This article was downloaded by: [Washburn University]On: 10 December 2014, At: 07:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcst20

Politeness theory and refusals of requests: Face threatas a function of expressed obstaclesDanette Ifert Johnson a , Michael E. Roloff b & Melissa A. Riffee ca Associate Professor of Communication , West Virginia Wesleyan College , Buckhannon, WVb Professor of Communication Studies , Northwestern University , Evanston, ILc Graduate student at Emerson CollegePublished online: 22 May 2009.

To cite this article: Danette Ifert Johnson , Michael E. Roloff & Melissa A. Riffee (2004) Politeness theory andrefusals of requests: Face threat as a function of expressed obstacles, Communication Studies, 55:2, 227-238, DOI:10.1080/10510970409388616

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510970409388616

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Communication Studies, 55(2) (Summer 2004), 227-238

POLITENESS THEORY AND REFUSALS OF REQUESTS: FACETHREAT AS A FUNCTION OF EXPRESSED OBSTACLES

DANETTE IFERT JOHNSON, MICHAEL E. ROLOFF, AND MELISSA A. RIFFEE

This investigation seeks to extend Wilson, Aleman, and Leatham's (1998) revision of Brown andLevinson's (1987) politeness theory by focusing on the relationship between face threat and refusals torequests. Results support that (a) when requests are refused, threats to the negative face needs of the requesterare more prevalent than threats to the negative face of the refuser and (b) depending on the obstacleunderlying the refusal, there are differences in type of threat present to the requester's positive face and therefuser's face needs.

KEY WORDS: Politeness theory, compliance-resistance, refusals

R efusals of requests have been the subject of numerous investigations in recentyears (e.g. Ifert & Roloff, 1998; Kim, Shin, & Cai, 1998) and past research

recognizes that effective refusals account for the needs of both parties in interaction(Kline & Floyd, 1990). Although refusals may not be expected or desired by therequester, they can achieve socially desirable ends such as helping young people resistpressure to use alcohol, tobacco products or illegal drugs (Alberts, Miller-Rassulo, &Hecht, 1991; Hecht, Trost, Bator, & MacKinnon, 1997). Based on an extension ofpoliteness theory, we posit hypotheses illustrating how refusal content influences theface threats present and report a study testing these hypotheses.

POLITENESS THEORY

Brown and Levinson's (1987) politeness theory holds that some speech acts,including requests, threaten interactants' face needs. They divide face concerns intoupholding an esteemed self-image (positive face) and a desire for autonomy (negativeface) (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Politeness theory assumes that sequential context ofutterances, not just adjacency, is necessary for message interpretation (Schegloff, 1988).This means that interaction unfolds based on the larger relational and conversationalcontext rather than simply the conversational move that just occurred. Unfortunately,concerns about face threat's conceptualization have limited its utility for explaininghow request interactions unfold. Craig, Tracy, and Spisak (1986) noted that the theoryfails to distinguish between threats to a speaker's and hearer's face. Politeness theoryalso assumes a given speech act will threaten only positive or negative face (Wilson,Aleman, & Leatham, 1998). McLaughlin (1984) reasserts the importance of attendingto both speaker and hearer face and positive and negative face concerns, often withinthe same message.

In an attempt to address existing concerns about politeness theory, Wilson et al.(1998) modified Brown and Levinson's (1987) theory. Wilson et al. (1998) suggest thatrequesters identify potential face threats based on (a) constitutive rules for seekingcompliance and (b) specific influence goals. For example, a request inherently threat-

Danette Ifert Johnson (Ph.D., 1994, Northwestern University) is Associate Professor of Communication at WestVirginia Wesleyan College, Buckhannon, WV. Michael E. Roloff (Ph.D., 1975, Michigan State University) isProfessor of Communication Studies at Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Melissa A. Riffee (B.A. WestVirginia Wesleyan College, 2003) is a graduate student at Emerson College. The authors wish to thank KristiR. Lawrence for her assistance with data collection. Parts of this manuscript were presented at the 2003 EasternCommunication Association Annual Meeting.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

28 1

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

228 COMMUNICATION STUDIES

ens a target's negative face, but degree of threat and potential for other face threatsdiffer depending on influence goals (Wilson et al., 1998). Wilson et al. (1998) suggestthat favor requesters perceive threats to their partner's negative and their own positiveface and those enforcing obligations expect threats to partner's negative and positiveface, while advice providers anticipated threats to their own and their partner'spositive face. Other work found that the justifications requesters use differed depend-ing on type of face threat and influence goal (Wilson & Kunkel, 2000).

