In the book, rebuff hypothesis states that "when an initial message is rebuffed, follow-up persuasive messages are ruder, more aggressive, and more forceful than the first one". This can relate to my brother-in-law's neighbor who likes to complain about loud music. There was one night she used the "ask" tactic. She would ring the doorbell and ask if he could turn down the music, but the weird thing is that she would be complaining at 8 o'clock at night. It would be understandable if it was like 10 or 11 at night, but 8 o'clock is still pretty early.
My brother-in-law just ignored her request since it was still early in the evening. The neighbor's next tactic was more ruder and forceful. She kept hearing the loud music, so she walked over to my brother-in-law's house again and rang the doorbell like 10 times, like a crazy woman would and she said she was going to call the police and file and noise compliant if it wouldn't stop.
Overall, I have to agree with the rebuff hypothesis because she went from the "ask" tactic to more ruder tactics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think this hypothesis shows how people can not tolerate having their requests ignored or denied. Unfortunately people don't really care about other people's needs and some are very inconsiderate about surroundings. Obviously this lady could have been a little too high strung, which there are plenty of. We all need lessons in how to ask nicely and be polite, especially if things don't go our way the first time. Like the old saying goes, "You catch more flies with honey then with vinegar."
I think when people are annoyed by something they really have no choice but to "rebuff" their message until they gain compliance. In the case of your brother-in-law's neighbor, her need for compliance was so great that she was willing to move on quickly from the "ask" stage (which was ignored), to a ruder tactic. I think we all have a tendency to do this when we don't get the compliance that we desire. For some reason, a lot of people think that trying a ruder, more aggressive tactic will work better. Obviously, that's not always the case.
Getting compliance from other people can be tough, especially if they are not obligated to comply. In the case of the neighbor, she had a request that was unreasonable and not enforceable by law. I understand that it was noisy for her, but she did not do herself any favors by escalating so quickly to a more aggressive tactic. Because it was so early, she should have asked again politely if the noise could be kept down. But in the end, if your brother in law didn't feel her request was justified, it wouldn't have really mattered what she asked until he was obligated to comply (i.e., at 10pm when most noise regulations kick in), although I agree that he probably would have been more inclined to comply if she continued to ask nicely. When people flare up, I think part of the time it’s because they need to vent their frustration, as well as to gain compliance.
I also found rebuff hypothesis interesting, but it doesn’t seem to apply to everyone. I believe that the rebuff hypothesis relates to people’s level of tolerance. For example, I think my level of tolerance is high, so I may be less likely to be ruder when using the follow-up messages. However, I can see the rebuff hypothesis in one of my friends. This friend of mine seems to have low level of tolerance. At first, her message would be soft and polite. However, her follow-up messages usually become very rude and filled with anger. Therefore, I think rebuff hypothesis relates to people’s level of tolerance and their temperament.
- Ruby
Post a Comment