On Compliance‐ Gaining Strategy

From:  Kenzie A. Cameron , Shelly Campo & Dominique Brossard (2003)
Advocating for controversial issues: The effect of activism on compliance‐gaining strategy
likelihood of use, Communication Studies, 54:3, 265-281, DOI: 10.1080/10510970309363286

Activism and Compliance Gaining 

Alinsky (1971) urged activists to be willing to take chances, to be flexible and to do what was needed to bring about change. Hence, although activists may be better aware of what messages are perceived as negative and thus more risky, Alinksy would suggest that, at least in the hypothetical, activists must be willing to use any and all compliance-gaining strategies and tactics, positive or negative, that are available. Similarly Political Process Theory (e.g., McAdam, 1982; Tilly, 1978) suggests that activists and others must be willing to take chances and to look for changes in opportunities to influence the political system. 

In general, people often are loathe to use antisocial compliance-gaining strategies, such as highly manipulative ones, which may not be considered socially acceptable (Burleson et al, 1988), yet activists may react differently. Activists, who are much more likely than other individuals to lead groups, voice their opinion publicly, and have extensive arguments with others (Kerpelman, 1969, 1972), may use multiple compliance gaining strategies when attempting to influence others, particularly policy-makers. Contrary to an implicit stereotypical view, activists' skills and often their passions are not issue specific, but rather are transferred across topics and contexts (Campo, 1999). Hample and Dallinger (1998) argue that although one initially may begin with more pro-social strategies, after resistance is encountered such an individual is more likely to move toward less polite strategies. Activists, who encounter resistance more regularly, are likely to be more willing to use a broader range of strategies including those characterized as antisocial...

We expect activism to be a predictor of the ethical threshold for a number of reasons. 

• First, activists are likely to be more practiced at trying to gain compliance from others in a number of political and social situations leading to a greater level of comfort and experience with using multiple strategies. 

• Second, activists have a dedication to the goal, making them more interested in compliance gaining, or a change in behavior, than attitude change. 

• Third, due to both experience and dedication, activists are likely to have a greater reservoir of strategies, including pro and antisocial, that they are willing to use. 

• Fourth, activists may not be as concerned as others about the valence of the emotional response of the message receivers. Activists are interested not primarily in creating positive emotional responses to their position, but rather in achieving their goals in a particular situation. 

Therefore, one's level of activism is expected to predict one's ethical threshold such that the greater one's level of activism, the lower one's ethical threshold...