bases. Legitimate power is based on one’s position or role in various contexts.
For example, instructors and professors have an institutional and contractual right to create the class syllabus and lectures/presentations. Reward power refers to having something of value that other people want. For instance, professors have the final say on grades. Students clearly understand this power and typically respect it. In contrast, coercive power refers to one’s capacity for exacting punishment or negative consequences that the target fears. Again, the professor can punish students by docking them for lateness or lack of discussion. Referent power concerns whether the target admires and perhaps wants to somewhat identify with the communicator. Some professors are admired by students who want to comply when the professor asks for compliance so they can be seen as having similar attributes and/or be liked by the professor. Finally, expert power concerns having special understanding in a relevant area. That is, you can offer analyses and perspective. Raven and Kruglanski (1970) identified a sixth base, information power. They differentiated this type from expert by explaining that people may or may not be experts in any area, but they have valuable relevant information or data (e.g., technical support for computer systems).Scholars have connected bases of power into behaviors that persuade other people to comply. That is, bases of power should unfold in message behaviors that reflect those bases. So power is seen in power strategies (e.g., Falbo, 1978), influence strategies (Cialdini, 1993), compliance-gaining strategies (Wilson, 2002), control behaviors (Dunbar, 2004), et cetera. From this point of view, then, French and Raven’s power bases should be seen in parallel behaviors.
For example, legitimate power includes behaviors that cause another person to feel obligated to acknowledge the structure of power. Reward and coercive power both include behaviors that control what the other person has through one’s ability to reward or punish. Referent power includes tactics that make another person want acceptance by the communicator. Finally, expert power involves behaviors that convey knowledge or expertise that others value and desire (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1989).Marwell and Schimtt (1976) presented a typology of the kinds of compliancegaining tactics. Table 8.1 reports these different compliance-gaining tactics. Mar- well and Schmitt wanted to determine whether power strategies can be separated according to French and Raven’s power bases. Their results largely supported the idea that power tactics can emerge in line with underlying bases. For example Pre-Giving, Liking, and Promise grouped into a rewards favor. They offered the son rewards or positive feelings (liking) if the son increased studying. Also,
| TABLE 8.1 Marwell and Schmitt's Compliance-Gaining Tactics | |||
| 1. | Promise | Compliance leads to a reward "You offer to increase Dick's allowance if he increases his studying.” | |
| 2. | Threat | Non-compliance leads to a punishment "You threaten to forbid Dick the use of the car if he does not increase his studying.” | |
| 3. | Pos. Expertise | Compliance will be rewarded due to "the nature of things” "You point out to Dick that if he gets good grades he will be able to get into a good college and get a good job.” | |
| 4. | Neg. Expertise | Lack of compliance will be punished because of "the nature of things”) "You point out to Dick that if he does not get good grades he will not be able to get into a good college or get a good job.” | |
| 5. | Liking | Place target in a "good frame of mind” so that s/he will comply "You try to be as pleasant as possible to get Dick in the 'right frame of mind' before asking him to study.” | |
| 6. | Pre-Giving | You give your target a reward before requesting compliance "You raise Dick's allowance and tell him you now expect him to study.” | |
| 7. | Aversive | You punish the target until s/he agrees to comply | |
| Stimulation | "You tell Dick he will not be allowed to drive until he studies more.” | ||
| 8. | Debt | Remind the target of what s/he owes you "You point out your sacrifices to pay for Dick's education, so he owes it to you to get good grades to get into a good college.” | |
| 9. | Moral Appeal | Tell target s/he is immoral if s/he does not comply "You tell Dick that it is morally wrong for anyone not to get as good grades as s/he can and that he should study more.” | |
| 10. | Self-Feeling | You tell the target they will feel better about him/ herself if they comply | |
| (Positive) | "You tell Dick he will feel proud if he gets himself to study more.” | ||
| 11. Self-Feeling | Tell target they will feel worse about themselves if they do not comply | ||
| (Negative) | "You tell Dick he will feel ashamed of himself if he gets bad grades.” | ||
| 12. Altercasting | Indicate that a person with "good” qualities would comply | ||
| (Positive) | "You tell Dick that because he is a mature man he naturally will want to study harder and get good grades.” | ||
| 13. Altercasting | Say that only a person with "bad” qualities would not comply | ||
| (Negative) | "You tell Dick that only someone very childish does not study as he should.” | ||
| 14. Altruism | Tell the target that you need compliance very badly, so do it for me "You tell Dick that you want very badly for him to get into a good college and that you wish he would study more as a personal favor to you.” | ||
| 15. Esteem | People you value will think better of you if you comply | ||
| (Positive) | "You tell Dick that the entire family will be very proud of him if he gets good grades.” | ||
| 16. Esteem | People you value will think worse of you if you do not comply | ||
| (Negative) | "You tell Dick that the whole family will be very disappointed in him if he does not get good grades.” | ||
| Adapted from Marwell & Schmitt (1967). | |||
a punishing factor emerged in the use of the tactics Threat and Aversive Stimulation, which dealt with punishing the son until such time as the son’s grades improved. In addition, Positive Expertise correlated with Negative.
Other tactics correlated somewhat as French and Raven’s tyopology implies. Since 1967, scholars have offered other several other dimensions and typologies of compliance gaining tactics (for a comprehensive review, see Wilson, 2002).Two social psychologists from Canada, Bisanz and Rule (1988, 1990; Rule, Bisaznz, & Kohn, 1985), offered their sequence of influence strategies. Their sequence, called the “persuasion schema” stems from research on what people tend to do to obtain compliance from other people. Five separate strategies occur in these five sequences: asking, self-oriented tactics, other-oriented tactics, social principles, and negative tactics. If the first strategy does not work, then the person uses the second, then the third, and so forth.