This study applies politeness theory, as revised by Wilson et al. (1998), to anothertype of speech act: refusals of favor requests. Applying this framework can enlightenus about how refusals influence interaction and provide additional support for Wilsonet al.'s (1998) conceptualization. The next section describes how this theory may beused to explain refusals.

POLITENESS THEORY AND REFUSALS

Intrinsic face threats

Wilson et al.'s (1998) first contention is that constitutive rules for a speech actdetermine intrinsic face threats. According to Searle (1969), requests involve threerules: preparatory, sincerity, and essential. Preparatory rules for requests includeability of the target to perform the requested behavior and the belief that a target wouldnot perform the behavior otherwise; sincerity holds that the requester wants the targetto perform the requested action (Searle, 1969). Under Searle's (1969) essential rules,requests count as attempts to get the target to perform the requested act. Extrapolatingfrom Searle (1969), one can identify constitutive rules for refusals. Essentially, a refusalcounts as a target's attempt to avoid performing a requested act and the sincerity ruleis that the target is expressing true reasons for non-performance. Preparatory rulesinclude that the target has a choice and is not obligated to perform the requestedaction. These rules are similar to the definition of refusals presented by Kline andFloyd (1990) and illustrate the interrelatedness of requests and refusals as speech acts.

Given these constitutive rules, refusals should be most threatening to a requester'snegative face. A refuser exercises autonomy by refusing but a requester must decidewhether to persist, give up or move to another target. Given that requesters seek helpfrom those likely to comply (Roloff, Janiszewski, McGrath, Burns, & Manrai, 1988;Rule, Bisanz, & Kohn, 1985), refusal from a target expected to be compliant may leavefew alternatives. Abandoning the request may impede the requester's autonomy,resulting in performance of the desired behavior without needed resources or forego-ing the activity. Regardless of the requester's action, autonomy constraints are presentthat were absent before the refusal.

HI: Refusals of requests will create a greater degree of perceived threat to the negative face needsof the requester than to the negative face of the refuser.

Potential face threats

Wilson et al. (1998) identify influence goals as a second condition affectingpotential face threats. Because Wilson et al. (1998) and Wilson and Kunkel (2000)focused on differences in face threat between goal types, focusing on differences withina goal type would extend their work. Thus, the present analysis focuses on refusals offavor requests; this goal was selected because favor requests are a goal type examinedby past research (Roloff et al., 1998; Wilson et al., 1998; Wilson & Kunkel, 2000) andoccur frequently in everyday discourse.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

28 1

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

REFUSALS OF REQUESTS 229

Within favor refusals, the linguistic framing of the obstacle in the refusal maydetermine potential face threats. Obstacles are reasons for non-compliance and maybe expressed or unexpressed (Ifert & Roloff, 1994). Ifert and Roloff (1998) suggest thatobstacles vary on three dimensions: willingness-unwillingness, ability-inability, andfocus on-focus away from the requester. The willingness dimension differentiatesbetween refusals where the refuser states, "I don't want to help you" and "I'd like tohelp." Ability differentiates between, "I'm short on cash" and "I have some extramoney." Focus on-focus away from requester differentiates between, "It's your prob-lem, so you take care of it" and "It's terrible that your mom won't give you the money."Obstacle dimensions thus serve a similar function to goal types in Wilson et al.'s (1998)analysis: to determine the type of face threats potentially present in an interaction.

There is an important difference between obstacle dimensions and goal types.Obstacle dimensions, unlike goal types, are not mutually exclusive and multipledimensions may be simultaneously salient in a refusal. For example, a refusal mayreflect high willingness and low ability to comply (e.g., "I'd love to help but don't havethe tools for the job") or low willingness and low ability (e.g., "I don't feel like helpingand don't have the tools anyway"). It is therefore necessary to consider interactiveeffects of obstacle dimensions. The following sections consider how obstacle dimen-sions might interact to determine potential face threats after refusal.

Threats to the refuser's positive face. Even when refusing, people seek to avoidappearing incompetent. How the refusal reflects the willingness dimension may createor mitigate threats to a refuser's positive face. Given that requesters typically makerequests of intimates (Rule et al., 1985) and that expressing unwillingness violatesrelational expectations of assistance (Roloff, 1987), refusal is a violation that calls intoquestion the refuser's competence. Conversely, expressing high willingness shows arefuser's desire to meet the relational obligation even if other factors prevent compli-ance. However, this relationship should be moderated by the extent to which therefusal focuses on the requester. Refusals focusing attention on the requester maymagnify the positive face threat caused by expressed unwillingness to comply. Refusalsfocusing away from the requester assist in preserving a positive relational climate andthus protect the refuser's positive face. Such a relationship is supported by Folkes(1982), who argued that the need to maintain positive self-presentation can influencethe content and form of refusals.

