...Without such insight, it is difficult to develop programs that might encourage social influence. We believe that Newell and Stutman's (1988) Social Confrontation Model offers critical insights into peer confrontation in a health context. To illustrate its utility, we apply its principles to confrontations among undergraduates with regard to their excessive alcohol consumption and report the results of a study that tests our applications.

Young adults are among the most frequent users of alcohol in the United States (Naimi et al., 2003) and college students consume alcohol at higher rates than do non-college individuals in the same age cohort (Johnston, O'Malley, & Bachman, 1997). Indeed, the use and abuse of alcohol is the primary health concern among this population (Miller-Day & Dodd, 2004).

As alcohol abuse is such a concern in undergraduate populations, it may be important to understand ways that students influence and confront one another with regard to abuse of alcohol. Although peers are willing to intervene to prevent an illegal alcohol related action, they seem reluctant to confront one another about an abusive lifestyle. For example, Thomas and Seibold (1995a) found that 73% of their undergraduate sample reported that they had intervened in a drunken driving situation, but only 23% had attempted to intervene with someone they knew who was abusing alcohol. Hence, it seems unlikely that many peers would want to engage in confrontations or have sufficient experience to understand how to confront a problematic drinker. Therefore, it is important that researchers identify the conditions under which peers will confront a problem drinker and the strategies and tactics they could use. Prior research provides insights into the strategies and tactics individuals use to convince someone to drink or to resist drinking influences (e.g., Harrington, 1995, 1997; Wright & O'Hair, 1999) but less had been done with confrontational strategies. Thomas and Seibold (1995a) examined the conditions under which individuals would try to influence an alcohol abuser and in a second study focused on the strategies they would use (Thomas & Seibold, 1995b). Although providing useful insights, their research was primarily descriptive and did not attempt to predict the underlying factors that might influence the decision to confront another as well as the strategies that would be used.

To build on this research, we investigate peer interventions in the context of the theoretical framework of social confrontation. In developing our position, we first examine Newell and Stutman's Social Confrontation Model and then explore the implications of that model for understanding the decision to confront another about his or her problematic drinking and confrontational style.

Social Confrontation Model

Newell and Stutman (1988) offered a model of confrontation in which an individual expresses to another that his or her behavior "has violated (or is violating) a rule or expectation for appropriate conduct within the relationship or situation" (p. 271). Undergraduates with alcohol problems typically overestimate the degree to which their behavior is normative (Perkins, 2002), which implies that many of their peers could see their alcohol consumption as excessive and inappropriate. Indeed, Thomas and Seibold (1995a) found that some individuals intervene because they feel that problematic alcohol use is inappropriate behavior. However, individuals do not always confront one another regarding rules that are breeched (Newell & Stutman, 1991), and researchers have identified factors that affect a person's confrontational behavior. Research indicates that college students often see excessive alcohol use as a violation of expected behavior, but it is unclear as to the conditions under which they will confront others about their counternormative behavior. Hence, we extend prior research by identifying when confrontations will take place over inappropriate alcohol consumption. Two constructs that impact confrontation are legitimacy and intimacy.

Legitimacy

Newell and Stutman (1988) argued that the legitimacy of a complaint is a key issue as a confrontation unfolds. The interactants discuss whether the target's behavior violates a rule or expectation and whether there is consensus that the rule or expectation is relevant. There is also evidence that a somewhat different form of legitimacy plays a role prior to the beginning of a confrontation. Interviews show that people are more inclined to initiate a confrontation when they perceive that they have the right or responsibility to confront another (Newell & Stutman, 1991). Consistent with this view, Thomas and Seibold (1995a) found that one of the reasons individuals gave for intervening in alcohol abuse situations was personal responsibility to take action. Conversely, perceiving that one does not have a legitimate right to complain is one of the reasons why people report withholding complaints (Cloven & Roloff, 1994b) and Thomas and Seibold (1995a) found that the absence of personal responsibility was the most frequent reason why individuals chose not to intervene with someone who was abusing alcohol. Legitimacy is also related to aspiring to achieve compliance from someone (Hullett & Tamborini, 2001).

Having legitimate standing to confront others about their excessive alcohol consumption could vary with a person's beliefs. Health-related lifestyles can be viewed as a matter of individual choice (Ribisl & Humphreys, 1998). Within legal constraints, individuals are free to adopt a given lifestyle (e.g., drink alcohol, exercise, diet, smoke cigarettes) and they should feel free to pursue it without interference from others. Taken to its extreme, even if one disapproves of a lifestyle choice, it is solely the business of those who have adopted it and one should not confront them about it. Indeed, to confront someone carries with it the feeling that one has tried to improperly impose one's will on another and hence, one has violated rules of politeness (Brown & Levinson, 1987). However, we suspect that not all individuals adopt such an open orientation, and they believe that it is their obligation, as well as their right, to express their disapproval of a lifestyle choice. Hence, we advance the following hypothesis.

H1: The degree to which a person believes that health-related lifestyle issues are a matter of individual choice is negatively related to the degree to which individuals believe that confronting a peer about his or her problematic drinking is legitimate.

Intimacy

According to Newell and Stutman (1991), "the nature of the relationship, including varying degrees of intimacy" may influence whether or not someone confronts another (p. 383). Indeed, social influence attempts most frequently occur between individuals in intimate relationships (Orina, Wood, & Simpson, 2002). In part, frequent influence attempts may reflect the communal nature of intimate relationships in which partners want to act in a way that facilitates each other's well-being (Williamson & Clark, 1989). Indeed, as intimacy increases, individuals report greater obligations to provide assistance to each other regardless of whether it is requested (Roloff, Janiszewski, McGrath, Burns, & Manrai, 1988). Relational closeness has been cited as a primary reason that individuals decided to intervene in an alcohol abuse situation and was also a reason that people decided not to intervene in similar situations (Thomas & Seibold, 1995a).

The aforementioned implies that confrontations over excessive alcohol consumption are most likely to occur when individuals feel a legitimate right to confront the person and they have an intimate relationship. Although Newell and Stutman (1988, 1991) and Thomas and Seibold (1995a) do not explicitly discuss the interplay between legitimacy and intimacy, the absence of analysis implies that they could be independent predictors of confrontation. However, we believe that their relationship is more complex than that. Consistent with Newell and Stutman, we will argue that legitimacy is a primary determinant of confrontational behavior, but we believe that intimacy moderates its influence. Thomas and Seibold (1995a) included responsibility and relational status in the decision to confront or not to confront and we hope to extend this by looking at the impact of these constructs on the messages influencers produce. In presenting our argument, we will look at how legitimacy and intimacy interact to influence confronters' meta-goals and the...

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



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.