Danette E. Ifert

Understanding Obstacles Preventing Compliance Conceptualization and Classification

Although the obstacle hypothesis has proven useful in understanding communication choices during request sequences, its utility is limited by the lack of explication of the obstacle construct. This article examines the types of obstacles that may be perceived and dimensions that differentiate them. Results suggest that six types of obstacles—possession, imposition, inappropriateness, postpone, no incentive, and recalcitrance—are perceived by individuals in request interactions. These obstacles appear to be distinguishable in the degree to which they reflect unwillingness to comply, inability to comply, and personal characteristics of the requester. The discussion section explores the implications of this conceptualization on understanding request interactions.

Anticipated obstacles to compliance: Predicting their presence and expression

This study examines obstacles preventing influence goal achievement by investigating the obstacles requesters anticipate will be present and/or expressed by targets. Findings indicate that requesters expect that obstacles based on the targets inability to provide the resource are more frequent in the discourse of refusals than are obstacles grounded in the targets unwillingness to assist. When the relationship between perceived intimacy and the type of obstacles present is examined, a greater number of inability obstacles are expected to be present as intimacy increases while fewer unwillingness obstacles are expected to be present as intimacy increases. These relationships do not hold for the types of obstacles expected to be expressed in refusals. The discussion explores how expressed and unexpressed obstacles may affect the creation of request discourse.

The influence of argumentativeness and verbal aggression on responses to refused requests

This study examines the influence that argumentativeness and verbal aggression exert on the types of appeals individuals purport to use in responding to refusals of interpersonal requests. Results suggest positive relationships between argumentativeness and reports of evidentiary appeals and between verbal aggression and reports of nonevidentiary appeals. The interaction of verbal aggression and argumentativeness was not a significant predictor of reports of evidentiary appeals but did predict reports of nonevidentiary appeals. The discussion addresses differences in the types of appeals reported by argumentative and verbally aggressive individuals and concludes with implications for further research.

Examining variation among compulsive communicators in classroom settings

The present study investigates variance among compulsive communicators on the traits of communication apprehension, verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness and the relationship between these three communication traits and self‐perceived competence. Results confirmed a positive relationship between self‐perceived communication competence (SPCC) and argumentativeness and a negative relationship between SPCC and communication apprehension. The hypothesized relationship between SPCC and verbal aggressiveness was not confirmed within the sample studied. These results suggest that compulsive communicators are not a monolithic group but possess a range of competence.

Resistance to Interpersonal Requests: A Summary and Critique of Recent Research

This chapter examines existing research on interpersonal influence by focusing on competing tensions between compliance with and resistance to interpersonal requests. Scholarship on compliance-resistance taxonomies, emotional responses to requests, and the role of obstacles in requesting, resistance, and responding is reviewed within the context of four theoretical perspectives: resource theory, politeness theory, attribution theory, and constructivism. The concluding section presents future research directions for compliance resistance in general and each of the four theoretical perspectives discussed.

Overcoming expressed obstacles to compliance: The role of sensitivity to the expressions of others and ability to modify self‐presentation

The present analysis examines the influence that the individual difference variables sensitivity to the expression of others and ability to modify ones self‐presentation exert on responses to refused requests when specific types of obstacles are stated in a refusal. Results suggest that requesters who are more sensitive to the expression of others and have greater ability to adapt self‐presentation are more likely to engage in further persuasion and less likely to engage in facework when unwillingness obstacles are encountered than when imposition or inability obstacles occur.

Responding to refusals of requests: The role of requester sex on persistence

This study investigates whether the obstacles expressed in refusal of a request influence sex differences in persistence after refusal. Four responses to rejection are examined: the desire to persist with the request and the use of persuasion cues, inquiries, and forgiving statements. Results suggest that males and females enact similar persistence behaviors after refusal.

Look at me when I'm influencing you: Nonverbal messages and persuasion

This review examines three areas of existing research on nonverbal communication and persuasion: credibility, compliance, and deception. Following the review, potential directions for continuing research on the interplay between nonverbal messages and successful persuasion are addressed, including integrating studies of discrete nonverbal channels, assessing the success of nonverbal messages in persuasive settings, and investigating nonverbal cues in interpersonal influence interactions.

The use of rational, emotional, and combination appeals to respond to rejected requests

This study examines persons’ use of three types of appeals: rational, emotional, and combination, to respond to rejected interpersonal requests. Results suggest that persons use more rational than either emotional or combination appeals. When the specific obstacle in the refusal message is taken into account, however, this difference is present only when requesters are highly unable to comply.