In considering threats to a refuser's positive face, the ability dimension should beirrelevant. When a refusal reflects high ability, the refuser's competence is protectedbecause he or she possesses resources to comply. When a refusal reflects low ability,a refuser avoids the face threat of complying and later harming the friend and/orrelationship by an inability to follow through.

Thus, we anticipate that threat to a refuser's positive face will be determined bythe interaction of the degree to which the refusal is grounded in the willingnessdimension and is focused on the requester. The form of the interaction should be asfollows.

H2: The degree to which a refusal expresses willingness to help will be negatively related to threatto a refuser's positive face but this association will be of greater magnitude when the refusal isfocused away from rather than on the requester.

Threats to a refuser's negative face. Threats to a refuser's negative face limit autonomyand focus on requester is a salient dimension. Because refusals focusing away from therequester support future interaction, the relationship is preserved while the refuser

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

28 1

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

230 COMMUNICATION STUDIES

exercises autonomy. Focusing on the requester, by contrast, may constrain the refus-er's long term autonomy by jeopardizing the relationship and lessening compliancewith the refuser's own requests. However, this relationship should be moderated bythe degree of ability expressed in the obstacle. High ability provides the refuser witha choice to comply while low ability limits options and thus threatens the refuser'sautonomy. In low ability situations, focusing the refusal on the requester should causea greater threat to the refuser's negative face than when the refusal is focused awayfrom the requester.

The willingness dimension should not be salient when considering a refuser'snegative face. Whether a refuser elects to express low willingness or a desire to assist,the preparatory condition of refuser choice is fulfilled and no threat is present relatedto the willingness dimension.

Thus, we expect that threat to a refuser's negative face will be determined by theinteraction of the degree to which the refusal is focused on the requester and the degreeto which the refusal is grounded in the ability dimension. The form of the interactionfollows.

H3: The degree to which a refusal is focused away from the requester will be negatively related tothreat to a refuser's negative face but this association will be of greater magnitude when therefusal reflects low rather than high ability to comply.

Threats to requester's positive face. When determining threat to a requester's positiveface, the ability dimension should be salient. Refusals reflecting low ability indicate therequester did a poor job selecting a request target. Since requesters choose intimatesthey presumably know well (Rule et al., 1985), selecting a target low in ability reflectspoor relational knowledge and threatens a requester's positive face. Refusals reflectinghigh ability, by contrast, reinforce the requester's competence in selecting a requesttarget. However, the degree to which an obstacle reflects willingness to comply maymodify this relationship. As noted earlier, requests are typically made of intimates(Rule et al., 1985). Selecting a target who expresses unwillingness reflects poorly on therequester's choice, increasing positive face threat, while a refusal reflecting highwillingness supports the requester's choice, lessening positive face threat. Thus, threatto a requester's positive face should be greatest when a refusal expresses low abilityand unwillingness to comply.

The focus on requester dimension should be irrelevant to the requester's positiveface. Refusals focusing away from the requester suggest external factors are responsiblefor refusal and support the requester's competence. Conversely, refusals focusing onthe requester fail to threaten the requester's competence, as he or she has followed therelational expectations of seeking assistance from an intimate.

Thus, we predict that threats to a requester's positive face will be determined byinteraction of the degree to which the refusal is grounded in the ability and willingnessdimensions. The form of the interaction follows.

H4: The degree to which a refusal expresses ability to comply will be negatively related to threat toa requester's positive face but the magnitude of this association will be greater to the extent thatthe refusal also expresses unwillingness to comply.

METHOD

Participants

A total of 133 undergraduates (60 males, 73 females) enrolled in general educationcourses at a mid-Atlantic college completed a questionnaire packet. Participants

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

28 1

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

REFUSALS OF REQUESTS 231

averaged 19.42 (SD = 3.05) years old. The sample included 54.1% first years, 36.8%sophomores, 6.8% juniors, and 2.3% seniors. Students voluntarily completed thequestionnaire during class time and did not earn extra credit. Instrumentation wasapproved by the Institutional Review Board before data collection.

