对二元权力理论的测试:从与恋人、家人和朋友的人际交往中回想起的控制尝试

Pub Date : 2015-01-01 DOI:10.1075/JAIC.4.1.03DUN
Norah E. Dunbar, A. Johnson
{"title":"对二元权力理论的测试:从与恋人、家人和朋友的人际交往中回想起的控制尝试","authors":"Norah E. Dunbar, A. Johnson","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.4.1.03DUN","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dyadic power theory (DPT; Dunbar 2004) predicts that equal and unequal-power dyads will seek to persuade one another differently because they use different control attempts. This paper seeks to expand the theory’s definition of control attempts beyond dominance by examining convergence behavior, topic avoidance, aggression, deception, and affection or support. Participants answered a survey about the way they interact with an interpersonal partner who is lower in power, equal in power, or higher in power than themselves. Results reveal that, consistent with DPT, equal power partners were more likely than high or low power partners to use a control attempt that emphasized equilibrium, and were more likely to use verbal affection and social support. However, equal power partners were also more likely to use deception and they reported their partner was least likely to be deceptive compared to the other power groups. Low power partners were more likely, compared to equal or high power, to be motivated to submit to their partner, to use topic avoidance, and to experience psychological aggression from their partner. The type of relationship moderated several of these effects.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JAIC.4.1.03DUN","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A test of dyadic power theory: Control attempts recalled from interpersonal interactions with romantic partners, family members, and friends\",\"authors\":\"Norah E. Dunbar, A. Johnson\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/JAIC.4.1.03DUN\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Dyadic power theory (DPT; Dunbar 2004) predicts that equal and unequal-power dyads will seek to persuade one another differently because they use different control attempts. This paper seeks to expand the theory’s definition of control attempts beyond dominance by examining convergence behavior, topic avoidance, aggression, deception, and affection or support. Participants answered a survey about the way they interact with an interpersonal partner who is lower in power, equal in power, or higher in power than themselves. Results reveal that, consistent with DPT, equal power partners were more likely than high or low power partners to use a control attempt that emphasized equilibrium, and were more likely to use verbal affection and social support. However, equal power partners were also more likely to use deception and they reported their partner was least likely to be deceptive compared to the other power groups. Low power partners were more likely, compared to equal or high power, to be motivated to submit to their partner, to use topic avoidance, and to experience psychological aggression from their partner. The type of relationship moderated several of these effects.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JAIC.4.1.03DUN\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.4.1.03DUN\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.4.1.03DUN","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

并矢功率理论;邓巴(Dunbar, 2004)预测,权力相等和不相等的二人组将以不同的方式寻求说服对方,因为他们使用不同的控制尝试。本文试图通过研究趋同行为、话题回避、攻击、欺骗和情感或支持来扩展控制尝试的理论定义。参与者回答了一项调查,内容是他们如何与权力比自己低、权力比自己平等或权力比自己高的人际关系伙伴互动。结果显示,与DPT一致,同等权力的伴侣比高或低权力的伴侣更有可能使用强调平衡的控制尝试,并且更有可能使用言语情感和社会支持。然而,权力相等的伴侣也更有可能使用欺骗手段,他们报告说,与其他权力组相比,他们的伴侣最不可能撒谎。与同等或高权力的伴侣相比,低权力的伴侣更有可能被激励去服从他们的伴侣,使用话题回避,并经历来自伴侣的心理攻击。这种关系缓和了其中的一些影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
A test of dyadic power theory: Control attempts recalled from interpersonal interactions with romantic partners, family members, and friends
Dyadic power theory (DPT; Dunbar 2004) predicts that equal and unequal-power dyads will seek to persuade one another differently because they use different control attempts. This paper seeks to expand the theory’s definition of control attempts beyond dominance by examining convergence behavior, topic avoidance, aggression, deception, and affection or support. Participants answered a survey about the way they interact with an interpersonal partner who is lower in power, equal in power, or higher in power than themselves. Results reveal that, consistent with DPT, equal power partners were more likely than high or low power partners to use a control attempt that emphasized equilibrium, and were more likely to use verbal affection and social support. However, equal power partners were also more likely to use deception and they reported their partner was least likely to be deceptive compared to the other power groups. Low power partners were more likely, compared to equal or high power, to be motivated to submit to their partner, to use topic avoidance, and to experience psychological aggression from their partner. The type of relationship moderated several of these effects.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1