Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by van Knippenberg, B.
Right arrow Articles by Wilke, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 2, No. 3, 231-244 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/1368430299023002

The Use of Hard and Soft Influence Tactics in Cooperative Task Groups

Barbara van Knippenberg

University of Amsterdam, VanKnippenberg{at}wisseworldcom.nl

Rob van Eijbergen

Leiden University

Henk Wilke

Leiden University

This study focused on the effect of relative competence and confidence in one's own task solution on the use of hard and soft influence tactics. For this purpose a 2 (relative competence: high/low) x 2 (influence tactic: hard/soft) between-subjects design, with the level of confidence generated by task characteristics as within-subjects factor, was employed. Results revealed that high competence individuals were less susceptible to the strength of the available influence tactic than low competence individuals: whereas high competence group members used hard tactics about as often as soft tactics, low competence group members used hard tactics less often than soft ones. However, this effect only showed when the task gave rise to high confidence in one's own task solution. When low competence group members had relatively low confidence, the frequency by which they used soft tactics declined substantially. All in all, the results suggest that people who aim for a positive group outcome employ influence tactics cautiously.

Key Words: influence tactics • social influence • task performance


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
International Journal of Cross Cultural ManagementHome page
J. L.T. Leong, M. H. Bond, and P. P. Fu
Perceived Effectiveness of Influence Strategies in the United States and Three Chinese Societies
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, April 1, 2006; 6(1): 101 - 120.
[Abstract] [PDF]