Procedures and Measures

Questionnaire instructions informed participants of the study's focus: how peoplerespond to requests. Participants were asked to imagine interacting with a friend in ahypothetical request situation. The first part of the questionnaire measured intimacy toensure that the participant was thinking about a friend. Roloff et al.'s (1988) intimacyscale was used to operationalize intimacy. Respondents answered ten items on five-point scales (1 = never occurs, 5 = often occurs). The mean level of intimacy was 4.11(SD = .61) and the scale proved internally reliable, a = .80.

Next, participants responded to one of two request scenarios. The first involvedasking a roommate to help clean the room. The second entailed asking the friend fora ride to a town about 30 miles away. Friends were chosen rather than other intimatesbecause different intimate relationships have unique qualities (Robbins, 1996) andconsistency among reported relationships was desired. Additionally, due to the resi-dential nature of the respondents' institution, participants were likely to have existingroommate relationships (friendships) but not all would have current romantic rela-tionships; reporting on a current rather than a prior relationship was believed toincrease the ability of respondents to provide accurate information.

The scenario was followed by one of fifteen statements the friend might use torefuse. Statements derived from refusal statements used by Ifert and Roloff (1998) wereused to stimulate variance on the continuous measures for the obstacle dimensions.Examples of refusal statements include, "No, I won't do it," "I'm too busy to do that,""If you want it done, do it yourself," "I just don't feel like doing it" and "Why shouldI do that?" Respondents were asked to "write out on the lines below EXACTLY howyou would respond to what your friend said." Several lines followed where participantsdescribed how they would react.

Following this response, participants provided demographic information. A finalset of questions used Likert-type scales to evaluate the refusal statement, desire topersist and face threats. Evaluations of the refusal statements asked participants to ratetheir friend's reason for refusing on 5-point scales for three obstacle dimensions. Theability dimension was measured by two continua: reflects high ability to comply-reflects low ability to comply and shows she/he is very capable of helping you-showsshe/he is not at all capable of helping you (a = .59). The willingness dimension wasmeasured by: indicates high willingness to comply-indicates low willingness to complyand shows low desire to help you-shows high desire to help you (a = .84). Thereliability of the two-item scale associated with focus on the requester was unaccept-able (a = .33), so we proceeded with a single-item measure asking respondents thedegree to which the refusal focuses on you-focuses away from you (M = 3.68, SD =.90). This item was selected because of its high degree of face validity with theconstruct of interest. While using a single-item measure is not ideal and future researchshould attempt to replicate these results using multiple-item measures, single-itemmeasures have been reported in past research when reliability of multiple-item mea-sures was unsatisfactory (e.g., Meyer, 2002; Reid, Keerie & Palomares, 2003).

To evaluate face threat, participants responded to several 1 (not at alt) to 5 (verymuch so) Likert-type items. Items for each scale appear in Table 1. Two questions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

28 1

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

232 COMMUNICATION STUDIES

TABLE 1FACTOR LOADINGS FOR FACE THREAT SCALES

Item I II III W

Would stating this refusal make your friend uncomfortable? .858 -.002 -.007 .113Is your friend raising doubts about his/her own abilities by

stating this refusal? .850 .203 .166 -.003Would stating this refusal be embarrassing for your friend? .760 .187 .284 -.005Would this reason for refusal interfere with your friend's freedom

of choice? -.008 .816 .129 .180Would this reason for refusal impose on your friend's ability to

do what he/she wants? .183 .820 -.002 -.003Would statement of this refusal by your friend impose on your

ability to do what you want? .108 .260 .835 .106Would statement of this refusal by your friend make it harder for

you to fulfill your needs? .296 -.008 .788 .119Is your friend showing disrespect for you and/or your abilities by

stating this refusal? -.009 .114 .169 .965

Note. Factor I items comprised the scale for refuser's positive face threat (eigenvalue = 3.09, 38.7% varianceexplained). Factor II items comprised the scale for refuser's negative face threat (eigenvalue = 1.23, 15.4%variance explained). Factor III items comprised the scale for requester's negative face threat (eigenvalue = 1.09,13.6% variance explained). Factor IV item was used to measure requester's positive face threat (eigenvalue =.753, 9.4% variance explained).

evaluated threat to a refuser's negative face. The mean level of negative face threat was2.43 [SD = .79), but the scale was moderately reliable, a = .60. Refuser's positiveface threat was measured using three questions with a mean of 2.65 [SD = .95). Thescale was reliable, a — .81. One question [M = 2.76, SD = 1.39) assessed threat toa requester's positive face (Is your friend showing disrespect for you or your abilitiesby stating this refusal?), as a two-item measure failed to achieve adequate reliability.Requester's negative face was evaluated using two questions. The mean of the two-itemscale was 2.87 [SD = 1.03) and it proved to be moderately reliable, a — .63.

