This article was downloaded by: [University Of South Australia Library]

On: 13 July 2015, At: 03:09

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Southern Communication Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsjc20

Strategies used by college students to

persuade peers to drink
a
Nancy Grant Harrington
a
Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication ,
University of Kentucky
Published online: 01 Apr 2009.

To cite this article: Nancy Grant Harrington (1997) Strategies used by college students
to persuade peers to drink, Southern Communication Journal, 62:3, 229-242, DOI:
10.1080/10417949709373057

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10417949709373057

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever
as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the
authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy
of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified
with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms
& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/
terms-and-conditions
 Strategies Used by College
Students to Persuade Peers to
Drink
Nancy Grant Harrington
Downloaded by [University Of South Australia Library] at 03:09 13 July 2015

I n the effort to prevent and reduce alcohol and other drug abuse among young
adults and adolescents, researchers and practitioners have developed a variety of
prevention programs. Results from most of these programs, especially those that
are school-based, generally have been disappointing (Bangert-Drowns, 1988; Hansen,
1992), although programs featuring a social skills approach have had some success
(Tobler, 1992). In addition to providing information about alcohol and other drugs,
social skills programs address peer pressure resistance, teaching participants different
ways to say no, usually in the context of role plays.
One of the criticisms of social skills programs is that the resistance and persuasive
strategies presented in the role plays, typically having been written by program develop-
ers, may not be entirely realistic and may not represent the full array of potential strate-
gies available to interactants (Alberts, Miller-Rassulo, & Hecht, 1991; Reardon,
Sussman, & Flay, 1989). Researchers argue that we need to understand the social influ-
ence processes involved in alcohol and other drug encounters more completely before
we can offer sound resistance advice in social skills programming. Until recently, how-
ever, such information has not been available.
Research by Hecht and colleagues (Alberts, Hecht, Miller-Rassulo, & Krisek, 1992;
Alberts et al., 1991; Hecht, Alberts, & Miller-Rassulo, 1992; Hecht & Driscoll, 1994) and
by Harrington (1995), reviewed below, has begun to elucidate the social influence pro-
cesses involved in alcohol and other drug encounters. Information such as who is
involved, where they meet, what persuasive and resistance strategies they use, and the
effects of the strategies serves to clarify the nature of the interaction. To the extent that
social skills prevention programs can include more realistic and valid information on
the persuasive encounter, they will be better equipped to serve those individuals who
want to be prepared to resist persuasion. The study reported here extends this line of
research by investigating the strategies used by college students to persuade others to
have an alcoholic drink.

REVIEW OF RESEARCH
Over the past two decades, communication researchers have given considerable
attention to the study of compliance gaining and resistance strategies (see McLaughlin,
Cody, & Robey, 1980; Miller, Boster, Roloff, & Seibold, 1977,1987). The introduction of
compliance research to the field of communication is attributed to the study by Miller
et al. (1977) which directed attention away from source or situational characteristics
and instead emphasized messages as the communicative means of exerting control over
one's environment. Specifically, the researchers were interested in determining the
strategies available to persuaders, how to usefully classify the strategies, and how situa-
tional and individual differences affected the choice of message strategy.

229
 230 THE SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL

Since that initial study, hundreds of manuscripts on compliance gaining and resis-
tance have been written and published. Investigators have worked to develop taxono-
mies of compliance gaining and resistance strategies (e.g., Hazelton, Holdridge, &
Liska, 1982; McLaughlin et al., 1980). They have debated the advantages of deductively
versus inductively derived taxonomies (Boster, Stiff, & Reynolds, 1985; Wiseman 8c
Schenck-Hamlin, 1981) and checklist versus generated message methodologies (Boster,
1988; Burleson & Wilson, 1988; Hunter, 1988; Seibold, 1988). They have identified the
various situational and individual difference variables that operate in compliance epi-
sodes (e.g., Cody & McLaughlin, 1980; Cody, Woelfel, &Jordan, 1983) and have consid-
ered the effects these variables have on message preferences (Boster, Levine, &
Kazoleas, 1989; Boster & Stiff, 1984; Cody, McLaughlin, & Schneider, 1981; Cody,
O'Hair, & Schneider, 1982; Dillard & Burgoon, 1985; Lim, 1990).
Downloaded by [University Of South Australia Library] at 03:09 13 July 2015

More recently, researchers have been turning their attention to strategies occurring
in the context of serious social issues, such as sexual harassment situations (e.g., Bing-
ham, 1988; Bingham & Burleson, 1989), patient non-compliance (e.g., Burgoon et al.,
1987), marital conflict (e.g., Witteman & Fitzpatrick, 1986) and situations involving
pressure to use alcohol and other drugs (e.g., Alberts et al., 1991, 1992; Harrington,
1995; Hecht et al., 1992; Reardon et al., 1989). Attention to this latter setting is war-
ranted for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the excessive use of alcohol
among college students.
A recent national survey estimated that approximately 85 percent of college stu-
dents drink alcohol (Wechsler, Davenport, Dowdall, Moeykens, & Castillo, 1994). This
compares to approximately two-thirds of the American adult population (Public Health
Service, 1990). A higher percentage of college students drink compared to their same-
age peers who do not attend college, and college students are more likely to binge
drink than non-college students (Johnston, O'Malley, & Bachman, 1992; Wechsler et
al., 1994).
A variety of problems are associated with alcohol consumption among college stu-
dents, including academic, relational, physical and legal problems (Berkowitz & Per-
kins, 1986; Wechsler et al., 1994). The incidence of problems increases with increased
alcohol consumption, but the problems are present to some extent in all categories of
drinkers (i.e., non-binge drinkers, infrequent binge drinkers, and frequent binge
drinkers; Wechsler et al., 1994).
College presidents report alcohol abuse as the number one problem on campuses
(The Carnegie Foundation, 1990), and most universities have put some sort of alcohol
education program in place (Gadaleto & Anderson, 1986). Although evaluations of
some of these programs have been positive, education or knowledge-based programs
typically have had limited effects on college students' drinking behavior (Burnham &
Nelson, 1984). The basic information provided by most of these programs regarding
alcohol and its effects simply is not sufficient (Seibold & Thomas, 1994). Students also
need to have the personal and social skills necessary to successfully navigate the college
drinking environment, whether that means remaining abstinent or engaging in non-
binge drinking.
The importance of including skills training in programming has been demon-
strated by adolescent substance abuse prevention research that shows more positive
and sustained effects for personal and social skills training programs than knowledge-
or affective-based programs (Tobler, 1992). To the extent that research into persuasive
and resistance strategies can provide information to prepare students to confront per-
suasive situations and effectively resist, communication researchers will make an impor-
tant contribution to substance abuse prevention practice. This work has begun with an
investigation of the strategies used by students.
The program of research by Hecht and his colleagues (Alberts et al., 1991, 1992;
Hecht et al., 1992) was designed to investigate how high school and college students are
 ALCOHOL STRATEGIES 231

