Relational Judgments in an Influence Context

James Dillard, MARK T. PALMER, TERRY A. KINNEY

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

23 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We contend that communication episodes tend to focus interactants’attention on one or the other of two relational judgments: dominance or affiliation. Further, when one judgment is relatively more salient, individuals will use the salient judgment as the basis for inferring other aspects of the relationship. To test that notion, a judgment study was conducted in which participants viewed a set of influence messages that varied in degree of dominance and explicitness. The influence context was chosen because it naturally highlighted dominance. After viewing the messages, participants provided ratings of dominance, explicitness, and two aspects of affiliation: liking and involvement. When the resulting data were submitted to a structural equation analysis, it was found that judgments of liking depended on judgments of explicitness and dominance. Judgments of involvement depended on judgments of liking and dominance. Both findings support the claim that one relational judgment may provide the basis for another.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)331-353
Number of pages23
JournalHuman Communication Research
Volume21
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1995

Fingerprint

Communication
structural analysis
rating
communication

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Communication
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Anthropology
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

Dillard, James ; PALMER, MARK T. ; KINNEY, TERRY A. / Relational Judgments in an Influence Context. In: Human Communication Research. 1995 ; Vol. 21, No. 3. pp. 331-353.
@article{0b53045b283c4910bd6c88430f7937e2,
title = "Relational Judgments in an Influence Context",
abstract = "We contend that communication episodes tend to focus interactants’attention on one or the other of two relational judgments: dominance or affiliation. Further, when one judgment is relatively more salient, individuals will use the salient judgment as the basis for inferring other aspects of the relationship. To test that notion, a judgment study was conducted in which participants viewed a set of influence messages that varied in degree of dominance and explicitness. The influence context was chosen because it naturally highlighted dominance. After viewing the messages, participants provided ratings of dominance, explicitness, and two aspects of affiliation: liking and involvement. When the resulting data were submitted to a structural equation analysis, it was found that judgments of liking depended on judgments of explicitness and dominance. Judgments of involvement depended on judgments of liking and dominance. Both findings support the claim that one relational judgment may provide the basis for another.",
author = "James Dillard and PALMER, {MARK T.} and KINNEY, {TERRY A.}",
year = "1995",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1468-2958.1995.tb00350.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "331--353",
journal = "Human Communication Research",
issn = "0360-3989",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

Relational Judgments in an Influence Context. / Dillard, James; PALMER, MARK T.; KINNEY, TERRY A.

In: Human Communication Research, Vol. 21, No. 3, 01.01.1995, p. 331-353.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Relational Judgments in an Influence Context

AU - Dillard, James

AU - PALMER, MARK T.

AU - KINNEY, TERRY A.

PY - 1995/1/1

Y1 - 1995/1/1

N2 - We contend that communication episodes tend to focus interactants’attention on one or the other of two relational judgments: dominance or affiliation. Further, when one judgment is relatively more salient, individuals will use the salient judgment as the basis for inferring other aspects of the relationship. To test that notion, a judgment study was conducted in which participants viewed a set of influence messages that varied in degree of dominance and explicitness. The influence context was chosen because it naturally highlighted dominance. After viewing the messages, participants provided ratings of dominance, explicitness, and two aspects of affiliation: liking and involvement. When the resulting data were submitted to a structural equation analysis, it was found that judgments of liking depended on judgments of explicitness and dominance. Judgments of involvement depended on judgments of liking and dominance. Both findings support the claim that one relational judgment may provide the basis for another.

AB - We contend that communication episodes tend to focus interactants’attention on one or the other of two relational judgments: dominance or affiliation. Further, when one judgment is relatively more salient, individuals will use the salient judgment as the basis for inferring other aspects of the relationship. To test that notion, a judgment study was conducted in which participants viewed a set of influence messages that varied in degree of dominance and explicitness. The influence context was chosen because it naturally highlighted dominance. After viewing the messages, participants provided ratings of dominance, explicitness, and two aspects of affiliation: liking and involvement. When the resulting data were submitted to a structural equation analysis, it was found that judgments of liking depended on judgments of explicitness and dominance. Judgments of involvement depended on judgments of liking and dominance. Both findings support the claim that one relational judgment may provide the basis for another.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84986358790&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84986358790&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1995.tb00350.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1995.tb00350.x

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84986358790

VL - 21

SP - 331

EP - 353

JO - Human Communication Research

JF - Human Communication Research

SN - 0360-3989

IS - 3

ER -