Given the moderate reliability of the face threat scales, items for all three scalesand the single-item measure were subjected to factor analysis. Using varimax rotation,four factors were extracted. Factor loadings were above 0.4 and eigenvalues above 1.0for the first three factors. For the fourth factor, the single-item measure of requester'spositive face threat loaded at an acceptable level but the eigenvalue was below 1.0.Factor loadings appear as Table 1. These results support scales for threat to refuser'spositive face, refuser's negative face and requester's negative face. These results alsosupport the distinction of the requester's positive face threat item from the other scales.

RESULTS

Manipulation checks

An intimacy measure assessed whether respondents imagined interacting with afriend, as instructed. Intimacy was evaluated using an 11-item measure developed byRoloff et al. (1988). The mean level of intimacy reported was 4.11 [SD = .61). Thisis comparable to past research (Ifert & Roloff, 1994) where individuals were asked toimagine interacting with a friend [M = 4.09, SD = .94) and indicates that, onaverage, the friendships were very intimate.

Fifteen refusal statements manipulated die three obstacle dimensions. Statementswere derived from respondent generated refusals obtained by Ifert and Roloff (1998).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

28 1

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

REFUSALS OF REQUESTS 233

The purpose of these statements was to provide respondents with refusals illustratingdifferent combinations of obstacle dimensions (e.g., high willingness and low ability,high focus on requester and high ability). The critical issue for the manipulation, then,was whether the obstacle dimensions varied within each refusal statement. For exam-ple, if one obstacle was rated high on the willingness and ability scales while low onthe focus on requester scale and a second obstacle was rated low on the willingnessscale but high on ability and focus on requester, the manipulation was successful.Paired-t tests evaluated differences between ratings of obstacle dimensions within eachrefusal statement. Protected significance levels (p < .001) were used. These analysesshowed that the refusal statements represented varying combinations of obstacledimensions, as they reflected a mixture of similar and dissimilar obstacle combina-tions.

Scenario effects were evaluated to determine whether dependent variables (i.e.,the types of face threat) differed between the two scenarios. No differences were foundand scenarios were collapsed for data analysis. Although the refusal statement and theresponse to refusal were presented first to prevent contamination by other measures,the obstacle dimension rating and persistence/face threat measures were randomlyordered so potential order effects could be assessed. No differences were found in thedependent variables due to order of the measures.

Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis 1 predicted that refusals would create greater threat to the negativeface needs of the requester than to the refuser. This hypothesis was evaluated using apaired-t test. Results support that threat to the requester's negative face (M = 2.87,SD — 1.03) was greater than threat to the refuser's negative face (M = 2.43, SD =.79, t{\25) = - 4 . 3 1 , p < .001, R2 = .06).

Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4

These hypotheses were tested using hierarchical regression, where the threeobstacle dimensions were individually entered on the first step of the equation and theinteraction between each pair of dimensions was entered on the second step. To assistwith interpreting interactions, the independent variables were centered (Aiken & West,1991). Hypothesis 2 predicted that the degree to which a refusal expresses willingnessto help will be negatively related to threat to a refuser's positive face but thisassociation will be of greater magnitude when the refusal is focused away from ratherthan on the requester. Regression results appear in Table 2. When entered on thesecond step, the block of two-way interactions accounted for a significant increment ofvariance (R2A = .05, FA(6, 124) = - . 1 1 , p < 05). As predicted, only the interactionof expressed willingness and focus on the requester was statistically significant, B =.255, p < .01.

To probe the interaction, post hoc regression analyses were used to determinedifferences in the relationship between expressed willingness and threat to a refuser'spositive face at fixed levels of focus on the requester. The fixed levels of focus on therequester were the mean, one standard deviation below the mean, and one standarddeviation above the mean (Aiken & West, 1991). The regression equations resultingfrom these analyses appear at the bottom of Table 2. At one standard deviation belowthe mean (high degree of focus on the requester), expressed willingness to comply wassignificantly and negatively related to threat to the refuser's positive face. At the mean(moderate focus on the requester), expressed willingness to comply was also signifi-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

28 1

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

234 COMMUNICATION STUDIES

TABLE 2

REGRESSION FOR THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OBSTACLES AND THREAT TO A REFUSER'S POSITIVE FACE

Step 1:Dimension Slope tWillingness -.135 -1.33Focus on requester -.080 .785Ability -.081 -.633i?2 = .06

