Different styles of influence tactics affect the likelihood of receiving support from peers

Masafumi Kamada, Katsuyoshi Fuchigami

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

This study examines how the use of influence tactics between peers affects the likelihood of eliciting social support. The participants (261 college students) were asked to imagine themselves in one of six scenarios, which described a hypothetical peer agent who usually uses specific influence tactics and the strength of the friendship. Then the participants rated the likelihood of supporting the agent, when the agent confronted a stressful situation. The result shows that the participants gave less spontaneous support to an agent who used hard influence tactics, such as restricting their freedom in choosing a course of action. Regarding emotional support, when they are in a close relationship with the agent, the participants gave the most spontaneous support to the agent using soft influence tactics, such as ingratiation. Participants gave steady socio-emotional support to agents using rational influence tactics, regardless of their relationship. This study also examined how influence tactics affect the participants' impression of the agent.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)70-76
Number of pages7
JournalShinrigaku Kenkyu
Volume78
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2007

Fingerprint

Social Support
Students

Keywords

  • Influence tactics
  • Interpersonal interaction
  • Social support

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

Different styles of influence tactics affect the likelihood of receiving support from peers. / Kamada, Masafumi; Fuchigami, Katsuyoshi.

In: Shinrigaku Kenkyu, Vol. 78, No. 1, 04.2007, p. 70-76.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kamada, Masafumi ; Fuchigami, Katsuyoshi. / Different styles of influence tactics affect the likelihood of receiving support from peers. In: Shinrigaku Kenkyu. 2007 ; Vol. 78, No. 1. pp. 70-76.
@article{b81913b2532445ada2c18b692524f5ee,
title = "Different styles of influence tactics affect the likelihood of receiving support from peers",
abstract = "This study examines how the use of influence tactics between peers affects the likelihood of eliciting social support. The participants (261 college students) were asked to imagine themselves in one of six scenarios, which described a hypothetical peer agent who usually uses specific influence tactics and the strength of the friendship. Then the participants rated the likelihood of supporting the agent, when the agent confronted a stressful situation. The result shows that the participants gave less spontaneous support to an agent who used hard influence tactics, such as restricting their freedom in choosing a course of action. Regarding emotional support, when they are in a close relationship with the agent, the participants gave the most spontaneous support to the agent using soft influence tactics, such as ingratiation. Participants gave steady socio-emotional support to agents using rational influence tactics, regardless of their relationship. This study also examined how influence tactics affect the participants' impression of the agent.",
keywords = "Influence tactics, Interpersonal interaction, Social support",
author = "Masafumi Kamada and Katsuyoshi Fuchigami",
year = "2007",
month = "4",
language = "English",
volume = "78",
pages = "70--76",
journal = "Shinrigaku Kenkyu",
issn = "0021-5236",
publisher = "Japanese Psychological Association",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Different styles of influence tactics affect the likelihood of receiving support from peers

AU - Kamada, Masafumi

AU - Fuchigami, Katsuyoshi

PY - 2007/4

Y1 - 2007/4

N2 - This study examines how the use of influence tactics between peers affects the likelihood of eliciting social support. The participants (261 college students) were asked to imagine themselves in one of six scenarios, which described a hypothetical peer agent who usually uses specific influence tactics and the strength of the friendship. Then the participants rated the likelihood of supporting the agent, when the agent confronted a stressful situation. The result shows that the participants gave less spontaneous support to an agent who used hard influence tactics, such as restricting their freedom in choosing a course of action. Regarding emotional support, when they are in a close relationship with the agent, the participants gave the most spontaneous support to the agent using soft influence tactics, such as ingratiation. Participants gave steady socio-emotional support to agents using rational influence tactics, regardless of their relationship. This study also examined how influence tactics affect the participants' impression of the agent.

AB - This study examines how the use of influence tactics between peers affects the likelihood of eliciting social support. The participants (261 college students) were asked to imagine themselves in one of six scenarios, which described a hypothetical peer agent who usually uses specific influence tactics and the strength of the friendship. Then the participants rated the likelihood of supporting the agent, when the agent confronted a stressful situation. The result shows that the participants gave less spontaneous support to an agent who used hard influence tactics, such as restricting their freedom in choosing a course of action. Regarding emotional support, when they are in a close relationship with the agent, the participants gave the most spontaneous support to the agent using soft influence tactics, such as ingratiation. Participants gave steady socio-emotional support to agents using rational influence tactics, regardless of their relationship. This study also examined how influence tactics affect the participants' impression of the agent.

KW - Influence tactics

KW - Interpersonal interaction

KW - Social support

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34250202561&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34250202561&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 17511250

AN - SCOPUS:34250202561

VL - 78

SP - 70

EP - 76

JO - Shinrigaku Kenkyu

JF - Shinrigaku Kenkyu

SN - 0021-5236

IS - 1

ER -