Threats: Power, family mealtimes, and social influence
Open accessAbstract
One of the most basic topics in social psychology is the way one agent influences the behaviour of another. This paper will focus on threats, which are an intensified form of attempted behavioural influence. Despite the centrality to the project of social psychology, little attention has been paid to threats. This paper will start to rectify this oversight. It reviews early examples of the way social psychology handles threats and highlights key limitations and presuppositions about the nature and role of threats. By contrast, we subject them to a programme of empirical research. Data comprise video records of a collection of family mealtimes that include preschool children. Threats are recurrent in this material. A preliminary conceptualization of features of candidate threats from this corpus will be used as an analytic start point. A series of examples are used to explicate basic features and dimensions that build the action of threatening. The basic structure of the threats uses a conditional logic: if the recipient continues problem action/does not initiate required action then negative consequences will be produced by the speaker. Further analysis clarifies how threats differ from warnings and admonishments. Sequential analysis suggests threats set up basic response options of compliance or defiance. However, recipients of threats can evade these options by, for example, reworking the unpleasant upshot specified in the threat, or producing barely minimal compliance. The…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In Hepburn and Potter's (2011) study, the noxious upshot was commonly withholding something enjoyable, whereas in our data, this tended to represent a negative aspect.
“In Hepburn and Potter's (2011) study, the noxious upshot was commonly withholding something enjoyable, whereas in our data, this tended to represent a negative aspect.”
From A discursive analysis of compliance, resistance and escalation to threats in sexually exploitative interactions between offenders and male children (2021) · cites this paper as Hepburn and Potter (2011)
One of the features of threats is that the speaker has the power to affect a negative upshot.
“One of the features of threats is that the speaker has the power to affect a negative upshot (Hepburn & Potter, 2011).”
From A discursive analysis of compliance, resistance and escalation to threats in sexually exploitative interactions between offenders and male children (2021) · cites this paper as Hepburn & Potter, 2011
Agency for the negative upshot in our data is routinely claimed by the offender, rather than being worked up to soften the 'appearance of autocratic control'.
“Additionally, agency for the negative upshot in our data is routinely claimed by the offender, rather than being worked up to soften the 'appearance of autocratic control', as evidenced in their analysis of family mealtimes (p.13).”
From A discursive analysis of compliance, resistance and escalation to threats in sexually exploitative interactions between offenders and male children (2021) · cites this paper as Hepburn and Potter (2011)
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 41 · Cited by 181
- Authors
- Hepburn, A., & Potter, J.
- Affiliations
- Loughborough University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Hepburn, Alexa
- Venue
- British Journal of Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-03
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 99-120
- ISSN
- 0144-6665 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-8309
- OpenAlex
- W1904140922
- Cited by
- 181
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 21.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- dspace.lboro.ac.uk
- Licence
- Locations
- British Journal of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Loughborough University Institutional Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Loughborough University Research Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
- Keywords
- threats, social influence, family meals, preschool children, power, compliance, defiance, resistance, asymmetry, conditional logic
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Behavior Therapy, Child Rearing, Child, Preschool, Coercion, Cooperative Behavior, Defense Mechanisms, Eating, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Power, Psychological, Semantics, Social Environment, Socialization, Verbal Behavior, Video Recording, Intention, Family Conflict
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review