Step 2:Dimension SlopeWillingness -.174 -1.71Focus on requester —.045 .432Ability -.086 -.675Willingness XFocus .255* 2.35Focus X Ability -.204 -1.45Ability XWillingness .124 1.38R2 = .10

Regression of face threat on willingness by degree of focus on the requester

Low focus on requester Y = (.055)x + 2.65Moderate focus on requester Y = (—.174)*x + 2.61High focus on requester Y = (-.403)**x + 2.57

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01. Cell entries are unstandardized regression weights. Low focus on requester was onestandard deviation below the mean, moderate was the mean and high was one standard deviation above themean.

cantly and negatively related to threat to the refuser's positive face, but the regressioncoefficient was smaller. Finally, at one standard deviation above the mean (high focusaway from the requester), there was a positive but non-significant relationship betweenexpressed willingness to comply and threat to the refuser's positive face. Thus, thehypothesis was confirmed.

Hypothesis 3 anticipated that the degree to which a refusal focuses away from arequester will be negatively related to threat to a refuser's negative face but thisassociation will be of greater magnitude when the refusal reflects low rather than highability to comply. Regression results for H3 appear as Table 3 and they provide nosupport for the predicted form of the interaction. The block of two-way interactionsentered on the second step accounted for a significant increment of variance (R2A =.05, FA(6, 120) = .09, p < .05. As predicted, only the interaction of focus on therequester and expressed ability was statistically significant, B = —.281, p < .01.

Post-hoc regression analyses again evaluated the interaction effects. At one stan-dard deviation below the mean (low ability to comply), refusals focusing away from therequester were not related to threat to the refuser's negative face. At the mean(moderate ability to comply), refusals focusing away from the requester showed a trendtoward a negative relationship with threat to refuser's negative face. At one standarddeviation above the mean (high ability to comply), refusals focusing away from therequester were significantly and negatively related to threat to the refuser's negativeface. Clearly, this pattern is opposite of that which was expected.

Hypothesis 4 assumed that the degree to which a refusal expresses ability tocomply will be negatively related to requester's positive face threat but the magnitudeof this association will be greater to the extent that the refusal also expresses unwill-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

28 1

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

REFUSALS OF REQUESTS 235

TABLE 3

REGRESSION FOR THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OBSTACLES AND THREAT TO A REFUSER'S NEGATIVE FACE

Step 1:Dimension Sbpe tWillingness - .088 - .997Focus on requester -.200* -2.28Ability - .082 - .839R2 = .05

Step 2:Dimension Slope tWillingness - .091 -1.03Focus on requester —.151a —1.68Ability - .113 -1.04Willingness XFocus .076 .804Focus X Ability - .281* -2.29Ability XWillingness - .109 - .142R2 = .10

Regressions of face threat on focus on the requester by degree of expressedability

Low ability Y = (.407)x + 2.48Moderate ability Y = (-.151)ax + 2.38High ability Y = (-.387)**x + 2.29

Note. * p < .05, **/> < .01, a/> < .09. Cell entries are unstandardized regression weights. Low ability was onestandard deviation below the mean, moderate was at the mean and high was one standard deviation above themean.

ingness. Regression results supported H4 and appear in Table 4. When entered on thesecond step, the block of two-way interactions accounted for a significant increment ofvariance (R2A = .05, FA(6, 123) = —1.30, p < .01). The predicted interaction betweenexpressed ability and willingness was significant, B = .238, p < .05.

Post-hoc regression probed the nature of the interaction. At low levels of ex-pressed willingness (one standard deviation below the mean), expressed ability wasnegatively related to threat to the requester's positive face. At moderate willingness(the mean), expressed ability was unrelated to threat to requester's positive face. Athigh levels of expressed willingness (one standard deviation above the mean), ex-pressed ability was also unrelated to threat to the requester's positive face. Thus, thehypothesis was confirmed.

