Changes in self-perceptions as a result of successfully persuading others

Journal of Social Issues

Volumn 55, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 141-156

  Rind, Bruce ^a   Kipnis, David ^a  

^a TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0006014307     PISSN: 00224537     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/0022-4537.00109     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Blauner, R. (1964). Alienation and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2. Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and monopoly capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.
3. Chadwick-Jones, J. K. (1969). Automation and behavior: A social psychological study. London: Wiley-Interscience.
4. Cooley, M. (1980). Architect or bee. Boston: South End Press.
5. Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2, 201-218.
6. Downing, J. D., Sekaquaptewa, D. J., Vargas, P. T., & Brock, T. C. (1995). Behavioral technologies, caricature of social psychology. American Psychologist, 50, 175-176.
7. Gutek, B. & Winter, S. J. (1990). Computer use, control over computers, and job satisfaction. In S. Oskamp & S. Spacapan (Eds.), People's reactions to technology (pp.121-144). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8. Haritos-Fatouros, M. (1988). The official torturer: A learning model for obedience to the authority of violence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1107-1120.
9. Herman, E., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent. New York: Pantheon.
10. Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 33-41.
11. Kipnis, D. (1976). The powerholders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12. Kipnis, D. (1993). Unanticipated consequences of using behavior technology. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 149-171.
13. Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics. Explorations in getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452.
14. Litman-Adizes, T., Raven, B., & Fontaine, G. (1978). Consequences of social power and causal attribution for compliance as seen by the powerholder. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 260-264.
15. O'Neal, E. C., Kipnis, D., & Craig, K. M. (1994). Effects on the persuader of employing a coercive influence technique. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 225-238.
16. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion. Dubuque, IA: J.A. Brown.
17. Rothbart, M. (1968). Effects of motivation, equity, and compliance on the use of reward and punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 353-362.
18. Sorokin, P. A., & Lundin, W. A. (1959). Power and morality. Who shall guard the guardians? Boston: Sargent.
19. Stahelski, A. (1992). The effects of the agent's choice of influence strategy upon the perception of power. Annual meetings of the Western Psychological Association, Portland, OR.
20. Weiner, B. (1980). An attributionally based theory of motivation. In N. T. Feather (Ed.). Expectations and emotions (pp. 163-204). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Yukl, G. A. & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 132-140.