Nagging

Last updated

Nagging, in interpersonal communication, is repetitious behaviour in the form of pestering, hectoring, harassing, or otherwise continuously urging an individual to complete previously discussed requests or act on advice. The word is derived from the Scandinavian nagga, which means "to gnaw". [1]

Contents

Reporter Elizabeth Bernstein defined, in a Wall Street Journal article, nagging as "the interaction in which one person repeatedly makes a request, the other person repeatedly ignores it and both become increasingly annoyed". [2] Thus, nagging is a form of persistent persuasion that is more repetitive than aggressive and it is an interaction to which each party contributes.

Nagging is a very common form of persuasion used in all aspects of life including domestic and professional. It is also a common practice in order to avoid more aggressive persuasive moves like threats. [3]

Dynamics

Kari P. Soule describes nagging as an "interpersonal ritual" but states that the term "seldom appears in interpersonal communication or conflict textbooks. It appears that 'nagging' is commonly used in everyday conversation but it rarely makes it to academic print". [4]

Nagging as a form of interpersonal communication is considered to be a repetitious form of persuasion that can be employed as an alternative to resorting to more aggressive tactics in order to gain compliance. [4] :195–196 Martin Kozloff, Ph.D., Professor of Education at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, identifies four main steps of nagging:

  1. The nagger gives the signal to perform or stop performing a task or behaviour.
  2. The person being nagged does not comply to the request from the nagger.
  3. In response, the nagger repeats his request or signal in a further effort to gain compliance.
  4. The person being nagged again responds with non-compliance.

Kozloff argues that this interaction cycle continues until either the one who is being nagged complies to the nagger's request or the nagger gives up the attempt to persuade. Kozloff identifies other important aspects of nagging; for instance, non-compliance is necessary for the persuader to be persistent. In addition, the persuader will often change the initial requests words and paralinguistic cues as a strategic tactic to entice the target into complying with the request. [5]

Regarding compliance, behavioural noncompliance describes the situation that occurs when the person being nagged remains silent or agrees to complete the request, but later does not follow through. This strategy is employed to end the confrontation or interaction quickly without conflict, which is why it is common among spouses or partners. As the nagging interaction that starts out in a calm and polite manner continues and the persuader becomes more repetitive, the interaction is more likely to become aggressive in nature. Verbal noncompliance, on the other hand, describes the situation that occurs when the target tells the persuader through words that he will not comply, and is a more direct tactic than behavioural noncompliance. An example of verbal noncompliance could be a simple no, or I am too busy right now, or an even more elaborate response. This tactic does end the nagging interaction more rapidly; however, it can cause a more aggressive response from the persuader, who may escalate persistent persuasion into a threat or another aggressive form of persuasion. [4] :196

Psychotherapists such as Edward S. Dean, M.D. have reported that individuals who nag are often "weak, insecure, and fearful ... their nagging disguises a basic feeling of weakness and provides an illusion of power and superiority". [1] Nagging is sometimes used by spouses of alcoholics as one of several "drinking control efforts", [6] but it is often unproductive. [7] Psychologically, nagging can act to reinforce behavior. [7] A study by the University of Florida found the main factors that lead a person to nag are differences in "gender, social distance, and social status and power". [8]

Gender

Kari P. Soule found an equal number of men and women nag; however, studies have shown that women are more likely to nag both men and women, while men are more likely to nag only men. [9]

Marital

Nagging by spouses is a common marital complaint. Nagging can be found between both male and female spouses. [10] According to The Wall Street Journal , "It is possible for husbands to nag, and wives to resent them for nagging. But women are more likely to nag, experts say, largely because they are conditioned to feel more responsible for managing home and family life. And they tend to be more sensitive to early signs of problems in a relationship." [11]

An 1897 article in Good Housekeeping magazine stated that at that time, topics differed by gender; husbands' nagging usually involved finding "fault with their dinner, with the household bills [and] with the children", along with "carry[ing] home the worries of business.". [12]

Parental and child

A study done at Washington State University and published in 1959 described parental nagging of children as being a "symptom of the rejection of the child" in circumstances when children's requirements regarding "time and energy" are perceived to interfere with the mother's "individual needs and aspirations." [13] According to James U. McNeal, there are seven classifications of juvenile nagging, wherein children nag their parents to obtain something they desire. [14]

History

During the Middle Ages, a scold's bridle, also called a brank, was an instrument of punishment used primarily on women. [15] The device was an iron muzzle in an iron framework that enclosed the head. A bridle-bit (or curb-plate), about 2 inches long and 1 inch broad, projected into the mouth and pressed down on top of the tongue. [16] The curb-plate was frequently studded with spikes, so that if the offender moved her tongue, it inflicted pain and lacerated the tongue which made speaking impossible. [17] Wives who were seen as witches, shrews and scolds, were forced to wear a brank which was locked onto their head. [16]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Persuasion</span> Umbrella term of influence and mode of communication

Persuasion or persuasion arts is an umbrella term for influence. Persuasion can influence a person's beliefs, attitudes, intentions, motivations, or behaviours.