DISCUSSION

In extending the politeness model of Wilson and colleagues (Wilson et al., 1998;Wilson & Kunkel, 2000), this investigation proposed that obstacles stated in refusalsserve the same function as goals in requests. Obstacles act as a contextual determinantof the types of face threat most relevant to the interaction. Results suggest that refusalsinherently threaten a requester's negative face [HI) and other face threats are presentdepending on the combination of obstacles encountered in refusal. The interaction offocus on requester and willingness dimensions predicts threat to a refuser's positiveface {H2). When obstacles reflect high focus on the requester, there is a negativerelationship between expressed willingness and threat to the refuser's positive face.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

28 1

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

236 COMMUNICATION STUDIES

TABLE 4REGRESSION FOR THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OBSTACLES AND THREAT TO A REQUESTER'S POSITIVE FACE

Step 1:Dimension Slope tWillingness -.382** -2.54Focus on requester -.178 -1.20Ability -.205 -1.12B? = .11

Step 2:Dimension Slope tWillingness -.407** -2.74Focus on requester -.149 —.996Ability -.233 -1.29Willingness XFocus -.182 -1.13Focus X Ability .126 .616Ability XWillingness .238* 1.85R2 = .17

Regressions of face threat on expressed ability by degree of expressedwillingness

Low willingness Y = (-.481)*x + 3.03Moderate willingness Y = (-.233)x + 2.61High willingness Y = (.014)x + 2.18

Note. * p< .05, ** p< .01. Cell entries are unstandardized regression weights. Low willingness was one standarddeviation below the mean, moderate was at the mean and high was one standard deviation above the mean.

When obstacles reflect low focus on the requester, there is no relationship betweenexpressed willingness and threat to the refuser's positive face.

The interaction of focus on the requester and ability predicts threat to a refuser'snegative face [H3). The form of the interaction was not as anticipated. Initially, weargued that lack of ability would constitute a threat to the refuser's autonomy and thatthis would exacerbate the face threat arising from focusing the refusal on the requester.However, our results indicate the opposite pattern. At high levels of expressed ability,threat to a refuser's negative face increases as the obstacle focuses more on therequester. At low levels of ability, there is a non-significant relationship betweenrefuser's negative face threat and degree to which the obstacle focused on the re-quester. One possibility is that low ability is an acceptable reason to violate relationalassistance expectations and thus does not threaten a refuser's negative face; it serves asan exemption from relational pressure to fulfill the request. With high ability, however,this exemption does not exist and, as the refusal reflects greater focus on the requester,more constraints are placed on the refuser, particularly in terms of future interactionwith the requester.

Threat to a requester's positive face was predicted by interaction of the degree towhich the refusal is grounded in ability and willingness dimensions (H4). At low levelsof expressed willingness, degree of expressed ability is negatively related to threat tothe requester's positive face. At high levels of willingness, the negative relationshipbetween ability and threat to the requester's positive face is not statistically significant.It should be noted, however, that while these results support the hypothesized rela-tionships, the proportion of variance accounted for was only 10-20%, so factorsbeyond obstacles should be examined to determine whether they can account foradditional variance in face threat.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

28 1

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

REFUSALS OF REQUESTS 237

Implications of These Findings for Theory and Understanding Interaction

These findings are important for several reasons. First, they support generalizingWilson et al.'s (1998) model by applying it to another speech act. These results parallelWilson et al. (1998) in that one type of face threat (to the requester's negative face) isfound to be inherent in refusals. The presence of other types of face threat, whichWilson et al. (1998) found to derive from specific influence goals, is determined inrefusals by the interaction of relevant obstacle dimensions. Second, this work extendsknowledge of refusals, a speech act largely ignored by Brown and Levinson (1987) butcommon in discourse. Demonstrating that the claims of politeness theory can explainspeech acts beyond those addressed by Brown and Levinson (1987) provides supportfor the explanatory power of the theory. Finally, the interactive effects of obstacles onperceived face threat provide additional support for Ifert and Roloff s (1998) findingsthat obstacles can be differentiated according to multiple dimensions and movebeyond past research by establishing that the interaction of obstacle dimensionsinfluences perceptions of the message, specifically the degree of face threat presentedby the obstacles expressed.

Limitations

Reliability of some two-item measures, specifically threat to the requester's pos-itive face and the focus on requester obstacle dimension, was a problem. Both of theseconcepts were thus measured by one item. Low reliability is not necessarily surprisingfor a two-item measure given that scales with more items tend to have greaterreliability (Carmines & Zeller, 1979), but future work should continue seekingmultiple-item, reliable measures of these constructs rather than relying on single-itemmeasures for which reliability cannot be assessed.

The present study was also limited to favor requests. While this is useful inapplying Wilson et al.'s (1998) theory and is a common type of request goal, furtherresearch should investigate whether obstacles interact differently to predict face threatfor refusals of other requests. Given recent work (Meyer, 2002; Wilson et al., 1998)finding that varying request goals interact with situational and interaction variables,these results may not be generalizable beyond favor requests.

