DOCUMENT RESUMt

4 ED 180 074 CG 014 471

,141,
AUTHOR Hoffman, Stephanie E.
TITLE Interpersonal Influence Styles cf Adult Cohorts.
PUB DATE 79
NOTE 10p.: Paper presented at the Annual Scientific
Meeting of the Gercntological Society (32nd,
Washington; DC, November 25-29, 1979). Best copy
available.

EDES PRICE ME01/PC01 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS Adults: *Age Differences: Behavicr Patterns; Cohort
Analysis: Cultural Influences: *Individual Power:
*Influences; *Interaction: *Interpersonal
Relationship: Psychological Patterns: Research
Projects: *Social Behavior'
IDENTIFIERS *Likelihood of Influence Tactic Use Scale

ABSTRACT .

Generational differences in th balance of power

contribute tc varying patterns of influence s ategy use within
cohorts cf young, middle-aged, and cider adults. The self-report
Likelihood of Influence Tactic ,Use Scale was administered to 10 males
and 10 females in each of three cohort groups tc investigate the
influenCe tactics used at different age levels. Respondents rated
their likelitiocd to use influence tactics in intimate, 4arent, child
and test-friend elationships. Younger adults were Most likely to use
influence tactics in all relationships. Middle-aged adults used
influence most with their children. Older adults uped influence
tactics most in their intimate relationships. Inditect/emoticnal
strategies ve;e employed more frequently by females. Adult children
andolalderly pgrents had difficulty directly influencing each other
and resorted to indirect/emoticnal strategies. All cohorts used "
direct rational strategies Most often With friends, less often with
intima es and least often with parents. Overall, there vas much
siva loi ity in influence styles by cohorts, genders and in
relationships. results suggest-that influencing is a function of both
culturally socialized behavioral predispositions and the -power .

nV.

differvtial of individuals in a relationship. (Author/NRB).

*****************************************'******************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best (that can be made
frcm the original document.
,************************************************4**********************

4
a

INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE STYLES OE ULT COHORTS

7
S.B. HOFFMAN

GERIATRIC RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND CLINICAL CENTER

VA WADSWORTH MEDICAL CENTER
LOS ANGELES, CA

Paper presented at,the 32nd Annual Gerontological Society Meeting

1.

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS

U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. MAT RIAL HAS BEEN eRANTED BY
EDUCATION &WELFARE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
EDUCATION 4 .4
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN RE Pk).
DIJCIED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM
: THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN.
ATING IT POINTS QF VIEW OR OPINIONS
I STATED DO. NOT NECESSARILY REPRE-
SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
EDUCAT'ON POSITION OR POLICY INFORMATION CENTER (ERIO)."

x:Ae *Mk 707,A,,n 'i .

 in interpersonal influence processes is an area
Cohort differences devoted
little explored empirically. Theorists have
of humaa behavior
dtmensionalizatitil of influence (although influence
much thought be Some developmental
tolf power).
often takes a back seat bp issues childhood and recently in
studies exist, especially in earlyfamily relationships (Boxer, 1979;
examinations of intergenerational
Studies of influence processes in
Wood, Weinstein, & Parker, 1967). Falbo's 1977
conducted. For example,
unicohort samples also have been ofundergraduates is perhaps the first
study of the infklence tactics
structure of such tactics. Falbo asked
attempt to derive an inductive
resp6nd to the topic "How I get my way".
college-aged students to bo yield 16 discrete tactics.
Such responses were conteht analyzed
rated their stmitarity and by means of MDS, two bipolar
Expert judges
dimensions were derived.
Falbo's work but expands it
The study to be discussed is based on
bp a) develop a more devOopmentally valid list of interpersonal
differential use of such tactics in
influence tactics; b) efamine
relationships; and c) examine sex and cohort
.

various significant The research is based on a

differences in likelihood of tactic use,. of changing sex roles; the .

involving the impact

conceptual framework differences
utililing specific tactics; certain matUrational
costs of
and the effect of patticuJar. power-
in interpersonal processes; Specifica y, it was
imbalances within significant relationships. in balance of powç within
lt
A
propoaed that generational differences contributed to a varying
certain significant relationships have within three cohorts of young,
pattern of influence strategy use permits easier,
middle-aged and older adults. This power imbalance direct, less emotional
(usually the more
less costly influence tactics Also, it is_
)
powerful interactant.
tactics) to be utilized by the more
roles and concomitant interpersonal
assumed that the changes in sex
time have contributed bp a varying pattern of gender
behaviors over
behaviors across the three generations.
more
t4at younger cohorts would use
In general, it was proposed that
sfrategies than the oldest cohort;
direct, rational influence
direct and rational in their ,
males would be mbre likely to be
youngest cohort); and that in
influencing than femaies (except in the the changes in balance of
the marital an0 parent/Child relationship,
!contribute bp a varying
power across the three generations would
pattern of influence tactic usage.

