Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine a theoretical model explaining the influence of instructor power (i.e., coercive, reward, legitimate, expert, referent) on students' relational and social influence communication behaviors (i.e., student affinity-seeking strategies, student behavior alteration techniques) across two cultures. Participants were 445 undergraduate students from the U.S. (n=265) and China (n=180). Results of structural equation modeling revealed that perceived instructor referent and expert power had indirect effects (mediated by student communication satisfaction), and perceived instructor reward power had a direct effect, on both student affinity-seeking strategies and student behavioral alteration techniques in the U.S. In China, perceived instructor referent and legitimate power had indirect effects (mediated by student communication satisfaction) on both student affinity-seeking and student behavioral alteration techniques, whereas perceived instructor expert and legitimate power had direct effects on student behavioral alteration techniques. Keywords: Instructor PowerStudent Affinity-SeekingStudent Behavioral Alteration TechniquesStudent Communication Satisfaction Notes 1. These strategies include altruism (i.e., attempting to help the instructor by assisting in the classroom), assuming control (i.e., presenting oneself as a leader in the classroom), assuming equality (i.e., presenting oneself as equal), comfortable self (i.e., communicating a relaxed and comfortable demeanor), conceding control (i.e., allowing the instructor to take an active role by surrendering dominance), conversational rule-keeping (i.e., communicating politeness and friendliness by adhering to cultural rules of socializing), dynamism (i.e., using extroverted and enthusiastic behaviors), elicit other's disclosure (i.e., encouraging the instructor to communicate by asking questions), facilitating enjoyment (i.e., attempting to make time spent together enjoyable), inclusion of others (i.e., including the instructor in social activities and groups that a student is a part of), influence perceptions of closeness (i.e., communicating to make the instructor feel closer in the relationship than in actuality), listening (i.e., paying active attention to what the instructor says), nonverbal immediacy (i.e., using behaviors that reduce psychological distance such as eye contact and smiling), openness (i.e., using direct student self-disclosure), personal autonomy (i.e., presenting oneself as an independent and free thinker), physical attractiveness (i.e., trying to look and dress as attractive as possible in front of the instructor), presenting interesting self (i.e., appearing as interesting as possible to the instructor), self-concept confirmation (i.e., helping the instructor feel good about himself/herself), self-inclusion (i.e., setting up frequent encounters with the instructor), sensitivity (i.e., communicating care and concern), similarity (i.e., communicating similar backgrounds and interests between with the instructor), supportiveness (i.e., communicating support to the instructor), trustworthiness (i.e., attempting to appear as a trustworthy and reliable student), requirements (i.e., completing work on time, attending class, and being prepared), achievement (i.e., being successful in the class by earning good grades or completing extra work), gifts (i.e., giving presents to the instructor), and flirting (i.e., engaging in flirtatious behavior with the instructor). 2. These strategies include honesty–sincerity (i.e., telling the truth), blame (i.e., blaming the instructor or course), complaining (i.e., incessantly complaining), begging (i.e., pleading for compliance), guilt (i.e., evoking guilt), flattery (i.e., communicating sycophancy), play on GTA's ability to relate (i.e., promoting dyadic similarity), group persuasion (i.e., involving multiple students or an entire class), public persuasion (i.e., making a request in front of others), private persuasion (i.e., making a request vie e-mail or during office hours), evidence of preparation/logic (i.e., using preparation and reasoning), earned credibility/past performance (i.e., demonstrating past competence), stress/overload (i.e., explaining the current workload), utilitarian justice (i.e., arguing that change will benefit the whole class), emotional displays (i.e., using nonverbal leakage cues), general excuses (i.e., using any sensible excuse), punish teacher (i.e., threatening), reference to higher authority (i.e., communicating with a superior), and verbal force/demand (i.e., demanding compliance). 3. Chinese students valued the flattery (M =1.87, SD =1.24) and honesty/sincerity (M =1.82, SD=1.28) BATs, which communicate respect and preserve the instructor/student relationship. On the contrary, American students valued performance (M =1.77, SD=1.17) and evidence of preparation/logic (M =1.69, SD =1.23) BATs, which communicate that the instructor was in the wrong followed by a grade increase demand. Additional informationNotes on contributorsAlan K. Goodboy Alan K. Goodboy (Ph.D., West Virginia University, 2007) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Bloomsburg University San Bolkan San Bolkan (Ph.D., University of Texas-Austin, 2007) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at California State University at Long Beach Scott A. Myers Scott A. Myers (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1995) is a Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia University Xing Zhao Xing Zhao (M.Ed., University of Sydney, 1995) is a senior lecturer at China Agricultural University. This study was funded in part by a Teaching and Learning Enhancement grant at Bloomsburg University
Goodboy et al. (Wed,) studied this question.