offered alcohol and other drugs, and how they accept or refuse those offers. Alberts et
al. (1991) analyzed 70 narrative accounts from 33 high school and community college
students detailing times they were offered alcohol or other drugs and turned the offer
down, and wanted to refuse but did not. Based on these narratives, the researchers
developed typologies for who made the offer, what was offered, where the offer was
made, how the offer was made, how the offer was accepted or rejected, and the reasons
why the offer was accepted or rejected. They identified six types of persuasive strategies:
simple offer, minimization, availability, appeal to group norms, statement of benefits,
and strong persuasive offer (repeated attempts or combination of two or more strate-
gies) . The most common strategy was a simple offer, followed by minimization and avail-
ability. They identified four types of refusals: simple no, explanation, deception and
leave. The most common refusal strategy was a simple no, followed by an explanation.
Downloaded by [University Of South Australia Library] at 03:09 13 July 2015

Alberts et al. (1992) interviewed 69 students from a lower/middle-class high school,

having them recount times when they were offered alcohol or other drugs and turned
the offer down, and times when they wanted to refuse but did not. Most initial offers
were simple offers, but follow-up offers were more likely to be persuasive or complex.1
The most common resistance strategies to either type of offer were simple no and no
desire, although respondents were more likely to reject a simple offer and accept a
complex offer.
Hecht et al. (1992) asked 452 college students to describe times when they had
resisted offers of alcohol or when they had resisted offers of drugs. They identified four
resistance strategies: simple no, suggest alternative, statement of no desire and state-
ment of dislike. The majority of refusals were statement of dislike and simple no. The
majority of offers were simple offers. Resistance to a complex offer was more likely to be
met with additional persuasion.
This line of research has advanced the substance abuse prevention literature by pro-
viding a more thorough depiction of alcohol and other drug encounters. Because par-
ticipants gave retrospective accounts, however, an objective measure of interactional
behavior—exactly what was said, how it was said, how often it was said—is missing
(Metts, Sprecher, & Cupach, 1991). A methodology using participant interaction would
provide greater insight into the various strategies and the possible outcomes of the
encounters. This was the purpose of a study by Harrington (1995).
Using a multiple goals framework, Harrington (1995) investigated whether there
was an alcohol resistance strategy that would result in fewer persuasive attempts as well
as greater persuader attraction toward the resister and satisfaction with the relationship
(instrumental, identity and relational goals; Clark & Delia, 1979). Initial focus group
research and a pilot study were conducted to learn more about the types of resistance
strategies college students endorsed. Focus groups were asked to discuss the kinds of
settings in which alcohol might be offered and refused, and what types of persuasive
and resistance strategies would be used. The pilot study paired students in persuader
and resister roles, and placed them in the context of a simulated small party to study
the types of strategies used naturally by college students. A total of 17 interactions were
videotaped and transcribed.
Results from the focus group interviews and pilot study indicated that college stu-
dents commonly preferred and used four resistance strategies: direct refusal (e.g.,
"No," "Thanks, no"), alternative (e.g., "I'd rather have a soft drink"), excuse (e.g., "I
have to get up really early"), and explanation (e.g., "I don't like the taste of alcohol").
These strategies paralleled those found by Hecht et al. (1992). Results also revealed
that students attended to the positive (desire to be liked) and negative (desire to
remain autonomous) face wants of their persuaders (Brown & Levinson, 1978, 1987).
That is, students neither reported (in the focus groups) nor used (in the pilot study)
resistance strategies that were explicitly antagonistic or threatening to persuaders' face
wants, and in fact, demonstrated behavior in the pilot study that mitigated face threat.
 232 THE SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL

For example, resisters would say they were grateful for the offer of the drink (support-
ing positive face wants) and that the persuader should not be dissuaded from drinking
just because the resister was not (supporting negative face wants). Tracy, Craig, Smith,
and Spisak (1984) found that compliance messages varied in the amount of attention
paid to face wants. Therefore, Harrington (1995) varied the four resistance strategy
types by presence or absence of face support. As in the pilot study, the confederate
expressed gratitude for the offer to operationalize positive face, and to operationalize
negative face support suggested that the persuader not be deterred by the refusal and
have a drink if he/she wanted one.
The main study placed college student subjects and trained confederates (one
male, age 23; one female, age 22) in one-on-one interactions in the context of a simu-
lated small party. The subjects' task was to attempt to persuade their role play partner
Downloaded by [University Of South Australia Library] at 03:09 13 July 2015

to have an alcoholic beverage; subjects were unaware that the partner was a confeder-
ate. The confederates had been trained to never accept the beverage and in any given
interaction to use one of the resistance strategy types (e.g., direct refusal with face,
alternative without face). Results indicated that no refusal strategy resulted in signifi-
cantly fewer persuasive attempts. However, the alternative strategy, which consisted of
suggesting an alternative behavior to drinking an alcoholic beverage, tended to stop
the persuader more quickly than the other strategies. Further, those persuaders who
received resistance strategies with face support were significantly more attracted to
their partners and more satisfied with the relationship than those who received resis-
tance strategies with no face support.

