Irions Umd 0117E 21095.Pdf (3.788Mb)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: SOCIAL CATALYSTS AND SOCIAL GOAL PURSUIT Amanda L. Irions, Doctor of Philosophy, 2020 Dissertation directed by: Assistant Professor Dale Hample, Department of Communication People pursue goals but do not always successfully attain them. Existing theories of goal pursuit such as field theory and the goals-plans-actions model regard goal pursuit as a solitary activity that results either in success or frustrated failure. In stark contrast to this solitary-actor, sink-or-swim model of goal pursuit are observations from several social domains show that people ask other people to help them reach their goals instead of abandoning their goals entirely. This dissertation presents the quantitative findings from two studies of these helpers, and argues that analyzing and developing a theory of helpers is critical to a more complete and accurate model of goal pursuit. By introducing the con- structs of resource improvement (helpers increase resources, diversify resources, and show their pursuers new paths around obstacles blocking goal pursuit) and the substi- tutability of helpers’ willingness and skills, this dissertation demonstrates the utility of unifying goal-pursuit theories with the social-support framework and situating those ideas in a social context. Study 1 reports an investigation of wingpeople, those offensive and defensive helpers (also called wingmen) who use communication to help people initiate or terminate initial romantic relationships. Key findings include that both offensive and defensive wingpeople use communication to help pursuers move toward a desired poten- tial romantic partner and away from an undesirable one and that, in line with evolutionary psychological predications, wingpeople provided differential help to male and female pursuers. Notably, some participants in Study 1 spontaneously reported being helpers in social domains other than courtship. Study 2 investigated the generalizability of the help- ing phenomenon across social domains. Key findings include: participants reported being helpers in more than a dozen different social domains (e.g., academic, physical health, creative pursuits, and service) and more than 90% reported helping in domains other than courtship; participants used social support messages to improve their pursuers’ resources; and no differences between offensive and defensive helpers were observed on the person- ality traits measured. This dissertation concludes by using the evidence from the studies to make a case for helpers as social catalysts. SOCIAL CATALYSTS AND SOCIAL GOAL PURSUIT by Amanda L. Irions Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2020 Advisory Committee: Professor Dale Hample, Chair Professor Nick Joyce Professor Anita Atwell Seate Professor Jessica Vitak Professor Leah Waks © Copyright by Amanda L. Irions 2020 Dedication For Roberta Siebert, my first social catalyst. Thank you. ii Acknowledgements I am most deeply grateful to Dale Hample, without whom this project would not exist. I am grateful for everything Dale has done for me, this project, and my family. However, given space constraints, I offer a partial list of some major reasons here. Dale introduced me to the work of Kurt Lewin and Erving Goffman, which influenced this project. He also took seriously my first investigation into wingpeople and championed the ideas in these pages. Dale gave me the freedom and encouragement to explore these ideas, and offered patience and understanding as I did so. Dale made me a better person and scholar. I thank my committee, Professors Nick Joyce, Anita Atwell Seate, Jessica Vitak, and Leah Waks, for the education, feedback, and support they gave me on this project and throughout my time at the University of Maryland. I thank my insightful, adventurous, and hardworking research assistants Victoria Graham, Connor Griep, Dori Lee, Lindsay Marcus, Dekel Merin, Patrick O’Connor, and Ian Re- ichardt, whose observations, coding, and debate refined several ideas in these pages. I also appreciate the feedback on an earlier version of this manuscript that Professors Stephen Haas and Susan Kline provided at the 2017 National Communication Associa- tion’s Doctoral Honors Seminar. I thank Professor Edward L. Fink for his unyielding personal and scientific standards, which demanded I improve the quality of my teaching, thinking, and reporting. I am also grateful to Professors Kyle Andrews, David Henningsen, and Betty H. La France whose classes on influence, flirting, dating, and romantic relationships, and inter- personal communication shaped my interests. iii I appreciate the support and encouragement I received from Chairperson Dawn O. Braithwaite, Professor Mel Clouse, Professor Tim Hill, Dean Pedro Maligo, Director Suzannah Rogan, Professor Leah Rediger, Professor David Swartzlander, Vice President Luis Sotelo, and Chairperson Nathaniel Wilson. I also thank Carlin Bokal, Ray Chang, and Lillie Sullivan, who facilitated these pages, as well. I extend my deepest thanks to Travis Mann, whose sacrifices and encouragement made this project possible. I am also very thankful to my family for their support: David Burden, Lissy Irions, Nancy Mann, Taylor Mann, Gale and Kay Prentice, Gianene Prentice, Justin O’Connor, LaRayne O’Connor, and Charles and Margaret Thiessen. I am very grateful to Professor Emerita Judi Dallinger, whose hospitality, enthusiasm, and good cheer fueled this project. I thank my colleagues, who have become friends, for their conversation, camaraderie, and support: Professors Vivien V. Angelus, Gretchen Bergquist, Yiwen Dai, Savreen Hundal, Rowie Kirby, Liang Ma, Rong Ma, Kelly Madden, Jennifer McGuire, Annie Laurie Nichols, Yvonne Slosarski, Jill Cornelius Underhill, and Monica Zhan. I thank Amy Green and my Conehead friends at Ivanna Cone for their color, nurturance, music, and delicious ice cream. I thank Tetsuya Naito and Hiromu Takahashi, whose talent, insights, and relational dy- namics were a constant source of inspiration and joy. iv Table of Contents Dedication ...........................................................................................................................ii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................iii Table of Contents .................................................................................................................v List of Tables .......................................................................................................................x List of Figures ...................................................................................................................xii Introduction .........................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1: Extant Theories and Evidence About Helpers ...................................................5 Field Theory .................................................................................................................5 Goals-plans-actions Model ..........................................................................................8 Social Support ............................................................................................................13 Chapter 2: Evidence for Helpers .......................................................................................18 Matchmakers .............................................................................................................18 Go-betweens ..............................................................................................................21 Critics .........................................................................................................................24 Evangelists .................................................................................................................28 Nurses ........................................................................................................................35 Attorneys ...................................................................................................................38 Defining and Describing Helpers ......................................................................................40 Defining Helpers ........................................................................................................40 Describing Helpers ....................................................................................................44 Resources and Substitutability ...........................................................................................48 Helpers Improve Pursuers’ Resources .......................................................................48 Proposition 1 ......................................................................................................50 Proposition 2 ......................................................................................................50 Proposition 3 ......................................................................................................50 Helpers’ Substitutability ............................................................................................50 v Proposition 4 ......................................................................................................53 Proposition 5 ......................................................................................................53