|
Article Excerpt
Children refuse to perform chores. Patients fail to follow medical treatment guidelines. A friend declines a request for assistance. Requests are necessary to attain a variety of goals but refusals such as those above are a cost sometimes associated with seeking aid from others. Refusals obviously impede the instrumental goal of achieving compliance, and researchers have examined refusal strategies in contexts as diverse as rejecting alcohol offers (Harrington, 1997) and resisting sales pitches (Campbell & Davis, 2006).
Refusals also have ramifications beyond thwarting compliance. Dillard, Segrin, and Harden (1989) noted the importance of identity and interaction goals in influence interactions. Refusal potentially makes achieving more than one goal more difficult. For example, refusing an intimate partner's request may hinder identity goals of appearing cooperative and supportive and, as a result, negatively affect long-term relationship development. Afifi and Lee (2000) observed the difficulty of balancing instrumental and identity goals when refusing sexual overtures, particularly when one wishes to maintain the relationship. Thus, various interpersonal goals are present, and refusals can influence interactants' ongoing identities and relationships as well as instrumental outcomes.
One theoretical perspective used to explain interactions where diverse interpersonal goals are present is politeness theory. Research grounded in politeness theory has led to several conclusions about face needs in interpersonal relationships. First, a single message can create more than one type of face threat (Johnson, Roloff, & Riffee, 2004a; Wilson, Aleman & Leatham, 1998) and may even support some face needs while threatening others (Erbert & Floyd, 2004). Second, speakers typically attend to their own and their partner's face needs during interaction (Cupach & Metts, 1994; Lakey & Canary, 2002). Third, politeness and face threats influence subsequent messages. Bunz and Campbell (2004) found evidence of speech accommodation when politeness markers were present. Johnson, Roloff, and Riffee (2004b) concluded that threats to a requester's positive and negative face were related to greater persistence after refusal. Finally, the face threat of a message depends on the interaction context, including participants' goals (Wilson et al.) and perceptions of the message (Erbert & Floyd).
Given the research summarized above, a logical step is to examine the relationship between multiple face threats and the success of refusal messages. Such an investigation is important for theoretical and applied reasons. Goldsmith (1992) observed when studying social support messages that one must consider whether a support message actually helps the hearer. In making this assessment, Goldsmith suggested evaluating whether a) the message is appropriate for the situation, b) it is communicated competently, and c) it satisfies both parties' face needs. Similarly, refusal messages can be helpful or harmful in terms of achieving compliance and attaining identity and relationship goals. The present study uses criteria similar to Goldsmith's to evaluate message success: communication competence and consideration of both parties' face needs. Evaluating refusals by the same criteria as those used for other interpersonal messages can provide information about whether individuals evaluate different types of messages using similar criteria. To maximize the potential for positive outcomes from refusal messages, scholars must understand how requesters evaluate the refusals they encounter.
Additionally, examining refusals from a politeness perspective is relatively new. Although research has established that more than one face threat is present after refusal (Johnson et al., 2004a) and identified the ways requesters respond after refusal (Johnson et al., 2004b), the role of context in determining how requesters respond to refusal remains to be fully delineated. Receiver perceptions of messages are one determinant of face threat (Erbert & Floyd, 2004), and understanding how requesters interpret refusals can shed light onto why requesters respond to refusals as they do. The following section discusses the evaluation criterion of communication competence and how it relates to refusals.
Refusals and Competence
In examining responses to refusals, researchers have paid limited attention to message outcomes, such as success in achieving influence goals or partner perceptions of refusal (Levine & Boster, 2001). This omission is unfortunate, because competent communication is a goal of interaction and is viewed as enacting messages that are effective in achieving interactants' goals and do so in a socially acceptable manner (Canary & Spitzberg, 1987). Competent communication has been associated with positive perceptions in other interpersonal contexts (Goldsmith, 1992; Lakey & Canary, 2002).
When considering the outcomes of refusal messages, it is important to assess both competence criteria: effectiveness and appropriateness. Each is used to evaluate competent communication (Canary & Spitzberg, 1987, 1989). Further, the concepts are related. Lakey and Canary (2002) explicitly defined effective communication as helping an actor achieve his/her own goals while considering an interaction partner's goals; consideration of a partner's goals is often requisite for constructing appropriate messages. The interplay between appropriateness and effectiveness has implications for relational development and maintenance, which are important when requesting and refusing. Refusers face demands to create socially acceptable messages to avoid hurting the requester's feelings (Kitao, 1998) while effectively resisting compliance.
The purpose of this investigation is to examine how requesters perceive the competence of conversational refusals associated with differing face threats. The next section proposes hypotheses about the relationship between face threats and the components of competent communication: appropriateness and effectiveness.
Perceived Effectiveness
Negative Face Threat
Brown and Levinson (1987), Wilson et al. (1998), and others have argued that a request inherently threatens a request target's autonomy. Although not all refusals eliminate threat to the refuser's autonomy, the refuser has an opportunity to assert autonomy through the act of refusing and thereby address the threat. Because threat to a refuser's negative face can be addressed by refusal, the greater concern for perceptions of refusal competence should be threat to a requester's negative face.
Kunkel, Wilson, Olufowote, and Robson (2003) found that relational intensification requests threatened both parties' negative face needs. For requesters, requests to intensify can limit relational options (assuming compliance) or jeopardize the current relationship (assuming refusal). When a requester elects to ask for assistance, threat to the requester's autonomy is also a potential result of refusal. This is because refusal places additional constraints on the requester's ability to achieve goals. For example, a requester encountering resistance to a pet-sitting request may have to seek alternative care for the animal (possibly at higher cost) or change travel plans. Johnson et al. (2004b) found that requester's negative face threat was positively associated with persistence after refusal. This finding is consistent with conclusions that individuals demonstrate tendencies to persist after refusal (Ifert & Roloff, 1996; Kunkel, et al.) and suggests requesters attempt to avoid other, potentially less desirable, options for achieving compliance goals.
When threat to a requester's negative face increases, requesters express a desire to persist in seeking compliance. Given that conversational effectiveness is defined as enacting messages that achieve interactants' goals (Canary & Spitzberg, 1987), a requester's decision to persist demonstrates that goals remain unmet. For the requester, the instrumental goal of attaining compliance was not achieved, and other goals may be jeopardized as well. For the refuser, the refusal message was ineffective in stopping the compliance attempt. Thus, the act of persisting associated with increased threat to a requester's negative face suggests that the refusal failed to achieve desired goals.
H1: Threat to a requester's negative face after refusal will be negatively associated with perceived refusal effectiveness.
Positive Face Threat
Whereas negative face threats are inherent to the speech acts of requesting (Wilson et al., 1998) and refusing (Johnson et al., 2004a), positive face threats are not necessarily present. The act of requesting presumes a target capable of fulfilling the request. A refuser who questions that presumption...
|