Social psychology is the scientific study of how thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others. Social psychologists typically explain human behavior as a result of the relationship between mental states and social situations, studying the social conditions under which thoughts, feelings, and behaviors occur, and how these variables influence social interactions.

Transactional analysis is a psychoanalytic theory and method of therapy wherein social interactions are analyzed to determine the ego state of the communicator as a basis for understanding behavior. In transactional analysis, the communicator is taught to alter the ego state as a way to solve emotional problems. The method deviates from Freudian psychoanalysis, which focuses on increasing awareness of the contents of subconsciously held ideas. Eric Berne developed the concept and paradigm of transactional analysis in the late 1950s.

Abuse is the improper usage or treatment of a thing, often to unfairly or improperly gain benefit. Abuse can come in many forms, such as: physical or verbal maltreatment, injury, assault, violation, rape, unjust practices, crimes, or other types of aggression. To these descriptions, one can also add the Kantian notion of the wrongness of using another human being as means to an end rather than as ends in themselves. Some sources describe abuse as "socially constructed", which means there may be more or less recognition of the suffering of a victim at different times and societies.

Social influence comprises the ways in which individuals adjust their behavior to meet the demands of a social environment. It takes many forms and can be seen in conformity, socialization, peer pressure, obedience, leadership, persuasion, sales, and marketing. Typically social influence results from a specific action, command, or request, but people also alter their attitudes and behaviors in response to what they perceive others might do or think. In 1958, Harvard psychologist Herbert Kelman identified three broad varieties of social influence.

  1. Compliance is when people appear to agree with others but actually keep their dissenting opinions private.
  2. Identification is when people are influenced by someone who is liked and respected, such as a famous celebrity.
  3. Internalization is when people accept a belief or behavior and agree both publicly and privately.
<span class="mw-page-title-main">Common scold</span> Troublesome person in English law

In the common law of crime in England and Wales, a common scold was a type of public nuisance—a troublesome and angry person who broke the public peace by habitually chastising, arguing, and quarrelling with their neighbours. Most punished for scolding were women, though men could be found to be scolds.

Passive-aggressive behavior is characterized by a pattern of passive hostility and an avoidance of direct communication. Inaction where some action is socially customary is a typical passive-aggressive strategy. Such behavior is sometimes protested by associates, evoking exasperation or confusion. People who are recipients of passive-aggressive behavior may experience anxiety due to the discordance between what they perceive and what the perpetrator is saying.

Foot-in-the-door (FITD) technique is a compliance tactic that aims at getting a person to agree to a large request by having them agree to a modest request first.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social rejection</span> Deliberate exclusion of an individual from social relationship or social interaction

Social rejection occurs when an individual is deliberately excluded from a social relationship or social interaction. The topic includes interpersonal rejection, romantic rejection, and familial estrangement. A person can be rejected or shunned by individuals or an entire group of people. Furthermore, rejection can be either active by bullying, teasing, or ridiculing, or passive by ignoring a person, or giving the "silent treatment". The experience of being rejected is subjective for the recipient, and it can be perceived when it is not actually present. The word "ostracism" is also commonly used to denote a process of social exclusion.

In psychology, reactance is an unpleasant motivational reaction to offers, persons, rules, or regulations that threaten or eliminate specific behavioral freedoms. Reactance occurs when an individual feels that an agent is attempting to limit one's choice of response and/or range of alternatives.

The door-in-the-face technique is a compliance method commonly studied in social psychology. The persuader attempts to convince the respondent to comply by making a large request that the respondent will most likely turn down, much like a metaphorical slamming of a door in the persuader's face. The respondent is then more likely to agree to a second, more reasonable request, than if that same request is made in isolation. The DITF technique can be contrasted with the foot-in-the-door (FITD) technique, in which a persuader begins with a small request and gradually increases the demands of each request. Both the FITD and DITF techniques increase the likelihood a respondent will agree to the second request.

Language expectancy theory (LET) is a theory of persuasion. The theory assumes language is a rules-based system, in which people develop expected norms as to appropriate language usage in given situations. Furthermore, unexpected linguistic usage can affect the receiver's behavior resulting from attitudes towards a persuasive message.

Compliance is a response—specifically, a submission—made in reaction to a request. The request may be explicit or implicit. The target may or may not recognize that they are being urged to act in a particular way.

Compliance gaining is a term used in the social sciences that encompasses the intentional act of altering another's behavior. Research in this area originated in the field of social psychology, but communication scholars have also provided ample research in compliance gaining. While persuasion focuses on attitudes and beliefs, compliance gaining focuses on behavior.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Moral suasion</span>

Moral suasion is an appeal to morality, in order to influence or change behavior. A famous example is the attempt by William Lloyd Garrison and his American Anti-Slavery Society to end slavery in the United States by using moral suasion. In economics, moral suasion is more specifically defined as "the attempt to coerce private economic activity via governmental exhortation in directions not already defined or dictated by existing statute law." The "moral" aspect comes from the pressure for "moral responsibility" to operate in a way that is consistent with furthering the good of the economy. Moral suasion in this narrower sense is also sometimes known as jawboning. In rhetoric, moral suasion is closely aligned with Aristotle's concept of pathos, which is one of the three modes of persuasion and describes an appeal to the moral principles of the audience.

