PL EN


2015 | 1 | 32-48
Article title

Complaining Decreases the Efficiency of Dialogue as a Method of Social Influence

Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
Purpose: The aim of the paper is to examine the efficiency of complaining as a method of social influence (Doliński, 2005). In Polish culture, complaining seems to be an efficient technique for initiating a dialogue, potentially increasing the effectiveness of persuasive messages expressed in a conversation. Methodology: The hypothesis was tested in two natural experiments. In the first one, a random sample of persons (n=246) were asked to let the experimenter through to the checkout counter at a supermarket. The request was preceded either by (1) a dialogue, (2) a complaint, or (3) no prior contact. It was either substantially or seemingly justified. In the second study, customers in a shop (n=46) were invited to pursue conversation initiated with (1) a positive statement or (2) a complaint regarding an extensive range of products. Findings: Study 1 proved that a seemingly justified request preceded by complaining is less effective (65.6 per cent) than a request preceded by a dialogue (93.8 per cent); this result is similar to the result of the control group (53.1 per cent). When the request was substantially justified, both dialogue and complaining seemed equally effective (86 per cent and 90 per cent respectively) – more effective than the results of the control group (46 per cent). In Study 2, positive and negative remarks initiating a conversation triggered similar responses in terms of willingness to pursue the dialogue (73.1 per cent and 78.3 per cent respectively). Constraints to research: Natural experiments presented in the paper were not controlled for such variables as environmental factors or individual differences. Originality: Complaining has never been subject to systematized examination as a method of social influence.
Year
Issue
1
Pages
32-48
Physical description
Dates
published
2015-03-15
Contributors
  • Kozminski University
author
  • University of Warsaw
References
  • Białek, M. (2012). (Bez)refleksyjność w niekonwencjonalnych sytuacjach prośby. Management and Business Administration. Central Europe 20(4): 46–59, http://dx.doi.org/10.7206/mba.ce.2084-3356.22.
  • Białek, M. i Handley, S.J. (2013). Overriding Moral Intuitions – Does It Make Us Immoral? Dual-Process Theory of Higher Cognition Account for Moral Reasoning. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 77: 298–301.
  • Białek, M. i Sawicki, P. (2014). Can taking the perspective of an expert debias human decisions? The case of risky and delayed gains. Frontiers in Psychology, 5: 989, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00989.
  • Bless, H. (2001). Mood and the use of general knowledge structures. In: L.L. Martin and G.L. Clore (eds.), Theories of mood and cognition: A user’s guidebook (9–26). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Cialdini, R.B. and Kenrick, D.T. (1976). Altruism as hedonism: a social development perspective on the relationship of negative mood state and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,34(5): 907–914, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.34.5.907.
  • Cialdini, R.B. and Schroeder, D.A. (1976). Increasing compliance by legitimizing paltry contributions: When even a penny helps. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(4): 599–604,http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.34.4.599.
  • Clark, H.H. and Schunk, D.H. (1980). Polite responses to polite requests. Cognition, 8(2): 111–143, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(80)90009-8.
  • De Neys, W. (2006). Dual processing in reasoning two systems but one reasoner. Psychological Science, 17(5): 428–433, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01723.x.
  • DeJong, W. and Oopik, A.J. (1992). Effect of legitimizing small contributions and labelling potential donors as “helpers” on responses to a direct mail solicitation for charity. Psychological Reports 71(3), 923–928, http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/PR0.71.7.923-928.
  • Dolinski, D. (1996). The mystery of the Polish soul. BW Johnson’s effect à rebours. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26(6): 1001–1005, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199611).
  • Doliński, D. (2005). O tym, co pozytywnego może wyniknąć z narzekania. In: M. Drogosz (ed.), Jak Polacy przegrywają, jak Polacy wygrywają. Gdańsk: GWP.
  • Dolińska, B. and Doliński, D. (2006). To command or to ask? Gender effectiveness of “tough” vs. “soft” compliance-gaining strategies. Social Influence, 1(1): 48–57, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1553451.0500314571.
