Politeness Theory and Conversational Refusals: Associations between Various Types of Face Threat and Perceived Competence

Abstract

The present study investigates the association between threats to requesters' and refusers' face needs and perceptions of refusal message effectiveness and appropriateness. Results suggest that perceived refusal effectiveness is negatively associated with threat to a requester's negative face but positively associated with threat to a refuser's positive face. Perceived refusal appropriateness was associated with interactions of multiple face threats. Overall, results support that judgments of appropriateness are influenced by the combination of face threats present. Specifically, low levels of one type of face threat are associated with perceptions that increasing other face threats is inappropriate.

Keywords:

• Communication Competence
• Competence
• Politeness

Data for this article were collected by the Time-Shared Experiments in the Social Sciences (TESS), NSF Grant 0094964, Diana C. Mutz and Arthur Lupia, principal investigators. An earlier manuscript describing portions of the investigation reported here was presented at the 2005 National Communication Association Annual Meeting in Boston.

Notes

Note: For the job-reference condition, R ² < .01 for Step 1; ΔR ² = .01 for Step 2. For the pet-sitting and borrowing combined conditions, R ² = .01 for Step 1; ΔR ² = .02 for Step 2. Low threat to refuser's negative face was one standard deviation below the mean, moderate was the mean, and high was one standard deviation above the mean.

∗∗p < .01.

Note: For the job-reference condition, R ² = .02 for Step 1; ΔR ² = .02 for Step 2. For the pet-sitting condition, R ² = .09 for Step 1; ΔR ² = .05 for Step 2. For the borrowing money condition, R ² = .14 for Step 1; ΔR ² = .02 for Step 2. Low is one standard deviation below the mean threat to refuser's negative face, moderate is at the mean and high is one standard deviation above the mean.

∗∗p < .01.

∗p < .05.

Note: For the job-reference condition, R ² = .01 for Step 1; ΔR ² = .04 for Step 2. For the pet-sitting condition, R ² = .07 for Step 1; ΔR ² < .001 for Step 2. For the borrowing money condition, R ² = .12 for Step 1; ΔR ² = .03 for Step 2. Low threat is one standard deviation below the mean, moderate is at the mean and high is one standard deviation above the mean.

∗∗p < .01.

∗p < .05.