HYPOTHESES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The present study turned attention to the persuasive strategies used by the college
students, and further examined the relationship between resistance and persuasive
strategies. Hypotheses and research questions are based on previous research attempt-
ing to describe persuasive strategy repertoires of college and high school students. For
example, Hecht and colleagues identified six different persuasive strategies based on
participants' recall of events. To what extent do objective behavioral observation data
correspond to those recalled strategies?
RQ1: What persuasive strategies are used to offer alcoholic beverages?
Hecht and colleagues also drew a number of conclusions about the relationship
between persuasive and resistance strategies. For example, the most common type of
persuasive strategy was a simple offer; although the majority of initial offers were simple
offers, follow-up offers were more likely to be complex; resistance to a complex offer
was more likely to be met with additional persuasion. To what extent do behavioral
observation data support these relationships?
HI: The most common persuasive strategy overall will be a simple offer.
H2: The more common initial offer will be a simple offer (versus a complex offer).
H3: The more common follow-up offer will be a complex offer (versus a simple
offer).
H4: Resistance to a complex offer will more likely be met with additional persuasion
than resistance to a simple offer.
Finally, although the study by Harrington (1995) did not find a significant relation-
ship between specific resistance strategies and the persistence of persuasive attempts, the
relationship between specific resistance and persuasive strategy types can be explored.
RQ2: Is there a relationship between the resistance strategy offered and the follow-
up persuasive strategies used?
 ALCOHOL STRATEGIES 233

METHOD

Participants
Participants were 132 first and second year undergraduate students enrolled in
basic communication courses. Sixty-nine were female and median age was 20 years. Pre-
tests measured participants' attitudes toward alcohol consumption, and only those with
positive attitudes toward alcohol were scheduled to be persuaders.2 Participants
received extra class credit for taking part in the research.

Experimental Conditions
Participants were randomly assigned to one of eight resistance strategy conditions
Downloaded by [University Of South Australia Library] at 03:09 13 July 2015

representing type of strategy (i.e., direct refusal, alternative, excuse, explanation)

crossed with presence or absence of face support. In any given interaction, a participant
would receive only one form of resistance strategy (e.g., direct refusal with face sup-
port). Participants were not given any instructions on how to persuade their partner,
and thus were free to use any persuasive strategy they desired. Therefore, although the
confederates were limited to the type of resistance strategy they could use, the subjects
could use any strategy in their persuasive repertoire. This design allowed for a test of
the range of persuasive strategies across conditions, and the effects of resistance strate-
gies on persuasive strategy use within conditions. Participants and confederates were
matched by gender. Previous communication research (Alberts et al., 1991, 1992;
Hecht et al., 1992; Reardon et al., 1989) reported "friend," "acquaintance," and
"stranger" relationships, but did not specify the gender of both dyad members. At this
stage of the research, therefore, matched gender was used to control for the effects of
"mixed sex" persuasion.

Experimental Procedures
Participants came to the laboratory at individually-arranged appointment times. After
completing pretest questionnaires, participants were informed that they momentarily
would be taken to another room where they were to pretend they were at a party, having
a conversation with their role play partner who was an "acquaintance from speech class."
At some point during the conversation they should offer their partner an alcoholic bever-
age. The partner may or may not want the drink, but in either case, their goal was to try to
get the partner to take it. They could stop trying if (1) the partner took the drink, or (2) they
became convinced the partner did not want the drink. (The confederate resister would
not take the drink.) Participants were told the ostensible purpose of the research—to
study small party behavior. They were told they would have up to 10 minutes to do the
role play, after which they would be asked to complete additional questionnaires.
After a few minutes passed, during which time the researcher ostensibly was
explaining the protocol to the role play partner (confederate), the researcher came
back to the participant, led him/her into the small party room, then brought the con-
federate into the room. Then, as "host," the researcher introduced the two, saving that
they might remember each other from class. The researcher told the participant and
confederate to help themselves to anything they wanted (snacks and non-alcoholic bev-
erages were available—including non-alcoholic beer and wine to serve as a substitute
for alcohol), told them to enjoy the party, then left the room.

Coding
All interactions were videotaped. The sections of the videotapes containing the per-
suasive attempts were transcribed for coding. The researcher and another coder con-
 234 THE SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL

tent analyzed the transcripts from a random sample of interactions to create a category
system for persuasive strategies.3 Then, from another random sample of interactions,
they each coded a total of 108 strategies for strategy type, reaching 96.3% agreement
(perfect matches on 104 of 108 coded). Disagreements were resolved through discus-
sion. Then remaining persuasive strategy types were coded by the researcher. Finally,
the research and other coder each coded all 132 interactions for the number of persua-
sive strategies present, reaching an inter-rater correlation of .88. Again, disagreements
were resolved through discussion.