Method of procedure
tested, a m;ore complete list of
Before these hypotheses were
original 16 (see Table 1 ) was
influence tactics adding to Falbo's
in each.cohort and 15 of each.gender,
r derived. Ninety persons, 30 their close
how they got their way in
.

In depth abo4t
..were interviewed
tiomes of,conflict over behavicrs, norms, and
relationships.during .Thitresponsea were content
analyzed and an
1000Xsonality di erences.
24actica were added, fOr a botal of 39 tactics (see;
additional
Mae .1) ,
-A,
.,,.;ir7.4r,14,1rmlr'-fovoN , 4E,, .
 rated the
Similft to Falbo's procedure, a panel of expert judges
procedure was
pairwise similarity of these tactics ar4 a NW scaling
derived, however. Falbo's two
used. No simple dimensional scheme was then used
dimensions of direct/indirect and rational/nonrational were
If cons'ensus on ratings
by the judges to rate each of the 39 tactics.
into one of four quadrants
was achieved, a tactic was then placed
direct/umotional (hot),
kliown as strategies: direct/rational (dry),
(see Table 2).
indirect/rational (sl), and indirect/emotional (warm)
in subsequent data
Tactics were collapsed into strategies for use
analyses.
(Likelihood ot
The 39 tactics were incorporated into an LITU Scale
rate their
Influence Tactic Us *ale). Respondents were asked to of not at all
likelihood of using each tactic on a four-point scale
significant extant
likely to very likely, for each of four
relationships: intinte, parent, child, and best friend. As a
to designate
criterion validity index, respondents were also asked
whether they had or had not used a lactic on two self-rePorted
each of their designated
- occasions of influence in the past /ear in
relationships.
in this
Ten males and ten females in each birth cohort particpated
from university
study. The young adult sample was derived jobs, and exercise
undergraduates, middle-aged adults from classes,
retirement apartment house, and
salons, and older adults from jobs, a
Caucasian and
from a retired teachers' roster. All subjects were 18 21,
between the ages of
middle-class. Young adults were
middle-aged from 30 - 45, and old foam 60 80.

Data analysis
by biserial
COnvergent validity of the LITU Scale was deArmined
the LITU scale.
correlation at the actual tactic use scale with
have been due to social
Correlations were lag, but poor results may
behaviors, and limited use of
desirability biases in reporting actual
Content validity.was
behaviors in only two Occasions of influence.
stratetgies explained
high and reliability of subscales (the four
previously) was mcderately high.
measures analysis of
The LITU Scale was analyzed by a repeated
being the repeated measure,
variance SAS program (with relationships
independent variables). Dependent!
cOort and gender the two other each ct the .0our strategy
irariables V*re likelihood ct (Ise scorns for
noninfluence tactics.
subscales and an additiOnal sUbscale of
dividing through by total score
Subscale scores were standard
to cOntrol foc response set biza.

.13 +741ittlisigkitPr;r,TArtirc=tv:Vcer' "n'et,73e.s.'

 Results

Total_influehcin9. In terMs of the likelihood of influencing by

means of the sum total of influence tactics, it was expeaed that
males would have higher total scores than females and that Middie-aged
adults';dould have higher total scores than the young or, old cohort.
Also, in the parent/child relationship (traditionally conceptualized
as the socializing relationship), more influencing will occur than in
any other relationship: Interactions between variables will modify
these global hypotheses. For instance, young males and females are
expected to be comparable in their likelihood of influencing, because
of the stronger impact on this cohort of societal changes in sex role
pDCMS. Additionally, the parent/child relationship for the oldest,
cohort switches the balance of power, and thus for the oldest cohort,
more influencing will probably occur in the intimate relationship.
Thus, cohort x gender and cohort x relationship interactions were
predicted for total amount of influencing. However, only the cohort x
relationship interaction was significant (p .029). Across all
relationships, the younger cohorts are reporting the greatest
likelihood for influencing. In all relationships, young adults ar
equally high inkluencers. Middle-aged adults influence most with
their children, less with parents and intimates, and even less with
best friends. The oldest cohort is most likely to influence in-their
intimate relationship, And significantly less with their, best friends.

Analysis of Individual Strategies

Indirect/Rational and Direct tional Strate9ies. There were no

differences in likelihood.of tactic use in Ehe sly (IR) and hot (DE)
strategies. Subjects ip all cohorts, genders, and.close relationships
were equally likely to &m these strategies, although this refuted
several hypotheses. Perhaps a reluctance to report being likely to
use these tactics held across all cohorts, and thus all wererequally
low in their reporting of their likelihood of using.these less
socially desirable ways of influencing.

