Human Communication. A Publication of the Pacific and Asian Communication
Association. Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.347-356.
Teacher Request Politeness: Effects on Student Positive Emotions and Compliance
Intention
Qin Zhang
Fairfield University
Qin Zhang (Ph.D., University of New Mexico) is an associate professor in the Department of
Communication at Fairfield University. Qin Zhang can be contacted at [email protected].
348
Compliance in the Classroom
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of teacher request politeness on
student positive emotions and compliance intention. Teachers’ high politeness requests are found
to be more likely to elicit positive emotions, such as happiness, than low politeness requests. The
findings also indicate that positive emotions mediate the effects of teacher request politeness on
student compliance intention. Teachers request politeness first elicits positive emotions from
students, which then affect their compliance intention.
Keywords: Request Politeness; Positive Emotions; Compliance
Qin Zhang
349
Requesting is an inevitable and ubiquitous social phenomenon. People make requests for
a variety of reasons, such as asking a favor, getting permission, fulfilling an obligation, and
soliciting agreement (Kim & Wilson, 1994). In the classroom, instructors make requests to gain
compliance from students (e.g., being on time, reading chapters). Requesting has also obtained
substantial scholarly attention in communication over the past three decades. Scholars have
examined requesting from politeness perspective (Brown & Levinson, 1978, 1987; Holtgraves &
Yang, 1990, 1992), conceptualized implicit theories of requesting (Kim & Wilson, 1994), and
investigated request strategies and contextual influences (Holtgraves & Yang, 1990, 1992;
Meyer, 2001, 2002). By definition, requests refer to the speech acts to get hearers to perform a
desired action that they otherwise would not have performed (Kim & Wilson, 1994; Wilson,
Aleman, & Leatham, 1998). According to politeness theory (Brown & Levinson, 1978, 1987),
requests are inherently imposing and face-threatening because they threaten and intrude hearers’
freedom of actions and impinge on their autonomy boundaries (Holtgraves & Yang, 1990; Kim
& Wilson, 1994).
However, existent research on requests predominantly focuses on message choices,
request strategies, and contextual influences (e.g., power, relationship closeness, and imposition)
on message selections in interpersonal relationships (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Holtgraves &
Yang, 1992). Relatively scant attention has been given to message effects on receivers,
particularly their reactions and responses (Grant, King, & Behnke, 1994). This study is designed
to examine the message effects on hearers in instructional contexts, specifically the effects of
teacher request politeness on students’ positive emotions and compliance intention.
Teacher Request Politeness
Politeness is a universal concern across cultures and professions (Holtgraves & Yang,
1990; O’Sullivan, 2007). Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) politeness theory provides an
important theoretical framework examining politeness, face threats, and language use. Brown
and Levinson (1978, 1987) distinguished between two types of face: positive and negative face.
Positive face refers to the need for approval and appreciation while the negative face the want for
autonomy and freedom from imposition. According to Brown and Levinson (1987), many speech
acts are inherently face-threatening. Negative face can be threatened by requests, favor asking,
suggestions, and threats, whereas positive face can be threatened by criticism, disapproval, and
disagreements (Brown & Levinson, 1987).
Brown and Levinson (1987) identified five politeness strategies speakers can choose in
performing face-threatening acts (FTA), listed in increasing order of politeness: bald-on-record,
positive politeness, negative politeness, off-record, and no FTA. Bald-on-record strategies are
direct without redressive actions (e.g., say it again). Positive politeness strategies are oriented
toward the positive face of the hearer, thus emphasizing affinity with the hearer (e.g., let’s say it
again). Negative politeness strategies refer to the use of conventional indirectness or pleas to
maximize the hearer’s freedom of actions (e.g., could you please say it again). Off-record
strategies involve the use of hints (e.g., sorry I did not get you). No FTA indicates performing no
face-threatening acts.
The weightiness of a FTA and the selection of politeness strategies are a function of
power, distance, and imposition (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Increases in hearer’s power,
relationship distance, and the magnitude of act imposition will result in the corresponding
increase in politeness. Politeness strategies are more likely to be used when a speaker of
relatively lower power makes a larger request in a more distant relationship than when a speaker
350
Compliance in the Classroom
of relatively higher power makes a smaller request in a closer relationship (Brown & Levinson,
1987; Holtgraves & Yang, 1990; Leichty & Applegate, 1991; Lim & Bowers, 1991).
Politeness theory (Brown & Levinson, 1978, 1987) offers a useful framework for
examining teacher requests and student reactions in the asymmetrical teacher-student
relationship. Teachers’ professional role endows them with rights to evaluate students’ behaviors,
constrain their freedom of actions, control resources, and give critical feedback, which
unavoidably poses threats to students’ positive and negative face (Bills, 2000; Cazden, 1979;
Kerssen-Griep, Hess, & Trees, 2003). Given their legitimate power over students, teachers might
not have to be very polite to students in their compliance-gaining requests.
