Social systems devise rules for member conduct and often specify punitive action for nonconformity. However, confronting and signaling the intent to punish a rule violator may be an inherently face‐threatening and volatile situation. As such, in this paper we seek to add to the research aimed at minimizing the negative effects of confrontation. We conducted an experiment to examine the impact of linguistic cues and coercive potential on message categorization and on receiver perceptions of threat and face‐sensitivity. Results suggest that threats might be considered a special class of warnings, distinguishable by a speaker‐based locus of punishment Locus of punishment did not, however, impact perceptions of having been warned. These findings thus call into question the assumed parallelism between researcher conceptualizations of threats and warnings and those of typical language‐users. Additionally, targets reported feeling less threatened and perceived more face‐sensitivity, in cases when the speaker was not the source of punishment. Perceptions of threat were decreased when disclaimers were employed and where the message originated from a peer rather than an authority. Power of speech had an impact in ambiguous situations. Implications for researchers and practitioners are discussed.
Article navigation
1 February 1998
Review Article|
February 01 1998
THE INTERPRETATION OF COERCIVE COMMUNICATION: THE EFFECTS OF MODE OF INFLUENCE, POWERFUL SPEECH, AND SPEAKER AUTHORITY Available to Purchase
Michael E. Roloff;
Michael E. Roloff
Northwestern University
Search for other works by this author on:
Gaylen D. Paulson;
Gaylen D. Paulson
Northwestern University
Search for other works by this author on:
Jennifer Vollbrecht
Jennifer Vollbrecht
Northwestern University
Search for other works by this author on:
Publisher: Emerald Publishing
Online ISSN: 1758-8545
Print ISSN: 1044-4068
© MCB UP Limited
1998
International Journal of Conflict Management (1998) 9 (2): 139–161.
Citation
Roloff ME, Paulson GD, Vollbrecht J (1998), "THE INTERPRETATION OF COERCIVE COMMUNICATION: THE EFFECTS OF MODE OF INFLUENCE, POWERFUL SPEECH, AND SPEAKER AUTHORITY". International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 9 No. 2 pp. 139–161, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022807
Download citation file:
Suggested Reading
COERCIVE POTENTIAL AND FACE‐SENSITIVITY: THE EFFECTS OF AUTHORITY AND DIRECTIVES IN SOCIAL CONFRONTATION
International Journal of Conflict Management (March,1997)
Managerial learning: changing times for medical laboratory managers: a personal experience: Sue Vollbrecht interviewed by Jennifer Bowerman
Int J Health Care Qual Assur Inc Leadersh Health Serv (December,2004)
Balancing coercive and non-coercive powers to enhance green supplier integration: do relationship commitment and closeness matter?
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal (June,2020)
Coercive deinternationalisation and host institutional legitimacy
European Business Review (March,2011)
Everyday tracking and extraordinary harm: item finder misuse in digital coercive control
Information and Computer Security (April,2026)
Related Chapters
Coercive Control and Rough Sex
‘Rough Sex’ and the Criminal Law: Global Perspectives
Coercive and enabling controls in the governance of strategic alliances
Governance Issues in Strategic Alliances
Digital Coercive Control and Spatiality: Rural, Regional, and Remote Women's Experience
The Emerald International Handbook of Technology-Facilitated Violence and Abuse
Recommended for you
These recommendations are informed by your reading behaviors and indicated interests.