'Indirectinmotional Strategy. It was expected that females across

all cohorts would bevore likely to use warm tactics (tactics falling
into the,indirect/eMotional strategy and rather cbstly ba employ
0
,because of requiring muCh cognitive analysis of the pertner s
susceetipklities and also because of emotional drain). This
hYPOthib1S:W4s supported.(p 4.005); A cohort X relationship
interac4on.klserheid (p 4 03) . Young and 04 Addlts Elbow .no
signifiCant differences across relationships in their use orWarm
i
.tactics. Middle-aged adults'report the most likelihood of using warm.
tactics with parents'and intimates, less with children and best
friends. With their intimates, young use more warm tactics than do
laddle-a9edadalts. Alth their parentsr young and middle-aged adults
49Midlifferjr4 their use of warm taCtics. With their Children, the
414:00eArnore.wat*teCtiog than:the middletaged. With their best

3
7717.?"e'ekg44440***414Ntri,+4,0*. , 1i. ry
1/41/1410tle-'701
 than the middle-aged. The
friends, the young use more warm tactics
that the middle-aged use more warm
only anomalous finding here is other close relationships,
tactics in their marriages than in some with the other
although less than young adults do. In OoMbloation
inimicble-aged marriages, it
other finding of kigh use of dry tmctics
for use of many different tactics of
appears that marriage is an arena with the
influence for-the mdddle-aged. This must be tempered
adults arp most
reminder that for total influencing, middle-aged
else close bp them.
likely to influence their chil:jren than anyone
cohort x
The Direct tional Strategy. For the dry strategy, a
There is a very
relationihip interactiOn was significant (p 4 .04).
bir all cohorts:
similar pattern of use across relationships reported
likelihood of using dry tactics with
young adults report breatest
and least,with parents.
friends, less likelihood with intimates,
as do older adults.
Middle-aged adultssalso report the same pattern, a.relationship varies
HOgever, the level ofjuse of dry tactics within
relationship, ndddle-aged adults are
by cohort. In the intimate older or
significantly more likely bp use dry tactics than either adults do
cohorts. With-their parent's, young and middle-aged
younger
using dry tactics. With th6ir
not differ in their likelihoo0.of
significanqy more dry tactics than-
children, middle-aged adults use relationship;,as in the intimate
'older adults dd. And in the friend
using.significantly more dry
relotionship, mdddle-aged adults report
tactics than do young or old adults In analyzing this pattern of
cohorts dry tactics are more
findings, it appears that across all
equitable power
likely to be utilized in relationships with in some
structures, such as in best friend relationships and greater number of
because of their
marriages. The middle-aged,cohort, in more cf
re3ources4.is also able ba employ this less costly strategy to have
adults appear
their relationships. Interestly, mdddle-aged
than younger or older versOns, or
either more equitable marriages 1961) might have marriages more
because of "disenchantment" (Pineo, also use
more than older adults
like friendships. 14iddle-aged adults middle-age0 parentp possess more
piky tactics with their ,children, as friendshipS also appear to
resources elan older parrts,,\Maddle,aged
i/oung or older adults, if use of
more,equitable thantriendships'of
be a function of eqpal powet resources
dry tactics can be assumed bo
id a relationship.

. ,_. noT.
 Discussion
influencing is a function of both culturally
In general, iL appears that
predispositions and the power differential of
socialized IxThavioral cohort is
Also, it appears that the youngest
individuals in a relationship. in all their
older cohorts to influence
more likely than middle aged or costly to them in
often they must use tactics that are (such as joking,
relationshi0s, although
Specifically, these are the warm tactics
order tO do this. relationships
guilt, or sarcasm). Middle aged adults in all their with
pretense, tactics, although they use rlost such tactics
are less likely to use warm parents are also most likely to
use these
their parents. Their eiderl that bOth adult children
their middle aged children. IL seems and so-
tactics with
have a difficult time directly influencinglioach other direct
and old pafents
these indirect means. The use of dry tactics, the most
must resort to and with
of all influence modes, is least likely with parents
and least costly
adult children.
likely than males to use warm
Female's, irue to stereotype, were more socializing 'experience
that the effect of early
.tactics. This would suggest resistent to current cultural trends to
teaching sex typed behavior is females, less
behaviors. Even the younge4k-cOhort of
instrumentalize female expected,
of indirect tactics. It mdght be
practiced in sex typing, made use begin to utilize these tactics
lesi
of women may
however, that future cohorts is a real
Whether the use of warm influence tactics
frequently. therefore resistant to cultural impact
genetic/biological sex difference and
cross-sequential research designs. '
1