James Price Dillard is a distinguished professor of Communication Arts and Sciences Department at Penn State University. He has authored and co-authored over 50 manuscripts primarily on the role of emotion and persuasive influence. Dillard graduated in 1976 from the University of Kansas with a Bachelor's degree in Speech Communication and Psychology. In 1978, he earned his Master's degree in Communication from Arizona State University and in 1983, he received a Ph.D. in Communication from Michigan State University. Dillard is currently teaching Measurement in Communication Science and Persuasive Message Processing classes at Penn State University. His awards include the NCA Golden Anniversary Award for the most outstanding, Distinguished Book Award, Communication and Social Cognition Division of the National Communication Association and many others.

In a notable study of power conducted by social psychologists John R. P. French and Bertram Raven in 1959, power is divided into five separate and distinct forms. They identified those five bases of power as coercive, reward, legitimate, referent, and expert. This was followed by Raven's subsequent addition in 1965 of a sixth separate and distinct base of power: informational power.

Emotional blackmail and FOG are terms popularized by psychotherapist Susan Forward about controlling people in relationships and the theory that fear, obligation and guilt (FOG) are the transactional dynamics at play between the controller and the person being controlled. Understanding these dynamics is useful to anyone trying to extricate themself from the controlling behavior of another person and deal with their own compulsions to do things that are uncomfortable, undesirable, burdensome, or self-sacrificing for others.

Abusive power and control is behavior used by an abusive person to gain and/or maintain control over another person. Abusers are commonly motivated by devaluation, personal gain, personal gratification, psychological projection, or the enjoyment of exercising power and control. The victims of this behavior are often subject to psychological, physical, mental, sexual, or financial abuse.

In the context of a doctor–patient relationship, Informal coercion is a social process where a healthcare profession tries to make a patient adhere to the healthcare system's desired treatment without making use of formal coercion such as involuntary commitment combined with involuntary treatment. An example of involuntary treatment in mental health care is intramuscular injection with the antipsychotic haloperidol.

References

  1. 1 2 Dean, Edward S. (1964–1965), "A Psychotherapeutic Investigation of Nagging", Psychoanalytic Review, 51 (51D): 15–21, PMID   14218752 (subscription required)
  2. Bernstein, Elizabeth. "Meet the Marriage Killer". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 6 May 2013.
  3. Kozloff, Martin A. (1988). Productive interactions with students, children and clients. Springfield.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  4. 1 2 3 Soule, Kari P. (2011), "The What, When, Who and Why of Nagging in Interpersonal Relationships", in Galvin, Kathleen (ed.), Making Connections, New York: Oxford University Press, p. 193
  5. Kozloff, Martin A. (1988). Productive interactions with students, children and clients. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
  6. Yoshioka, Marianne R.; Thomas, Edwin J.; Ager, Richard D. (1992), "Nagging and other drinking control efforts of spouses of uncooperative alcohol abusers: Assessment and modification", Journal of Substance Abuse, 4 (3): 309–318, doi:10.1016/0899-3289(92)90038-Y, hdl: 2027.42/30339 , PMID   1458047, S2CID   404214
  7. 1 2 Meyers, Robert J.; Wolfe, Brenda L (2003), Get your loved one sober: alternatives to nagging, pleading, and threatening, Hazelden Publishing, ISBN   978-1-59285-081-5
  8. Boxer, Diana (2002), "Nagging: The familial conflict arena", Journal of Pragmatics , 34 (1): 49–61, doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00022-4 (subscription required)
  9. Soule, K. P. (2001). Persistence in compliance-gaining interactions: The Role of Nagging Behavior (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
  10. "Is There Ever an End to Nagging?". Psychology Today. Retrieved 2020-07-15.
  11. Bernstein, Elizabeth (2012-01-25). "Meet the Marriage Killer". Wall Street Journal. ISSN   0099-9660 . Retrieved 2020-07-15.
  12. "The Nagging Man". Good Housekeeping . 26: 164. 1897. Retrieved December 20, 2010.
  13. Ellis, David; Ivan Nyet, F. Ivan (1959), "The Nagging Parent", The Family Life Coordinator, 8 (1): 8–10, doi:10.2307/581432, JSTOR   581432 (subscription required)
  14. Schlosser, Eric (2001). Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal, Volume 1000. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 44. ISBN   978-0395977897 . Retrieved February 5, 2013.
  15. "Definition of branks". Free Dictionary. Retrieved 7 August 2012.
  16. 1 2 "Scolds Bridle". National Education Network, U.K. Retrieved 7 August 2012.
  17. "History talk sheds light on Scold's Bridle" . Retrieved 7 August 2012.[ permanent dead link ]

Further reading