Future research

The results of this investigation support Wilson et al.'s (1998) reconceptualizationof politeness theory by applying it to refusals and thus demonstrating further thatWilson et al.'s (1998) theory can be readily applied to studying interaction. Addition-ally, while constitutive rules determine the face threats inherent in an interaction type,other, variable constructs determine potential face threats. In the case of requests, theinfluence goal fulfills this function while in the case of refusals, obstacle dimensionsdetermine potential face threats. As other types of interactions are investigated fromthe Wilson et al. (1998) framework, scholars should seek to determine what elementsof the interaction context determine potential face threat. In doing so, we can betterunderstand differing types of interactions while maintaining a common explanatoryframework with potentially broad generalizability.

Beyond refining the revised politeness theory, continuing scholarship shouldexamine the effects of face threat on subsequent conversational moves. Influence goals(in the case of requests) and obstacle dimensions (in the case of refusals) may deter-mine face threat, but how does face threat influence responses to requests or refusals?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

28 1

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

238 COMMUNICATION STUDIES

A related follow-up investigation of the effects of face threat on subsequent persistence,use of additional persuasion cues and use of forgiving statements was conductedconcurrently with the study reported here and is presently under review.

Overall, the results support Wilson et al.'s (1998) revision of politeness theory andthe importance of considering multiple types of face threat in explaining requestinteractions. Results of Wilson et al. (1998) and the current investigation suggest thatmultiple face threats are present in request and refusal situations and that while onetype of face threat may be primary for a speech act, other face threats influenceprogress of an influence interaction.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Alberts, J . K., Miller-Rassulo, M. A., & Hecht, M. L. (1991). A typology of drug resistance strategies. Journalof Applied Communication Research, 19, 129-151.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Sage Quantitative Applications inthe Social Sciences, No. 17. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Craig, R. T., Tracy, K., & Spisak, F. (1986). The discourse of requests: Assessment of a politeness approach.Human Communication Research, 12, 437-468.

Folkes, V. S. (1982). Communicating the reasons for social rejection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,18, 618-628.

Hecht, M. L., Trost, M. R , Bator, R. J., & MacKinnon, D. (1997). Ethnicity and sex similarities anddifferences in drug resistance. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 25, 75-97.

Ifert, D. E., & Roloff, M. E. (1994). Anticipated obstacles to compliance: Predicting their presence andexpression. Communication Studies, 45, 120-130.

Ifert, D. E., & Roloff, M. E. (1996). Responding to rejected requests: Persistence and response type asfunctions of obstacles to compliance. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 40-59.

Ifert, D. E., & Roloff, M. E. (1998). Understanding obstacles preventing compliance: Conceptualization andclassification. Communication Research, 25, 131-153.

Kim, M. S., Shin, H. C., & Cai, D. (1998). Cultural influences on the preferred forms of requesting andre-requesting. Communication Monographs, 65, 47-66.

Kline, S. L., & Floyd, C. H. (1990). On the art of saying no: The influence of social cognitive developmenton messages of refusal. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 454-472.

McLaughlin, M. L. (1984). Conversation: How talk is organized. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Meyer, J . R. (2002). Contextual influences on the pursuit of secondary goals in request messages. Commu-

nication Monographs, 69, 189-203.Reid, S. A., Keerie, N., & Palomares, N. A. (2003). Language, gender salience, and social influence. Journal

of Language and Social Psychology, 22, 210-233.Robbins, P. (1996). Romantic relationships. Raleigh, NC: McFarland and Company.Roloff, M. E. (1987). Communication and reciprocity within intimate relationships. In M. E. Roloff & G. R

Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp. 11-38). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Roloff, M. E., Janiszewski, C. A., McGrath, M. A., Burns, C. S., & Manrai, L. A. (1988). Acquiring resources

from intimates: When obligation substitutes for persuasion. Human Communication Research, 14, 364-396.Rule, B. G., Bisanz, G. L., & Kohn, M. (1985). Anatomy of a persuasion schema: Targets, goals, and

strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1127-1140.Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Presequences and indirection: Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation.

Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 55-62.Searle,J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. New York: Cambridge.Wilson, S. R., Aleman, C. G., & Leatham, G. B. (1998). Identity implications of influence goals: A revised

analysis of face-threatening acts and application to seeking compliance with same-sex friends. Human Communi-cation Research, 25, 64-96.

Wilson, S. R., & Kunkel, A. W. (2000). Identify implications of influence goals: Similarities in perceived facethreats and face work across sex and close relationships. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19, 195-221.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

28 1

0 D

ecem

ber

2014