First, asking is how it sounds. You simply ask the person for compliance. For example, imagine you want to obtain a ride to the airport from a friend (an instrumental goal). So you ask, “Will you please give me a ride to the airport?”
A self-oriented strategy presents reasons why you need compliance. Selforiented tactics include stem naturally from the communicator’s belief that the friend should have complied with the request. So statements such as “You are the only person I know with a car,” or “I really need a ride to get to my job by Monday,” or any other statement that calls attention to your needs falls in this category.
Third, dyad-oriented tactics stress how the other person or both would benefit. At this stage, the person would say things such as “I will fill your tank with gas,” or “I will wash your car when I return,” and so forth. If the person is a good friend, you might say, “C’mon, I will take you to breakfast.”
Next, social principles refers to a strategy that employs normative, rule-based, or altruistic tactics. So, for instance, you might say, “You are a friend, and friends help other friends” (a norm); “We had an agreement to help out each other” (a relational rule); or “Please think of what I need this time” (altruism).
Finally, you could use a negative strategy that emphasizes how the other person will be punished somehow, for example, “You will be sorry if you don’t help,” or “Next time you want to ask a favor from me, think twice.”
To sum up, the persuasion schema sequence would resemble the following (using the same information as above):
You: Hey, how about giving me a ride to the airport Sunday?
Friend: No, I can’t. Sunday is football day all day.
You: But I don’t know anyone else who has a car. And I need to get back to
work Monday morning.
Friend: Yeah, well, I can’t be responsible for that.
You: OK, I’ll tell you what, I’ll fill your car with gas, which will save you
bookoo bucks.
Friend: That’s OK. I’m fine.
You: Wait! I thought we were friends. Help me out here.
Friend: Yeah, well, we’re not that close.
You: I see. Next time you need a friend look elsewhere. You are nothing to
me!
As this sequence demonstrates, asking implies that the person seeking compliance presumes his or her request will be granted—the other person is supposedly going to comply. Given the resistance, you would need to “step down” to selforiented tactics. Given the assumption that the other person would comply out of his or her own volition, certainly this person only needs to hear your reasons for asking. Failing those, however, you need to “step down” again. At this point, the social actor becomes mindful that the person doing the favor might need an inducement to comply. This is perhaps a surprise to you. When the person refuses again, then you want to turn up the pressure for compliance with social forces of norms or altruism and even negative tactics designed to really force the issue by using coercion.
This research has focused on how people typically request compliance for instrumental goals. Imagine, however, that you want to have lunch with someone. Note that you would likely stop at asking and certainly would never get to negative tactics. Also, people most likely use the most polite tactics first (asking and self-oriented) before using inducements in showing benefits to the other person.
Forcing the other person to comply reflects how much more persuasion is needed, and that compliance is certainly not a given.This research on compliance-gaining (and compliance-resisting) tactics is both enormous and specific. That is, many strategies and tactics have emerged in the research that overwhelms attempts to synthesize (Wilson’s, 2002, book is very comprehensive and specific on this topic). Having said that, we can offer a few conclusions and suggestions:
Conclusion 8.1: Power is complex, multidimensional, and reflected in various compliance-gaining strategies and tactics.
Conclusion 8.2: Power is fluid, meaning that power can shift between and among conversational parties as their interactions progress and continue over time (over minutes and years).
Suggestion 8.1: Be mindful that power is not a simple, single, and static property that someone has; instead, power can be communicated in various verbal and nonverbal ways.
Suggestion 8.2: Do not assume that someone will do you favors or provide you resources; for strategic conflict, plan to offer inducements for their compliance based on your power bases.
One theory regarding how power works is that of Dunbar and her colleagues (Dunbar, 2004; Dunbar & Abra, 2010; Dunbar, Bippus, & Young, 2008; Dunbar & Burgoon, 2005). Dunbar’s (2004) propositions are presented in Table 8.2. We point out two predictions directly relevant to strategic conflict. Specifically, Dunbar and colleagues have stated that control behaviors (dominance bids) connect to power bases in an inverted U manner (Propositions 4 & 8). That is, people with high power and people with low power do not need to use many control behaviors; those with high power do not need to say much to get their way, and people with little power fear using control bids because they might suffer negative consequences for doing so. But the people in the middle do engage in control bids because they are relatively equal with each other and, therefore, need to negotiate the power issue. This theory has been largely supported by the literature. Dunbar and Burgoon found a weak inverted U association between power and control behaviors. Dunbar and Abra however found a clearer link as Dyadic Power Theory suggests.
TABLE 8.2 Propositions (P) of Dyadic Power Theory (Dubar, 2004)
P1. Increases in relative authority are related to increases in relative resources.
P2. Increases in relative resources produce increases in relative power.
P3. Increases in relative authority produce increases in relative power.
P4. The relation between perceived relative power and control attempts is curvilinear such that partners who perceive their relative power as extremely high or low will make fewer control attempts, although partners who perceive their relative power as equal or nearly equal will make more control attempts.
P5. An increase in the number of control attempts will produce a greater probability of an increase in the amount of control.
P6. As a partner's perception of his (her) own power relative to that of his (her) partner increases, his (her) counter-control attempts will increase.
P7. Counter-control attempts have a negative effect on control for the initiator of the original control attempt.
P8. The relation between perceived relative power and satisfaction is curvilinear such that partners who perceive their relative power as extremely high or low will report lower levels of satisfaction compared to partners who perceive the relative power differences as small or moderate.
Propositions are quoted exactly as offered throughout Dunbar's (2004) article.