  • Doliński, D., Grzyb, T., Olejnik, J., Prusakowski, S. and Urban, K. (2002). Dialog jako metatechnika wpływu społecznego. Tryb komunikacji a efektywność techniki „liczy się każdy grosz”. Studia Psychologiczne, 40(3): 127–152.
  • Dolinski, D., Nawrat, N. and Rudak, I. (2001). Dialogue involvement as a social influence technique.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(11): 1395–1406, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01461672012711001.
  • Domurat, A. and Zieliński, T. (2013). Niepewność i niejasność jako uwarunkowania decyzji ekonomicznych.Decyzje, 20: 21–47. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.10.
  • Evans, J.S.B. (2011). Dual-process theories of reasoning: Contemporary issues and developmental applications. Developmental Review, 31(2): 86–102, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2011.07.007.
  • Evans, J.S.B. and Stanovich, K.E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8(3): 223–241, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/174569161 2460685.
  • Fay, N., Garrod, S. and Carletta, J. (2000). Group discussion as interactive dialogue or as serial monologue: The influence of group size. Psychological Science, 11(6): 48–486, doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00292
  • Flora, J. and Segrin, C. (2000). Relationship development in dating couples: Implications for relational and personal wellbeing. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(6): 811–825, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407500176006.
  • Fraser, C. and Hite, R.E. (1989). The effect of matching contribution offers and legitimization of paltry contributions on compliance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 19(12): 1010–1018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1989.tb01235.x.
  • Freedman, J.L. and Fraser, S.C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2): 195–202, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0023552.
  • Fointiat, V. (1998). Rationalization in act and problematic behaviour justification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28(3): 471–474.
  • Johnson, W.B. (1937). Euphoric and depressed moods in normal subjects. Journal of Personality 6(2): 79–98.
  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  • Kowalski, R.M. (1996). Complaints and Complaining: Functions, Antecedents, and Consequences.Psychological Bulletin 119(2): 179–196, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.119.2.179.
  • Kowalski, R.M. (2002). Whining, griping and complaining: positivity in the negativity. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(9): 1023–1035, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10095.
  • Kowalski, R.M. and Cantrell, C.C. (2002). Intrapersonal and interpersonal consequences of complaints.Representative Research in Social Psychology, 26: 26–33.
  • Langer, E., Blank, A. and Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36: 635–642.
  • Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Meyers, R.A., Kauffeld, S., Neininger, A. and Henschel, A. (2011). Verbal interaction sequences and group mood: Exploring the role of team planning communication. Small Group Research, 42(6): 639–668.
  • Mackiewicz, R. (2000). Rozumowanie Warunkowe w interpretacji teorii modeli umysłowych: psychologiczne badania eksperymentalne. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego.
  • Pennycook, G., Trippas, D., Handley, S.J. and Thompson, V.A. (2014). Base rates: Both neglected and intuitive. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(2): 544–554, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034887.
  • Perrine, R.M. and Heather, S. (2000). Effects of picture and even-a-penny-will-help appeals on anonymous donations to charity. Psychological Reports, 86(2): 551–559, http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/PR0.86.2.551-559.
  • Pronin, E. (2008). How we see ourselves and how we see others. Science, 320(5880): 1177–1180, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1154199.
  • Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology 5(2): 207–232, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9.
  • Wojciszke, B. (2004). The negative social world: Polish culture of complaining, International Journal of Sociology, 34: 38–59.
  • Wojciszke, B. and Baryła, W. (2001). Kultura narzekania i jej psychologiczne konsekwencje. In:. J. Bralczyk and K. Mosiołek-Kłosińska (eds.), Zmiany w publicznych zwyczajach językowych. Warszawa:RJPpPPAN.
  • Wojciszke, B. and Baryła, W. (2005). Kultura narzekania, czyli o psychicznych pułapkach ekspresji niezadowolenia. In: M. Drogosz (ed.), Jak Polacy przegrywają, jak Polacy wygrywają. Gdańsk: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-4aeb78ce-954d-474a-aefd-7f233442c767
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.