{"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":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":"4 1","pages":"42-62"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"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\":41908,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Argumentation in Context\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"42-62\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"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\":\"Journal of Argumentation in Context\",\"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\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","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":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
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.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Argumentation in Context aims to publish high-quality papers about the role of argumentation in the various kinds of argumentative practices that have come into being in social life. These practices include, for instance, political, legal, medical, financial, commercial, academic, educational, problem-solving, and interpersonal communication. In all cases certain aspects of such practices will be analyzed from the perspective of argumentation theory with a view of gaining a better understanding of certain vital characteristics of these practices. This means that the journal has an empirical orientation and concentrates on real-life argumentation but is at the same time out to publish only papers that are informed by relevant insights from argumentation theory.