Effect of Primary Goal on Secondary Goal Importance and Message Plan Acceptability

Abstract

Prior to speaking, a person may anticipate outcomes of a message. Such outcomes often pertain to the relevance of the message to secondary goals such as impression management or relationship maintenance. Based on expected outcomes, a decision is made to say, to edit, or to withhold a message. This study asks whether anticipating that a message would conflict with a secondary goal affects perceived message acceptability differently when different primary goals are pursued (e.g., comforting, providing feedback). Eight primary goals and four secondary goals were investigated. Findings show that secondary goal importance and the extent to which expected conflict with a secondary goal reduces message acceptability varies across primary goals.

Keywords:

• Cognitive Editing
• Cognitive Models
• Message Production
• Primary Goal
• Secondary Goal

An earlier version of this study was presented at the 2006 International Communication Association convention, Dresden. The research was supported by a Summer Research Award from the University Research Council, Division of Research and Graduate Studies, Kent State University.

Notes

Note. Figures represent the mean importance of the secondary goal in the column across situations representing the primary goal in the row. Means are on a 7-point scale; a higher mean = greater goal importance. Standard deviations are in parentheses. RF = request for favor. RI = request for information. Within a column, means sharing a subscript do not differ significantly at p < .05.

N = 93.

Note. The first line beneath each subheading shows the mean importance of the secondary goal across situations evoking each primary goal (columns). Within a row, superscripts indicate whether the secondary goal was high (H), moderate (M), or low (L) in importance given the primary goal. The second row beneath each subheading shows the mean outcome likelihood-acceptability correlation across the three scenarios evoking the primary goal. Standard deviations (in parentheses) indicate variability in the three correlations. Within a row, mean correlations sharing a subscript differ at p < .05. (Subscripts are shown only for comparisons between goal importance categories.) Correlations ≥.27 and ≥.20 are significant at p < .01 and p < .05 respectively.

N = 93.

Correlations between outcome likelihood ratings varied across situations. The range of Pearson r coefficients for each pairwise correlation of outcomes across the 24 situations was as follows: look bad-offend, r = .22 to .93; look bad-value conflict, r = .34 to .86; offend-value conflict, r = .33 to .86; look bad-damage relationship, r = .38 to .91; offend-damage relationship, r = .29 to .87; value conflict-damage relationship, r = .30 to .84.

Outcome likelihood-acceptability correlations for each of the 72 situation-message combinations are available from the author.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Janet R. Meyer

Janet R. Meyer (PhD, University of Michigan) is Associate Professor in the School of Communication Studies, Kent State University.