However, research has demonstrated a widespread use of politeness strategies in teacherstudent interactions and revealed the power of politeness or the politeness effect in the classroom
(Bills, 2000; Wang, Johnson, Mayer, Rizzo, Shaw, & Collins, 2008; White, 1989). Although
teaching inevitably involves some potentially face-threatening acts, teachers employ a variety of
politeness strategies in the classroom to manage the class (White, 1989), motivate students to
learn (Kerssen-Griep et al., 2003; White, 1989), and reduce face threat (Bills, 2000).
Emotions as a Mediator
Since requests are inherently imposing, they often trigger emotional reactions (Hunter &
Boster, 1987). Emotions differ from moods in that emotions tend to occur in response to specific
causes or stimuli and are relatively short-lived and more intense, whereas moods are more
diffuse, longer lasting, and less connected to triggering events (Barsade & Gibson, 2007; Frijda,
1986, 1987). Emotions can be valenced positively (e.g., happiness, joy) or negatively (e.g., anger,
disappointment) (Guerrero & La Valley, 2006). For example, depending on the request strategies
employed, a hearer could feel excited, flattered, surprised, disappointed, angry, resentful, or
other emotions (Hunter & Boster, 1987).
The emotional responses, in turn, prompt behavioral reactions or actions from the hearer,
with different emotions eliciting different action tendencies (Frijda, 1986, 1987; Guerrero & La
Valley, 2006; Hunter & Boster, 1987; Lazarus, 1991). For example, anger tends to arouse attack
while guilt tends to evoke making amends (Lazarus, 1991). An emotional experience can be
characterized as a sequence of reactions occurring over time, comprised of an antecedent or
stimulus, a physiological or emotional reaction, an expression or regulation, and a behavioral
reaction or outcome (Gibson, Schweitzer, Callister, & Gray, 2009; Lazarus, 1991). Thus,
emotions potentially mediate the effects of the external stimulus on one’s behavioral tendencies.
Student Compliance Intention
Students could comply with or resist teachers’ requests. Student compliance refers to
students’ going along with teachers’ compliance-gaining attempts, whereas student resistance
refers to students’ opposition to teachers’ requests (Burroughs, 2007; Burroughs, Kearney, &
Plax, 1989; Kearney, Plax, & McPherson, 2006). Given the asymmetrical teacher-student
relationships, students are more likely to comply or partially comply with teachers’ requests even
if they feel resistant (Burroughs, 2007). Most of the active resistance techniques found in
hypothetical scenarios (e.g., teacher advice and blame, disruption, and hostile defensive etc.)
were not used in actual classrooms (Burroughs, 2007).
A compliance-gaining request is inherently an emotion-eliciting act. Different request
strategies could evoke different emotional responses, which, in turn, could engender different
behavioral reactions. Low politeness requests are found to be more likely to provoke reactance
and resistance than high politeness requests (manuscript under review, identity is concealed for
anonymity). Conversely, we assume that a high politeness request will be more likely to mitigate
Qin Zhang
351
reactance and elicit positive emotions (e.g., happiness) from hearers, who would then be more
likely to comply with the request. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1: Teachers’ high politeness requests will be more likely to elicit positive emotions than
low politeness requests.
H2: Teachers’ request politeness will first elicit positive emotions from students, which
then affect their compliance intention.
Method
Participants
Participants were 151 college students (54 male, 96 female, and 1 unidentified) recruited
from a variety of communication and English classes at a private university in the Northeast. The
participants ranged in age from 17 to 28 (M = 20.46, SD = 1.52). About 86% of them were White,
3% Black, 5% Hispanic, 5% Asian, and 1% other. The participants received extra credit for their
participation.
Design and Procedure
Request politeness was manipulated using high and low conditions (See Appendix for
scenarios). The request scenario involves a professor asking a student to temporarily suspend
some extracurricular activities to improve academic performance. Request politeness was
manipulated by using different politeness strategies. Bald-on-record was selected for the lowpoliteness request condition and negative politeness was chosen for the high-politeness request
condition. Specifically, the direct imperative “must” was used as a low-politeness request and
indirect questions (“Do you think you could please…?” and “Could you please…?”) were
adopted as the high-politeness requests.
Participants were assigned randomly to one of two scenarios manipulating the levels of
teacher request politeness (high or low). After reading the scenario, participants were asked to
complete a questionnaire for measuring relevant variables, such as perceived request politeness,
positive emotions, compliance intention, as well as demographic questions. The questionnaire
took approximately 5 minutes to complete. Extra credit was given to the participants.