RESULTS
The first research question concerned the types of persuasive strategies used to
Downloaded by [University Of South Australia Library] at 03:09 13 July 2015

offer alcoholic beverages. Six categories, five of which closely paralleled those found by
Alberts et al. (1992), were identified: simple offer, statement of benefits, availability,
minimization, appeal to group norms, and facilitation. A simple offer consisted of simply
asking if the target would like to have a drink, either initially or after being refused.
Examples are "You want a drink?" "Want some goodies?" or "Are you sure?" Statement of
benefits consisted of telling the target that she/he would obtain some benefit from con-
suming the drink. Examples are "It tastes good," 'You'll relax," and 'You'll like it."
Availability consisted of the persuader indicating that there was alcohol available. Exam-
ples are "We have chardonnay, beer, white zinfandel," "There's plenty," and "Help your-
self." Alberts et al. (1992) used the category availability when the persuader merely
offered the substance or indicated it was available without making a verbal comment,
but the meaning is analogous. Minimization consisted of the persuader reducing the
amount offered or downplaying the risk associated with drinking. Examples include
"Just one," "Split one," "One won't hurt you," and "It'll wear off by 6:00 so you can drive
home." Appeal to group norms consisted of the persuader applying some sort of norma-
tive pressure. Examples are "Others are drinking," "You ought to have one," and "Don't
make me drink alone." A sixth category was identified that did not parallel any in
Alberts et al.'s (1992) system. Facilitation consisted of the persuader actively intervening
to offer the target assistance in some fashion. Examples include "Let me pour you one,"
and "I'll drive you home." Finally, Alberts et al. (1992) denned their category, strong per-
suasive offer, as "situations where the offerer repeatedly and stringently attempted to
convince the recipient to accept the offer or combined two or more of the strategies"
(p. 136). Because the data for this study were actual statements, repeated attempts
could be coded separately, so this category was unnecessary.4
The first hypothesis predicted that the most common persuasive strategy would be a
simple offer. This hypothesis was supported (%2 = 329.86, df= 5,p< .001). In the course
of all the interactions, a total of 532 attempts were made (M= 4.0; SD= 2.9, with a range
of 1-14 attempts). Of those 532 attempts, 46.4% were simple offers. The next most com-
mon strategy was availability at 17.3%, followed by statement of benefits at 14.7%,
appeal to group norms at 11.5%, minimization at 7.3%, and facilitation at 2.8%.
Hypotheses 2, 3 and 4 compared simple offers versus complex offers, so in order to
test these hypotheses, a new attempt category was created. In keeping with the analyti-
cal strategy of Alberts et al. (1992), a complex offer is defined as any persuasive strategy
besides a simple offer. Table 1 presents summary data for the frequency of attempts by
the attempt number (e.g., first, second, third) and strategy type (simple versus com-
plex) . The second hypothesis predicted that the more common initial offer will be a
simple offer. Support was found for this hypothesis (x2 = 24.53, df= 1, p<. 001). Of the
132 initial offers, 71.2% were simple offers. The third hypothesis predicted that the
more common follow-up offer will be a complex offer. This hypothesis also was sup-
ported. In total, 400 follow-up offers were made, and 247, or 61.8% of them were com-
plex (X2= 22.30, df= 1, />< .001).
 ALCOHOL STRATEGIES 235

Table 1
Frequency of Persuasive Attempts by Attempt Number and Strategy Type

Simple % (n) Complex % (n)

FirstAttempt 71.2% (94) 28.8% (38)

Second Attempt 57.4% (66) 42.6% (49)
ThirdAttempt 41.4% (36) 58.6% (51)
Fourth Attempt 24.1% (14) 75.9% (44)
Fifth Attempt 25.6% (10) 74.4% (29)
Sixth Attempt 42.3% (11) 57.7% (15)
Downloaded by [University Of South Australia Library] at 03:09 13 July 2015

Seventh Attempt 30.0% (6) 70.0% (14)

Eighth Attempt 26.7% (4) 73.3% (11)
Ninth Attempt 0.0% (0) 100.0% (12)
Tenth Attempt 11.1% (1) 88.9% (8)
Eleventh Attempt 0.0% (0) 100.0% (7)
Twelfth Attempt 33.3% (2) 66.7% (4)
Thirteenth Attempt 50.0% (2) 50.0% (2)
Fourteenth Attempt 50.0% (1) 50.0% (1)
TOTAL 46.4% (247) 53.6% (285)

The fourth hypothesis predicted that resistance to a complex offer will more likely
be met with additional persuasion than resistance to a simple offer. To test this hypoth-
esis, a oneway ANOVA was conducted, with type of initial attempt (simple or complex)
as the independent variable and number of follow-up attempts as the dependent vari-
able. Contrary to expectations, results indicated that a simple offer had an average of
3.2 follow-up attempts while a complex offer had an average of 2.6 follow-up attempts,
although this difference was not statistically significant [f(l,130) = 1.28, p = .259, n.s.].
Hypothesis 4, therefore, was not supported (see Table 2).
The second research question explored the relationship between the type of resis-
tance strategy used and the resulting follow-up persuasive strategies. Of interest was
whether a particular resistance strategy tended to elicit relatively more of a particular
persuasive strategy, compared to the other resistance strategies. Participants' follow-up
persuasive strategies (coded according to the original six categories) were submitted to
a 4 (direct refusal, alternative, excuse, explanation) x 2 (face support or no face sup-
port) x 2 (female, male) MANOVA.5 Using Wilks' criterion, a significant main effect
was found for strategy type, 7*1(18,314) =3.10, p<. 001, r\2- .14, but not for politeness or
gender; there were no interaction effects. Univariate tests revealed that the relationship
for strategy type was present for simple offer [F(3,116) = 4.69, p <. 005, T|2 = .11] and
excuse [F(3,116) = 10.58, p < .001, r\2 = .21]. Post hoc tests using a Student Newman
Keuls (a = .05) procedure indicated that there were significant differences between
direct refusal and the remaining three resistance strategies, with a direct refusal tend-
ing to prompt more simple offers as follow-up strategies. There also were significant dif-
ferences between excuse and the remaining three resistance strategies, with an excuse
tending to prompt more minimizations as follow-up strategies (see Table 3).

