Mixing up politeness theory: Channel consistency and conflict in the expression of politeness

Multi-channel messages involve the simultaneous use of linguistic and nonlinguistic channels of communication. The communication of politeness in such messages was assessed in terms of P. Brown & Levinson's (1978; 1987) theory of politeness. In doing so, two studies were conducted to determine the influence and use of verbal and nonverbal cues in the communication of politeness.;While some research suggests that multi-channel messages are evaluated in terms of a "weighted-sum" assessment of their individual channels of communication, other research suggests that multi-channel messages convey unique "meta-messages" that are more than the sum of their parts. To assess the influence of nonverbal cues on individuals' perception of politeness, in the first study individuals were exposed to positive face threatening acts (criticisms) or negative face threatening acts (requests) that were either consistent or inconsistent across verbal content and tone of voice. These messages also varied in the intensity with which they were conveyed. Results showed that tone of voice substantially affected judges' ratings of the politeness with which criticisms were spoken for positive content messages, but only did so minimally for negative content messages. In contrast, tone of voice predictably affected the politeness with which both positive and negative content requests were perceived. This work suggested that individuals may use a "weighted-sum" approach in interpreting inconsistent messages, and not a "meta-message" approach.;To expand upon Politeness Theory, in the second study, behavioral representations of the behaviors that convey appropriate levels of politeness were examined for verbal/nonverbal consistency and inconsistency under an important contextual moderator of politeness: status. Results suggested that when giving others news, low status individuals were more likely to use nonverbal cues that were consistent with verbal content. In contrast, when making requests of others, low status individuals were more likely to use positive nonverbal cues, regardless of verbal content. These results suggest that depending on the type of message one is sending, individuals may operate under rules of situational consistency or under rules of positivity. Thus, depending on the positivity and negativity of the message, individuals were more and less likely to use consistent and inconsistent verbal/nonverbal messages.