Participation was confidential and anonymous.
Manipulation Check
Manipulation check was conducted for teacher request politeness. Students reported a
higher level of teacher request politeness in the high politeness condition (M = 3.33, SD = .99)
than in the low politeness condition (M = 1.75, SD = .83), t (149) = 10.60, p < .001. The result
indicated that the manipulation of request politeness was effective in the experiment.
Measures
Positive emotion. Emotions can be valenced positively (e.g., happiness) or negatively
(e.g., anger) (Guerrero & La Valley, 2006). For positive emotions, this study focuses on
happiness only. Consistent with previous studies, happiness was measured with three 5-point
Likert-type items (5 = a great deal of this feeling, 1 = none of this feeling) (Dillard & Peck, 2001;
Shen & Bigsby, 2010). The scale asked participants to rate how happy, content, and cheerful
they felt toward the request. The Cronbach’s alpha for this study was .95.
Compliance intention. Compliance intention was measured with three 5-point Likert-type
items (5 = very likely, 1 = very unlikely). The scale assessed student likelihood to comply with
the professor’s request. The three items were “I intend to comply with his request,” “I plan to act
in ways that are consistent with his request,” and “I will make an effort to do what he asked me
to do.” The alpha reliability for this study was .90.
352
Compliance in the Classroom
Results
H1 predicted that teachers’ high politeness requests will be more likely to elicit positive
emotions than low politeness requests. The results of independent-samples t-test indicated that
teachers’ high politeness requests (M = 2.15, SD = .93) are more likely to elicit positive emotions
than low politeness requests (M = 1.71, SD = .84), t (148) = 3.03, p < .01. H1 was supported.
H2 proposed that teachers’ request politeness will first elicit positive emotions from
students, which then affect their compliance intention. Structural equation modeling (SEM) with
maximum likelihood estimation using AMOS 6 was conducted to test the proposed structural
model. The variables in the model can be correlated with each other to improve the overall fit of
the models. SEM results indicated that the proposed model had a good fit to the data, χ2 (df = 1)
= 2.28, p = .13, CFI = .99, TLI = .97, SRMR = .04. Thus, H2 was supported. Positive emotions
mediate the effects of teachers’ request politeness on student compliance intention. Figure 1
presents the path coefficients for the model.
Request
Politeness
Positive
Emotion
Compliance
Intention
.58**
.55**
R2= .30
R2= .33
Figure 1: Positive Emotion as a Mediator Model
**p < .01
Discussion
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of teacher request politeness on
student positive emotions and compliance intention. The findings indicate that teachers’ high
politeness requests are more likely to elicit positive emotions than low politeness requests. Since
requests are inherently imposing, they often trigger emotional reactions (Hunter & Boster, 1987),
which can be valenced positively or negatively (Guerrero & La Valley, 2006). Consistent with
the previous findings that suggest low politeness requests, due to its use of forceful, facethreatening, and controlling language, often provoke negative emotions, such as anger (under
review), this study shows that the increase in teacher request politeness triggers positive
emotions from students, such as happiness.
The study also indicates that positive emotions mediate the effects of teacher request
politeness on student compliance intention. In other words, teachers’ request politeness first
elicits positive emotions from students, which then affect their compliance intention. The finding
is in line with prior suggestions that emotions, which are triggered by external stimulus or
antecedents (Gibson et al., 2009), in turn, prompt behavioral reactions from the hearer (Frijda,
1986, 1987; Guerrero & La Valley, 2006; Lazarus, 1991). Strong and impolite languages are
found to evoke negative emotions (e.g., anger), which then cause resistance (under review);
likewise, this study suggests that polite requests arouse positive emotions (e.g., happiness),
which then lead to compliance.
Qin Zhang
353
The findings offer practical implications for educators. By and large, teachers favor
student compliance over resistance in learning contexts because student resistance can
substantially alter a classroom environment or even disrupt a whole class (Burroughs, 2007;
Burroughs, Kearney, & Plax, 1989; Kearney, Plax, & McPherson, 2006). But compliancegaining requests are inherently face-threatening (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Holtgraves & Yang,
1990; Kim & Wilson, 1994), so they are resistance-eliciting, but the use of appropriate politeness
strategies appears to mitigate resistance (under review). To promote student compliance in
classrooms, it is advisable for teachers, in spite of their role-related legitimate power over
students, to be very polite in their compliance-gaining requests and to avoid the use of forceful,
controlling, and face-threatening language. Such politeness in request can arouse positive
emotions, such as happiness, from students, which lead to compliance and other desired
outcomes.