DISCUSSION
This study has provided further insight into the nature of the alcohol persuasion
and resistance encounter for college students, supporting, clarifying and extending the
 236 THE SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL

Table 2
Analysis of Variance of type of initial attempt by number of follow-up attempts

Source df SS MS F p

Attempts 1 10.8709 10.8709 1.2859 .2589

S/Attempts 130 1099.0078 8.4539
Total 131 1109.8788

characterization offered by previous research. It seems that college students' reper-

toires of persuasive strategies are almost as limited as their repertoires of resistance
Downloaded by [University Of South Australia Library] at 03:09 13 July 2015

strategies. That is, there seem to be a set of four resistance strategies and six persuasive
strategies students have at their disposal. The six persuasive strategies identified in this
study ranged from basic simple offers to more elaborate appeals to group norms, from
emphasizing the availability and benefits of alcohol to minimizing the request or risk
involved. The most common strategy used by persuaders, however, was the simple offer,
and the most common initial offer was a simple offer. It seems that the individual who
chooses to resist an offer of alcohol not only is faced with limited types of persuasive
strategies, but is most likely to receive an "easy" one.
There are those occasions, however, when initial offers are more complex, and in
those cases, we might suspect more of a resistance challenge. Indeed, participants in
previous studies (Alberts et al., 1991,1992; Hecht et al., 1992) reported that resisting a
complex offer led to more persuasion. This study, however, did not find differences in
responses to resistance to initial simple versus complex offers. In fact, although not sta-
tistically significant, the trend was for more attempts to follow a rejected initial simple
offer than an initial complex offer.
What could account for these inconsistent findings? One explanation could be the
studies' different methodologies. A subject reconstructing the interaction might recall
the initial and follow-up strategies as being more similar, or might make sense of a par-
ticularly long interchange as having begun with a complex strategy (Metts et al., 1991).
Regardless of the nature of the initial attempt, this study did find support for the
claim that follow-up attempts in general are more likely to be complex. Nearly 62% of
the follow-up attempts were complex. A closer look at the data refines this result. In
actuality, it is the second follow-up strategy (the third attempt) and those beyond that
are more likely to be complex (see Table 1). Whereas 29% of first attempts were com-
plex, and 43% of first follow-up attempts were complex, only with the second follow-up
attempt do complex offers begin to outnumber simple offers, at 59% and 41%, respec-
tively. Over time, it appears that persuaders begin to draw on more sophisticated strate-
gies to achieve their goal.
There seems to be little relationship between the type of resistance strategy used
and the resulting follow-up persuasive attempts. Only two significant relationships were
found. First, a direct refusal tended to prompt continuing simple offers as follow-ups
more so than the other resistance strategies did. The pattern is a basic and rather
unchallenging tit-for-tat, 'You want one?" "No," 'You sure?" situation. Second, an
excuse tended to elicit a minimization response. 'You want one?" "I have to drive
home," "Oh, one won't hurt you!" For the persuader, it is as if the excuse is treated as
the first part of an adjacency pair, the second part of which is an automatic minimiza-
tion of the potential risk (see Jacobs & Jackson, 1983; Schlegoff & Sacks, 1973).
The question now becomes what information can be shared with college-based alco-
hol education and prevention programs. First, there is a limited number of types of per-
suasive strategies that a resister will face. In an educational program designed to teach
college students how to deal with alcohol resistance situations, presenting them with
 ALCOHOL STRATEGIES 237

Table 3
Tests of type of resistance strategy, politeness, gender and interactions

IV DV df Univariate F P
Type Simple Offer 3,116 4.69* .004
Statement of Benefits 3,116 .74 .531
Availability 3,116 .64 .594
Minimization 3,116 10.59* .001
Appeal to Group Norms 3,116 .61 .612
Facilitation 3,116 .71 .550
Downloaded by [University Of South Australia Library] at 03:09 13 July 2015

Face Simple Offer 1,116 4.20 .043

Statement of Benefits 1,116 .77 .381
Availability 1,116 .07 .788
Minimization 1,116 .01 .937
Appeal to Group Norms 1,116 .87 .353
Facilitation 1,116 .14 .707
Gender Simple Offer 1,116 3.73 .056
Statement of Benefits 1,116 .20 .659
Availability 1,116 2.24 .137
Minimization 1,116 1.22 .270
Appeal to Group Norms 1,116 .01 .914
Facilitation 1,116 1.20 .275
Type X Face Simple Offer 3,116 .77 .514
Statement of Benefits 3,116 .31 .815
Availability 3,116 .35 .790
Minimization 3,116 .02 .995
Appeal to Group Norms 3,116 .86 .464
Facilitation 3,116 1.50 .217
Type X Gender Simple Offer 3,116 .87 .460
Statement of Benefits 3,116 .84 .475
Availability 3,116 .42 .737
Minimization 3,116 1.57 .201
Appeal to Group Norms 3,116 .16 .920
Facilitation 3,116 .42 .736
Face X Gender Simple Offer 1,116 1.42 .236
Statement of Benefits 1,116 2.02 .157
Availability 1,116 .16 .691
Minimization 1,116 .76 .385
Appeal to Group Norms 1,116 3.23 .075
Facilitation 1,116 .16 .691

Note: *with multiple tests, adjustment of a is necessary; with six dependent variables, a was set at .008
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989).
 238 THE SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL

Table 3
(Continued) Tests of type of resistance strategy, politeness, gender and interactions

rv DV df Univariate F P
Type X Face X Gender Simple Offer 3,116 1.42 .239
Statement of Benefits 3,116 1.26 .290
Availability 3,116 .07 .976
Minimization 3,116 1.34 .263
Appeal to Group Norms 3,116 1.25 .295
Facilitation 3,116 .70 .555
Downloaded by [University Of South Australia Library] at 03:09 13 July 2015

Note: *with multiple tests, adjustment of a is necessary; with six dependent variables, a was set at .008
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989).

