...elicited individuals who are normally highly motivated and achievement oriented. The resulting structure revealed six clusters ranging from attacks on character to negative forecasts about potential success.

Keywords: Discouraging; Motivation; Hurtful Messages; Social Influence

**********

A great deal of communication and related research is directed at how to motivate others in their endeavors. In contrast, little if any research, however, points to what demotivates. Some might say that if we seek to inspire, we might first avoid creating dolor or "negative support" environments (see La Gaipa, 1990). Others might argue that what is encouraging in one direction stems from the discouragement of prior states (e.g., creating the motivating impact of inconsistency requires the persuader to point out or create an inconsistent state). Either perspective would seem to demand that we learn more about what messages discourage those who are otherwise motivated.

Definition

Discouraging messages are those messages interpreted by the receiver as having the intent of exacerbating or increasing sense of resignation and being disheartened. There are several properties of this definition that require elaboration.

First, discouraging messages convey a negative intention or attitude held by the source toward the receiver. The key aspect is that the recipient sees the discouraging message as intended to dissuade the receiver from continuing to perform.

Second, discouraging messages refers to an active communication process as opposed to a persistent emotional state (e.g., depression). That is, the recipient interprets a discouraging message as intended to alter the recipient's motivation state. While persistent emotional states like depression are of interest to communication researchers (Segrin, 2003; Segrin & Dillard, 1992) receiving a discouraging message should not be confused with being in a persistent emotional state.

Third, discouraging messages can be seen as related to but not the same as hurtful messages (Mills, Nazar, & Farrell, 2002; Vangelisti, 1994; Vangelisti & Crumley, 1998; Young, 2004; Young & Bippus, 2001). Vangelisti specifically broadened hurtful messages "regardless of intentionality ..." to any "feeling of hurt ... evoked by and expressed through communication" (p. 54). According to Vangelisti hurtful messages are distinguished from messages that elicit guilt or those that elicit anger on the dimensions of source (internal, external, interpersonal, or relational), stability, and globality. What is characteristic of discouraging messages, by contrast, is the perceived intent to dishearten rather than the elicited response. Thus, a response to a discouraging message may well be feelings of hurt, anger, or guilt. On the other hand, the response to a discouraging message might be righteous indignation or a desire to rise above the pettiness of the comment. A message that discourages is specifically one that the recipient interprets as intended to be demoralizing or demotivating.

Vangelisti (1994) employed inductive analysis to generate a typology of hurtful message speech acts. This investigation has the potential for comparing and contrasting hurtful speech acts from messages seen as discouraging.

Two studies were conducted to explore the nature and extent of discouraging messages. The first study examined self-reports of experiences and perceptions of discouraging messages. Study 2 involved a cluster and multidimensional scaling analysis of discouraging message matchings.

Study 1

The intent here was to find evidence about the perceptions people have of discouraging messages. How common are discouraging message? Are discouraging words innocuous and uncommon or are such messages a vast social affliction? Are there differences in the perceptions about who sends discouraging messages? Vangelisti (1994) found little evidence that people attribute hurtful messages to relational or interpersonal factors. Much of the literature on hurtful messages, however, centers on the role of the attributions about purposeful intent that the recipients make about the source of the message (Mills et al., 2002; Vangelisti, 1994; Young, 2004; Young & Bippus, 2001). The more the source appears to be trying to create hurt feelings, the greater the intensity of the response. Reynolds (1991), relying on previous research on actor-observer differences in beliefs about communication (e.g., Stafford, Waldron, & Infield, 1989; see also Guerrero, 1994; Schutz, 1999), found differences between people in general, partners, and the self in estimates of the frequency of conversational retreats. [1] Similarly, extrapolating from literature on the self-categorization explanation of the Third-person effect (Reid & Hogg, 2005), when social identity is salient (as in a high level of motivation to achieve), message recipients make different attributions about the intentions and effects of messages. While actor-observer differences may matter, the particular role (social identity) held by the message recipient (i.e., dealing with a supervisor, a subordinate, or a friend) may influence perceptions about discouraging messages. The primary research question for this exploratory effort is: To what degree do perceptions and estimates about discouraging messages vary across relational focus or gender? Further, following Kellermann, Reynolds, and Chen (1991), the initial attention for this exploratory study is on perceptions of the frequency, ease, and negative affect (rudeness) of discouraging encounters.

Method

Participants

The people participating (N = 138) in this study were recruited from upper division communication classes at a West Coast university and at an East Coast university. There were 65 males and 73 females in the...

NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.



More articles from Communication Reports
Employees' expressions of upward dissent as a function of current and ..., October 01, 2006
Reactions to narrative and statistical written messages promoting orga..., October 01, 2006
Cultural terms for communication: sources of intercultural asynchrony ..., October 01, 2006
Television viewing in child care programs: a national survey.(Survey), October 01, 2006

Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.

Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.

About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.

Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.