Two limitations of this study should be noted. First, this study addresses student
compliance intentions rather than actual compliance behaviors. We should be careful not to
equate hypothetical intentions with real compliance behaviors. Second, although the
manipulation check found the manipulation of request politeness was effective, the use of
hypothetical teacher requests might not perfectly reflect actual teacher requests in a naturalistic
environment, and the presentation of two extreme poles (i.e., high and low conditions) might not
fully capture the complex on-going nature of teacher-student interactions.
To conclude, this study examines the effects of teacher request politeness on students’
positive emotions and compliance intention. The findings show that teacher request politeness
has an indirect effect on student compliance intention, mediated via positive emotions. Given
that positive emotions play an important role in prompting behaviors and reactions (Frijda, 1986,
1987; Guerrero & La Valley, 2006; Lazarus, 1991), future research could consider exploring
more linguistic and contextual factors that trigger positive emotions so as to enhance desired
outcomes in the classroom.
354
Compliance in the Classroom
Appendix
Request Politeness Conditions
High: You failed the mid-term exam because you were so overwhelmed with extracurricular
activities that you did not have time to study. Your professor asked: “Do you think you could
please quit some of your extracurricular activities for the rest of the semester and focus more on
your studies? Could you please try it?”
Low: You failed the mid-term exam because you were so overwhelmed with extracurricular
activities that you did not have time to study. Your professor said: “You must quit some of your
extracurricular activities and focus more on your studies. You must do it!”
Qin Zhang
355
References
Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affect matter in organizations? Academy of
Management Perspectives, 21, 36-59.
Bills, L. (2000). Politeness in teacher-student dialogue in mathematics: A socio-linguistic
analysis. For the Learning of Mathematics, 20, 40-47.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language use: Politeness phenomena. In E. N.
Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 56-289). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Burroughs, N. F. (2007). A reinvestigation of the relationship of teacher nonverbal immediacy
and student compliance-resistance with learning. Communication Education, 56, 453-475.
Burroughs, N. F., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1989). Compliance-resistance in the college
classroom. Communication Education, 38, 214-229.
Cazden, C. B. (1979). Language in education: Variation in the teacher-talk register. In G. R.
Tucker & J. E. Alatis (Eds.), Language in public life: Georgetown University round table
on languages and linguistics (pp. 144-162). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University
Press.
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Frijda, N. H. (1987). Emotion, cognitive structure, and action tendency. Cognition and Emotion,
1, 115-143.
Gibson, D. E., Schweitzer, M. E., Callister, R. R., & Gray, B. (2009). The influence of anger
expressions on outcomes in organizations. Negotiation and Conflict Management
Research, 2, 236-262.
Grant, J. A., King, P. E., & Behnke, R. R. (1994). Compliance-gaining strategies,
communication satisfaction, and willingness to comply. Communication Reports, 7, 99108.
Guerrero, L. K., & La Valley, A. G. (2006). Conflict, emotion, and communication. In J. G.
Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Conflict Communication (pp.
69-96). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J.-N. (1990). Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions of
request strategies and inferences based on their use. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 719-729.
Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J.-N. (1992). Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: General
principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 62, 246-256.
Hunter, J. E., & Boster, F. J. (1987). A model of compliance-gaining message selection.
Communication Monographs, 54, 63-84.
Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., & McPherson, M. B. (2006). Student incivility and resistance in the
classroom. In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of
instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 235-251).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Kerssen-griep, J., Hess, J. A., & Trees, A. R. (2003). Sustaining the desire to learn: Dimensions
of perceived instructional facework related to student involvement and motivation to
learn. Western Journal of Communication, 67, 357-381.
356
Compliance in the Classroom
Kim, M.-S., & Wilson, S. R. (1994). A cross-cultural comparison of implicit theories of
requesting. Communication Monographs, 61, 210-235.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Leichty, G., & Applegate, J. L. (1991). Social-cognitive and situational influences on the use of
face-saving persuasive strategies. Human Communication Research, 17, 451-484.
Lim, T.-S., & Bowers, J. W. (1991). Facework: Solidarity, approbation, and tact. Human
Communication Research, 17, 415-450.
Meyer, J. R. (2001). Effect of request type and situational features on negative politeness in
requests. Communication Research Reports, 18, 158-165.
Meyer, J. R. (2002). Contextual influences on the pursuit of secondary goals in request messages.
Communication Monographs, 69, 189-203.
O’Sullivan, W. (2007). A study on politeness teaching to English learners in China. The
International Journal of Language Society and Culture, 23, 47-52.
Wang, N., Johnson, W. L., Mayer, R. E., Rizzo, P., Shaw, E., & Collins, H. (2008). The
politeness effect: Pedagogical agents and learning gains. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 66, 98-112.
White, J. J. (1989). The power of politeness in the classroom: Cultural codes that create and
constrain knowledge construction. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 4, 298-321.
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 Communication Research, 25, 64-96.