this "short list" of persuasive strategies, instead of an extensive "laundry list" of all possi-
ble persuasive strategies, might be more appealing to the student as well as the teacher.
Second, although persuaders do tend to use more than one type of strategy, the
most common strategy is the simple offer, and most initial offers are simple offers. Given
these findings, programs can assure students that although the pressure to drink alco-
hol does exist, the verbal strategies to convince them to do so are not terribly daunting.
Third, the complexity of follow-up offers does not depend on the initial offer. This
finding is not as useful as the others, given that it does not help to reduce the uncer-
tainty inherent in the encounter (Berger & Bradac, 1982). Even if a persuader
approaches a student with a relatively sophisticated first attempt, that is no guarantee
that such a challenge will persist; equally likely, however, just because a persuader
begins with a relatively benign simple offer does not mean that his or her attempts will
not get more complicated as time goes on. Indeed, follow-up attempts, when they hap-
pen, do tend to be complex, although only upon the third attempt. The resister should
be prepared to hold his or her ground. Since the typical persuader is relatively not very
persistent, however (average number of attempts = four; range = one to fourteen), the
resister probably will not have a tremendous amount of resisting to do.
Finally, although there are few relationships between the volley of resistance and
persuasive strategies, direct refusals tend to elicit simple offers as follow-ups and
excuses tend to elicit minimizations. All of this information could be incorporated into
the curricula of alcohol education and prevention programs, especially in terms of
developing and revising role plays, to better prepare students for the next persuasive
encounter.
Future research should continue to explore the interplay between persuasive and
resistance strategies. The identification of these strategies is relatively well established,
given that remarkably similar repertoires of persuasive and resistance strategies have
been identified through studies using different methodologies. Work should continue,
however, to elucidate the relationships between the various strategies and their outcomes.
Future research also should look at the effects of male-female interactions on strat-
egy use and effects. This study found no differences in the types of persuasive strategies
used by males and females. Subjects were matched by gender, however, so no generali-
zations to mixed-sex dyads can be made. Indeed, given that issues related to relation-
ships, sex and intimacy are frequently present and often heightened in alcohol use
contexts, to study the effects of strategy use on liking and relationships in mixed-sex
dyads becomes compelling.
Indeed, studying the effects of compliance strategies is one important direction in
which this type of research needs to move, especially since lack of attention to "out-
 ALCOHOL STRATEGIES 239

come" has been one of the major criticisms levied at compliance research (Seibold,
Cantrill, & Meyers, 1985). In previous work, after having identified common resistance
strategies, Harrington (1995) considered the "outcome" of those strategies on persua-
sive persistence. The present study identified common persuasive strategies. Future
research should investigate which, if any, of the identified persuasive strategies is more
effective in persuading a resister to have a drink. This information then could be incor-
porated into prevention programming, with the more effective persuasive strategies
"flagged" for resisters.
Another major criticism of compliance research is that it has been devoid of theory,
focusing instead on developing strategy taxonomies and discovering strategy/situation
correlations (Seibold et al., 1985). Two theoretical approaches, which if applied to this
area of research may serve to attenuate these criticisms, are goals (Clark & Delia, 1979;
Downloaded by [University Of South Australia Library] at 03:09 13 July 2015

Dillard, 1989, 1990) and face support or politeness (Brown & Levinson, 1978,1987).
That goals influence communicative behavior is a common assumption among
researchers. At any given time, individuals may be pursuing instrumental goals such as
resisting an offer of a drink, as well as identity and relational goals such as maintaining a
friendly image and not threatening a new friendship. When conceptualized as the driv-
ing force behind communication, these goals serve as an explanatory device, with com-
munication being strategically oriented toward the achievement of instrumental, identify
and relational goals (Clark & Delia, 1979; Jacobs &Jackson, 1983; O'Keefe, 1988).
When individuals seek to achieve goals, they necessarily confront the principle of
face support. In any given interaction, if individuals' strategies support the face wants of
the other person, identity and relational goals are viable, and instrumental goals are
facilitated. If they threaten face wants, however, the other person may retaliate in the
form of reciprocated face threats, dislike, or termination of the interaction (or relation-
ship), and instrumental, identity and relational goals are not achieved. Because face
support is an intrinsic aspect of communicative interactions and carries significant
implications for the outcome of goals, it should be considered in analyses of strategic
communication, with messages evaluated for the extent to which they threaten or sup-
port face wants.
Some compliance research has begun to consider multiple goals or face support as
influences on the production and effects of persuasive or resistance messages. Using a
sexual harassment situation, Bingham and Burleson (1989) studied the perceived
effects of messages with multiple goals (e.g., stop the harassment, maintain a profes-
sional identity, maintain rapport). They found that while some messages were per-
ceived as being more effective at achieving identity and relational goals, none of the
messages were perceived as being effective at stopping the harassment. Tracy et al.
(1984) studied whether compliance gaining messages designed to request favors varied
in attention to face wants. They found that messages not only varied in the degree to
which they addressed the positive and negative face wants of the target, but also varied
in the degree to which they addressed the persuader's positive face wants. Harrington
(1995) investigated the extent to which refusal strategies designed to resist offers of
alcohol achieved instrumental, identity and relational goals as a function of resistance
strategy type and attention to positive and negative face wants. She found that while no
refusal strategy resulted in significantly fewer persuasive attempts, persuaders were
more attracted to their partners and more satisfied with the relationship if they
received resistance strategies with face support than without it. A next step in this
research would be to apply the multiple goals framework in investigating the effects of
the persuasive strategies identified in the present study and to investigate the extent to
which they vary in attention to face wants.
Two methodological issues deserve further attention. First, although results from
the studies using recall versus role play methodologies have been similar, for further
investigations of the interplay between persuasive and resistance strategies, research uti-
 240 THE SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL

lizing actual interactions would be preferable. Although extremely challenging, such

research would overcome the limitations associated with recall accuracy/completeness
in participant narratives, and lack of realism sometimes associated with role plays.
Second, the issue of the effects of alcohol consumption on persuasive and resis-
tance strategy use and effectiveness should be explored. Some research has looked at
the effect of alcohol consumption on influencing attitude change (Bostrom & White,
1979; MacDonald, Zanna, & Fong, 1995; Smith, 1974), and the modeling of drinking
behavior (Collins 8c Marlatt, 1981; Connors 8c Sobell, 1986), but not on strategic com-
municative behavior, per se. Given the ubiquity of alcohol consumption among college
students and the probability that persuaders already have a drink as they begin to per-
suade their target, understanding alcohol's effects on persuasive behavior and response
to resistance would seem to be important.
Downloaded by [University Of South Australia Library] at 03:09 13 July 2015

