Chapter 14

Click on the following links - please note these will open in a new window

Article 1: Schwartz, S. H. (2013). Societal Value Culture: Latent and Dynamic. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(1), 42-46. doi:10.1177/0022022113513404

Questions that apply to this article:

1. The authors notes that one of his aims in this research was “I sought to justify aggregating the values of individual societal members as a meaningful way to estimate the prevailing cultural values, despite low within-country consensus on individual values.” Knowing that there may not be consensus of values among individuals, can you still find enough similarity in the values of audience members to persuade them through a speech?
2. The author compares and contrasts Greenfield’s “cultural values” and what he calls individual values. He further notes that Greenfield attributes the greater variation of values within countries than between countries to the “invariably . . . great[er] socio-demographic variability within their borders.” Do audiences bring with them both individual and cultural values? How can you, as an analyst of an audience, determine these values?
3. The researcher suggests that the socio-demographic forces may not affect individuals’ value priorities more strongly than their unique personal characteristics, their personality, temperament, genes, health, and so on. He further suggests that equally important, the particular ways that individuals adapt their values to their environment depend on their personal characteristics. This makes it sound very difficult to analyze the values of an audience made up of multiple individuals. Using what you have learned from the Duck and McMahan chapter, how would you use the information from this article to your advantage for a persuasive speech?

Article 2: Hendrickson, B., & Goei, R. (2009). Reciprocity and dating: Explaining the effects of favor and status on compliance with a date request. Communication Reports, 36(4), 585-608.

Questions that apply to this article:

1. This study questions the “norm of reciprocity” that is discussed in our text. The authors of this study argue that there may be an emotional component in accepting a request after a favor that the norm of reciprocity does not account for. What do you think about this argument? Do you feel a prosocial emotional response when complying with a request after a favor? Do you feel obligated to comply with the request after accepting the favor?
2. As young adults in the dating world, how do the results of this study align with your experience of asking people out on dates or being asked out on dates? Do you think the results of this study would be different if the requestor were a woman instead of a man? Why or why not?
3. The study found that lower socioeconomic status (SES) increased ratings of physical attractiveness, gratitude, and compliance with the request. The authors suggested that this may be due to the notion that the favor took proportionately more resources than for a person of higher SES. Does this explanation resonate with you? What other factors might there be to explain this?
4. This study found no significant connection between the favor (i.e., buying a drink) and the perception of ulterior motives. How can you explain this in terms of your understanding of relational communication? Do you ever feel that there are ulterior motives in this situation? Why or why not?
5. The authors suggest that their findings may have implications for other forms of sequential persuasion, such as foot-in-the-door. What might those implications be? How might emotional responses factor into foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face requests?