The Effectiveness of Weight Management Influence Messages in Romantic Relationships

Abstract

This study assessed the effectiveness of weight management conversations reported by participants (n = 158) using Dillard, Wilson, Tusing, and Kinney's (1997) three influence dimensions: explicitness, dominance, and reasoning. In addition, the study assessed the potential mediating roles of politeness and resistance. Results showed that dominance was related to effectiveness, and that both politeness and resistance mediated this relationship. Reasoning was indirectly related to effectiveness through politeness. Overall, findings suggest that if romantic partners want to influence one another to enact healthy behaviors, they should address face needs, give reasons for their requests, and refrain from being dominating or too forceful.

Keywords:

• Interpersonal Influence
• Romantic Partners
• Weight Management

Acknowledgments

A previous version of this paper was presented at the 2012 Southern State Communication Association Annual Convention, San Antonio, TX.

Notes

Note. Significance indicated by *p < .05, **p < .01.

Note. Significance indicated by *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

^a Opposing mediating effects of politeness and resistance cancel each other out, making for a nonsignificant direct effect.

^b Though the indirect effect of reasoning through politeness is significant and positive, the indirect effect through resistance is nearly 0 (.007), making the total indirect effect of reasoning on effectiveness nonsignificant.

If both partners in the couple participated and their responses for relationship length differed, the two lengths were averaged and calculated into the average. If both partners’ responses for income differed, the higher income reported was used.

In addition to the influence dimensions and resistance, two of the authors coded the conversations for descriptive information about the conversations: conversational turns and the focal weight management issue. The kappa for conversational turns was .86 (88.0% agreement). The kappa for weight management issue was .88 (92.1% agreement). When conversations included multiple issues the authors coded for the issue that prompted the conversation.

A covariance matrix was constructed and used as input to AMOS 19.0 in order to estimate parameters using maximum likelihood procedures. Because the influence dimensions are conceptually related (Dillard et al., 1997), correlations between explicitness, dominance, and reasoning were freely estimated. In addition, because paths from explicitness and reasoning to effectiveness were not significant, we removed these paths before assessing the hypothesized model and mediation of these relationships was not assessed. However, we retained the path from dominance to effectiveness so we could determine whether this relationship was mediated by politeness and resistance. Four fit indices were used to assess the model's fit, and guidelines for fit indices were chosen a priori. Specifically, the model's chi-squared value (CMIN) should not be significant; the model's comparative fit index (CFI) should exceed .95; and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), as well as the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), should not exceed .08. In order to estimate indirect effects, as well as their significance, 95% bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals were used with 5000 samples (see Hayes, 2009).

In order to rule out other plausible explanations we tested two additional structural models: one to include a path from politeness to resistance, and another in which effectiveness was the mediator and politeness and resistance were the outcomes. For the first alternative model, the path from politeness to resistance was not significant (β = − .13, p = .09). For the second model, the influence dimensions predicted effectiveness, which in turn predicted politeness and resistance. This model showed relatively poor fit, χ²(df = 7) = 16.09, p < .02, CFI =.88, RMSEA =.09, and SRMR =.06.

Interestingly, because the two mediators in the present study (i.e., politeness and resistance) have opposite effects, they essentially “cancel each other out” (Hayes, 2009). Dominance increases resistance but decreases politeness, and the two mediators have opposing effects on effectiveness. This phenomenon explains why the total effect of dominance on effectiveness was not significant (β = − .08, p = .26), even though the overall indirect effects of dominance are significantly negative (when both mediators are considered separately and together).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Charee Mooney Thompson

Charee Mooney Thompson (MA, Arizona State University, 2009) is a doctoral candidate in the Communication Studies Department at the University of Texas at Austin.

Lynsey Kluever Romo

Lynsey Kluever Romo (MA, American University, 2002) is a doctoral candidate in the Communication Studies Department at the University of Texas at Austin. René

René M. Dailey

René M. Dailey (PhD, University of California, Santa Barbara, 2005) is an associate professor in the Communication Studies Department at the University of Texas at Austin.