Also, it would be interesting to study how resistance behavior changes once a per-
son has had a drink. Although loss of control of drinking is one sign of alcoholism
(Ludwig, 1988), there are many people who can stop after one or two drinks. Whether
and how their refusal strategies change as a result of drinking is an important question.
Effectively resisting becomes much more important for the person who has reached
her/his limit. Ultimately, this research into persuasive and resistance strategies should
both add to the body of knowledge on social influence processes in general and
improve the quality of social skills programs in particular.

NOTES
1
Hecht and colleagues used the term simple offer to refer to a direct request strategy. They used the term
persuasive offer to refer to any other kind of strategy (e.g., appeal to group norms, minimization). The use of
persuasive offer to be all encompassing is rather confusing, however, especially in the context of a discussion of
persuasive strategies that include both simple and persuasive offers. Therefore, in this article, complex offer will
be used to refer to all other strategies beyond a simple offer. This term is necessary when discussing analyses
involving a comparison of simple offers with all other types of offers.
2
Participants were asked on a 1 to 7 scale whether it was "Okay" (1) or "Not Okay" (7) for college students
to drink alcoholic beverages, and whether "Yes" (1) they would or "No" (7) they would not drink alcoholic
beverages. Students who scored a "1" on both questions were scheduled for participation in the study. Other
students were given alternative extra credit opportunities.
3
The persuasive strategy coding system provided categories similar to those of Alberts et al. (1992),
although they were developed independently.
4
Because combined strategies occurred so frequently, this category would have subsumed nearly all of the
attempts. Eighty-seven percent of the participants made at least two attempts to persuade their partner to
have a drink, and of those, 81% used more than one type of strategy (17% relied on simple offer, and 2%
only emphasized availability).
5
Gender was included as a factor in this analysis because participants and confederate resisters were
matched by gender. No significant effects for gender were predicted or found.

REFERENCES
Alberts, J. K., Hecht, M. L., Miller-Rassulo, M., & Krisek, R. L. (1992). The communication process of drug
resistance among high school students. Adolescence, 27, 203-226.
Alberts, J. K., Miller-Rassulo, M., & Hecht, M. L. (1991). A typology of drug resistance strategies. Journal of
Applied Communication Research, 19, 129-151.
Bangert-Drowns, R. (1988). The effects of school-based substance abuse education. Journal of Drug Education,
18, 243-264.
Berger, C. R., & Bradac, J. J. (1982). Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in interpersonal relations. London:
E. E. Arnold.
Berkowitz, A. D., & Perkins, H. W. (1986). Problem drinking among college students: A review of recent
research. Journal of American College Health, 35, 1-28.
Bingham, S. G. (1988, November). Rebuffing sexual harassment in the organization: A review of message options and
their effects. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association, New
Orleans.
Bingham, S. G., & Burleson, B. R. (1989). Multiple effects of messages with multiple goals: Some perceived
outcomes of responses to sexual harassment. Human Communication Research, 16, 184-216.
 ALCOHOL STRATEGIES 241

Boster, F. J. (1988). Comments on the utility of compliance- gaining message selection tasks. Human Communi-
cation Research, 15, 169-177.
Boster, F. J., Levine, T., & Kazoleas, D. (1989, November). The impact of argumentativeness and verbal aggressive-
ness on strategic diversity and persistence in compliance gaining behavior. Paper presented at the annual conven-
tion of the Speech Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.
Boster, F. J., & Stiff, J. B. (1984). Compliance gaining message selection behavior. Human Communication
Research, 10, 539-556.
Boster, F. J., Stiff, J. B., & Reynolds, R. A. (1985). Do persons respond differently to inductively-derived and
deductively-derived lists of compliance-gaining message strategies? A reply to Wiseman and Schenck-Ham-
lin. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 49, 177-187.
Bostrom, R. N., & White, N. D. (1979). Does drinking weaken resistance? Journal of Communication, 29(3), 73-
80.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody
(Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-324). New York: Cambridge University
Downloaded by [University Of South Australia Library] at 03:09 13 July 2015

Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Burgoon, J. K., Pfau, M., Parrott, R., Birk, T., Cocker, R., & Burgoon, M. (1987). Relational communication,
satisfaction, compliance-gaining strategies, and compliance in communication between physicians and
patients. Communication Monographs, 54, 307-324.
Burleson, B. R., & Wilson, S. R. (1988). On the continued undesirability of item desirability: A reply to Boster,
Hunter, and Seibold. Human Communication Research, 15, 178-191.
Burnham, R. B., & Nelson, S. J. (1984). When "alternatives" aren't. Association of College Unions-International
Bulletin, 52(5), 15-17.
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1990). Campus life: In search of community.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Clark, R. A., & Delia, J. G. (1979). Topoi and rhetorical competence. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 65, 187-
206.
Collins, R. L., & Marlatt, G. A. (1981). Social modeling as a determinant of drinking behavior: Implications
for prevention and treatment Addictive Behaviors, 6, 233-239.
Cody, M.J., & McLaughlin, M. L. (1980). Perceptions of compliance gaining situations. Communication Mono-
graphs, 47, 132-148.
Cody, M. J., McLaughlin, M. L., & Schneider, M. J. (1981). The impact of relational consequences on the
selection of interpersonal persuasion tactics. Communication Quarterly, 29, 91-106.
Cody, M. J., O'Hair, H. D., & Schneider, M. J. (1982, May). The impact of intimacy, rights to resist, Machiavellian-
ism, and psychological gender on compliance-resisting strategies: How pervasive are response effects in communication
surveys? Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Communication Association, Bos-
ton, MA.
Cody, M. J., Woelfel, M. L., & Jordan, W.J. (1983). Dimensions of compliance gaining situations. Human Com-
munication Research, 9, 99-113.
Connors, G. J., & Sobell, M. B. (1986). Alcohol and drinking environment: Effects on affect and sensations,
person perception, and perceived intoxication. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 10, 389-402.
Dillard,J. P. (1989). Types of influence goals in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
6, 293-308.
Dillard, J. P. (1990). A goal-driven model of interpersonal influence. In J. P. Dillard (Ed.), Seeking compliance:
The production of interpersonal influence messages (pp. 41-56). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
Dillard, J. P., & Burgoon, M. (1985). Situational influences on the selection of compliance-gaining messages:
Two tests of the predictive utility of the Cody-McLaughlin typology. Communication Monographs, 52, 290-
304.
Gadaleto, A. F., & Anderson, D. F. (1986), Continued progress: The 1979, 1982, and 1985 college alcohol sur-
veys. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 499-509.
Hansen, W. B. (1992). School-based substance abuse prevention: A review of the state of the art in curricu-
lum, 1980-1990. Health Education Research, 7, 403-430.
Harrington, N. G. (1995). The effects of college students' alcohol resistance strategies. Health Communication,
7(4), 371-391.
Hazelton, V., Holdridge, W., & Liska, J. (1982). Toward a taxonomy of compliance-resisting communication. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Western Communication Association, Denver, CO.
Hecht, M. L., Alberts, J. K., & Miller-Rassulo, M. A. (1992). Resistance to drug offers among college students.
The International Journal of the Addictions, 27, 995-1017.
Hecht, M. L., & Driscoll, G. (1994). A comparison of selected communication, social, situational, and individ-
ual factors associated with alcohol and other drugs. The International Journal of the Addictions, 29, 1225-
1243.
Hunter, J. E. (1988). Failure of the social desirability response set hypothesis. Human Communication Research,
15, 162-168.
 242 THE SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL

Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1983). Speech act structure in conversation: Rational aspects of pragmatic coher-
ence. In R. T. Craig & K. Tracy (Eds.), Conversation coherence: Form, structure, and strategy (pp. 47-66). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (1992). Smoking, drinking, and illicit drug use among American
secondary school students, college students, and young adults, 1975-1991. Washington, DC: National Institute on
Drug Abuse, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Lim, T. (1990). Influences of receivers' resistance on persuaders' verbal aggressiveness. Communication Quar-
terly, 38, 170-188.
Ludwig, A. M. (1988). Understanding the alcoholic's mind: The nature of craving and how to control it. New York:
Oxford University Press.
MacDonald, T. K., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (1995). Decision making in altered states: Effects of alcohol on
attitudes toward drinking and driving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 973-985.
McLaughlin, M. L., Cody, M. J., & Robey, C. S. (1980). Situational influences on the selection of strategies to
resist compliance-gaining attempts. Human Communication Research, 7, 14-36.
Downloaded by [University Of South Australia Library] at 03:09 13 July 2015

Metts, S., Sprecher, S., & Cupach, W. R. (1991). Retrospective self-reports. In B. M. Montgomery & S. Duck
(Eds.), Studying interpersonal interaction (pp. 162-178). New York: The Guilford Press.
Miller, G. R., Boster, F. J., Roloff, M., & Seibold, D. R. (1977). Compliance-gaining message strategies: A typol-
ogy and some findings concerning effects of situational differences. Communication Monographs, 44, 37-51.
Miller, G. R., Boster, F. J., Roloff, M., & Seibold, D. R. (1987). MBRS rekindled: Some thoughts on compliance
gaining in interpersonal settings. In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions
in communication research (pp. 89-116). Beverly Hills: Sage.
O'Keefe, B.J. (1988). The logic of message design: Individual differences in reasoning about communication.
Communication Monographs, 55, 80-103.
Public Health Service. (1990). Healthy people 2000: National health promotion and disease prevention objectives
(DHHS Publication No. PHS 91-50213). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Reardon, K. K., Sussman, S., & Flay, B. R. (1989). Are we marketing the right message: Can kids "Just Say
'No'" to smoking? Communication Monographs, 56, 307-324.
Schlegoff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289-327.
Seibold, D. R. (1988). A response to "Item desirability in compliance-gaining research." Human Communica-
tion Research, 15, 152-161.
Seibold, D. R., Cantrill, J. G., & Meyers, R. A. (1985). Communication and interpersonal influence. In M. L.
Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.) Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Seibold, D. R., & Thomas, R. W. (1994). Rethinking the role of interpersonal influence processes in alcohol
intervention situations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 177-197.
Smith, R. C. (1974). Alcohol and the acceptance of social influence: An experimental study. Psychopharmacolo-
gia, 36, 357-366.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins Pub-
lishers, Inc.
Tobler, N. S. (1992). Drug prevention programs can work: Research findings. Journal of Addictive Diseases,
11(3), 1-28.
Tracy, K., Craig, R. T., Smith, M., & Spisak, F. (1984). The discourse of requests: Assessment of a compliance-
gaining approach. Human Communication Research, 10, 512-538.
Wechsler, H., Davenport, A., Dowdall, G., Moeykens, B., & Castillo, S. (1994). Health and behavioral conse-
quences of binge drinking in college. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272(21), 1672-1677.
Wiseman, R. L., & Schenck-Hamlin, W. (1981). A multidimensional scaling validation of an inductively-
derived set of compliance-gaining strategies. Communication Monographs, 48, 251-270.
Witteman, H., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1986). Compliance-gaining in marital interaction: Power bases, processes,
and outcomes. Communication Monographs, 53, 130-143.