must be studied through

in
of this study, however, was the similarity
The most surprising outcome relationships. There were few
influeace styles by cohorts, genders, and in strategies. The
likelihood of using most of the influence typically low, and the
differences in tactics was
likelilpod of use of hot, sly this
self-reported tactics was for the most part high. On the surface,
use of dry or wanm socially
social desirability bias in reporting low.use of these
looks like a although.difficult, may
Observation of influencing, actually employed
noacondoned behaviors,
realistic assessment of the range of behaviors
yield a more respondents do have
occasions. However,, perhaps the study their
during influence
less punitive tactics (costly in terms cf
more success when utilizing (costly in terms of
impact) and lessvnotional tactics tactics much more
negative affective employ dry, warm
emotional drain), and so do actually get their way. According to exchange
fieguently than sly, tlot tactics to in interaction
gains and minimize our costs
theory, we want to maximize our We have seen
In influencing, costs can certainly be high.
1
(Hamans, 1974). power differential
less costly tactics when therelationship
that people do tend to'employ does
permits. However, the context of the
of the relationship tactics that are likely to be
utilized.
have .much control over the

b.

17.., '
 REFERENCES

Boxer, A.M. Intergenerational conflicts and their resolutions in

three-generation families. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual
,Gerontological Society Meeting, November 1979. S.

Falbo, T. Multidimensional scaling of power strategies, Journal.of

Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 537-547.

Homans,.G. Social behavior: Its elementary forms'(2nd Ed.). NY:

Harcourt, Brace & World,c1974.

Pineo, P.C. Disenchantment *the later years of marriage. Marriage and

Family Living, 1961, 29, 3-11.

Wood, J.R., Weinstein, E., & Parker, R. Children's interpersonal tactics.

Sociological Inquiry, 1967, 37, 129-138.

,4 e

44r,.11,c1r,
,r ,
 TABLE I ,

INFLUENCE if/CMS

Name Example

*assertion: I voice my wishes loudly.

for me.
k *bargain: I tell them I'll do something for them if they,do something
rewatd: They believe I can say or do something nibe for them
*compromise: Often, we compromise.
judge: / tell them they're not being fair.
*deceit: I find that flattery often works.
*emotion-agent: I put on a sweet face; I try to sound sincere.
punish: They believe I can dp or say something unpleasant to them..
false fnont: I present myself as being more together than I really am.
*expertiiie: They believe I am knowledgeable in such matters.
pretense: I pretend it doesn't matter much.
personal ID: They believe we should see eye-to-eye on these matters.
*emotion-target: I try to put them in a good mood:
**evasion: I can do what I-want as long as they don't find out about it.
*fait accompli: I do wheit I want anyway.
*hint: I drop hints; I subtly brtng up thp point.
*nag: I often nag, but it works.
authority: They believe I have the right bo the final say.
*persuade: I ask them to do it in a nice way; I coax or say please.
is best.
*reason: I angue logically; I tell all the reasons why my way
helplessness: They know I need them to help me out.
*simple statement: I simply tell them what I want.
cry: I cry.
argue: I yell or argue angrily.
sarcasm: I use sarcasm or exaggeration.
evaluation: I tell them they're acting childish or foolish.
guilt: I try to gain sympathy or make them feel guilty.
moral appeal: I tell them it's the moral thing to dup.
coalition: I try to,ijet others on my side.
intercede: I ask others to intercede for me.
co;ercion: I hit, spank, CT throw things to get my point across.
.example: I influence by example.
experience: I tell them it's good for them.
it they don't do what I want.
*threat3 I tell them I'll do something drastic
silent treatment: I.use ttie silent.treatment.
yield: I give ih.
*thought manipulate: I try to make them think it's their idea.
avoid: I avoid thd6situation.

16, although in
--*Asterisked tactics were inCluded in Falbd-'s original list ct
some cases in a slightly di,fferent form.
Some tactic
Note -- In the LITU scale,s,tactic names were not utilized.
reporting ct their use in
examples were phrased in such a way as to encourage
the_case ct socially undesirable tactics (e.g., nag, deceit).

9
,. , 7.. a. t0.4.,.111,..,;*.,*/!....rf' T:1
 TAIW 2

QUADRANT STRNITGLES.

WARI nor Wrti

SLY DRY
assertion fait accompli
compromise emotion-agent evasion
false front judge
bargain emotion-target give in
hint joke nag
coalition reason -cry avoid
example simple-statement sarcasm . argue
evaluation
intercede 'silent treatment co,_Irc ion
thought manipulate
guilt threA
pretense

-0

00

se

"!

10