The Effect of Anticipatory Apology and Appreciation in Online Support-Seeking Messages on Support Provision in the U.S. and Korea

Abstract

This experiment examined how online support-seeking messages containing anticipatory apology and/or appreciation influence support provision in the U.S. and Korea. The mediating role of regard for face was also assessed. A total of 983 participants (568 in the U.S. sample, 415 in the Korean sample) read and responded to support-seeking messages posted on an interactive online platform. Results showed that support-seeking messages with anticipatory apology and/or appreciation elicited higher quality (in terms of person-centeredness) supportive messages than support-seeking messages without anticipatory apology or appreciation. Participants’ perceptions of support-seeker's regard for face mediated the effect of anticipatory apology in support-seeking messages on level of person-centeredness in received support messages. This pattern of findings was observed in both the American and Korean samples.

Keywords

online support apology appreciation support-seeking message supportive message national culture

Supportive communication, which can be defined as the process through which people interact with the purpose of seeking or providing some form of assistance to others (e.g., comfort, information, tangible aid), is a common component of people's daily interactions. Substantial research has demonstrated that receiving sensitive social support can have a positive impact on individuals’ physical and psychological well-being (for reviews, see MacGeorge et al., 2011; Pan et al., 2020a). Research also demonstrates that, as the most common “first act” in support episodes, support-seeking plays a vital role in the success of supportive interactions, influencing whether support is received and the quality of that support (Barbee & Cunningham, 1995; Cutrona et al., 1990; Feng & Burleson, 2006). Like many forms of communicative acts, support-seeking is a challenging and delicate matter. Poorly crafted efforts to seek support may result in undesirable outcomes such as failing to obtain any support, eliciting low quality or insensitive responses, and exacerbating the support-seeker's coping difficulties (Feng & Burleson, 2006).

The challenges of support-seeking are particularly salient in contexts where the support-seeker is trying to seek help from unknown others in anonymous online contexts. With the rapid advancement of new technologies and the Internet, online supportive communication has become a common phenomenon (Pan et al., 2020b). Online support forums, for example, have become widely popular over the years (Faisal et al., 2019). Not surprisingly, an increasing amount of research has examined supportive communication in online platforms (e.g., Ali et al., 2015; Feng et al., 2016; Li et al., 2019; Pan et al., 2020a; Rains et al., 2019; Youngvorst & High, 2018), but limited research attention has been paid to investigating the online supportive communication process itself (Feng et al., 2016; Li et al., 2019; Pan et al., 2020b). Despite the significance of support-seeking as a key process in supportive interactions, there is still a lack of empirical research examining the linkage between certain strategies of support-seeking and their effectiveness. This study focuses on anticipatory apology (a regretful acknowledgment of a fault or responsibility for being about to engage in an action(s) the speaker believes may cause offense; see Jacobson, 2004; Tamoyan, 2017) and anticipatory appreciation expressions (a speech act by a beneficiary on the basis of the belief that an action(s) of the benefactor will be beneficial; see Lee, 2014; Lee & Park, 2011). Specifically, this study examines how anticipatory appreciation/apology expressions in support-seeking messages (as opposed to support-receiving messages, see Li et al., 2019) might influence support provision. Examination of the combination and possible interaction between anticipatory appreciation and apology expressions will also provide new insights into the mechanisms underlying the linkage between support-seeking behavior and support provision.

This research also examines whether and to what extent the linkage holds while focusing on different cultural contexts. There is no question that polite support-seeking messages are more effective than impolite support-seeking messages in obtaining positive supportive messages (Clark & Schunk, 1980; Jansen & Janssen, 2010). Nevertheless, preferred polite expression (e.g., apology and appreciation) in support-seeking messages may be different across cultures. Recently, some research has shown that East Asians (i.e., Koreans and Japanese) more frequently included apologies in support-seeking messages, whereas Americans more frequently included appreciation (Lee et al., 2012; Park & Lee, 2012). Based on these considerations, we take a cross-cultural perspective to investigate how and why anticipatory apology and appreciation expressions might influence the outcomes of anonymous online support-seeking differently in different cultures. The current study aims to examine a) the effect of two language features in support-seeking messages—apology and appreciation—on the quality of received support in online forums and b) cultural similarities and differences in the process that the two language features influence online support provision. In the sections that follow, we first review the theoretical frameworks and concepts that guide our study, along with predictions derived from the frameworks. We then present an empirical study that tests those predictions.

Politeness Theory: Facework Paradigm in Support-Seeking Interactions

Among many theories that have been employed to study supportive interactions (e.g., advice response theory, Feng & MacGeorge, 2010; constructivism, Burleson & Rack, 2008; dual-process model of supportive communication, Burleson, 2009), of particular relevance to the current study is the theory of politeness (Brown & Levinson, 1987). This theory identifies two types of face: positive face, which refers to the desire to have one's identity liked and accepted by others, and negative face, which refers to the desire to have one's autonomy respected. Politeness theory highlights the notion that individuals desire to maintain a balance between not only their own positive and negative face needs, but also others’ positive and negative face needs. From the perspective of politeness theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987), support-seeking is an intellectually and emotionally challenging task in part because it is a face-threatening act. Asking for help is based on an assumption that the target is willing and capable to offer support, thus creating an imposition on the target (see Brown & Levinson, 1987; Johnson, 2007; Lee & Park, 2011). In the meantime, seeking help can threaten the support-seeker's own face because it may convey lack of competence, appear demanding of others, and incur the obligation to accept whatever support that is offered regardless of quality (Feng & Burleson, 2006; Shek, 1998). Effective support-seeking thus requires careful face management (Tracy et al., 1984).

According to politeness theory, a speaker can alleviate the inherent face threat in a speech act by employing various politeness strategies. Research has consistently shown that messages that address the face concerns of the recipient tend to be viewed by message recipients as more appropriate and considerate than messages that do not attend to the recipient's face needs (Goldsmith & MacGeorge, 2000; MacGeorge et al., 2008). Polite messages can also lead to positive perceptions of a speaker's attributes (e.g., friendliness, likeability; Brown & Levinson, 1987; Goldsmith & MacGeorge, 2000; Jessmer & Anderson, 2001). While substantial research has examined the face-threatening nature of support-provision as well as the impact of politeness in a support-provider's messages on the support-recipient's responses (e.g., Feng & MacGeorge, 2010; MacGeorge et al., 2016), little empirical research has investigated support-seeking from the perspective of politeness and how the use of politeness strategies in a support-seeker's messages may impact a support-provider's responses. This study is thus an effort to address this limitation in the literature by looking at the use of two politeness strategies—appreciation and apology—in support-seeking and their impact on the quality of received support messages.

Apologies and Appreciation as Politeness Strategies in Support-Seeking

Apology is defined as a speech act provided when an individual's act provokes damage or discomfort to others (see Guan et al., 2009). As a social lubricant, offering an apology has been shown to have manifold functions (Frantz & Bennigson, 2005; Smith, 2005). For example, apology can convey acknowledgement of one's fault or responsibility to some extent (Kramer-Moore & Moore, 2003; Smith, 2005), or it can be used to manage interactional offenses such as making a request and announcing interruptions (Tracy, 2011) or in a ritualistic manner to fulfill expectations (Lee & Park, 2011). Expressing appreciation refers to a speech act by a beneficiary (e.g., “thank you” and “thanks;” see Searle, 1969, 1976) that may serve several functions (for reviews, see Lee, 2014; Lee & Park, 2011). The most common function is to express appreciation to the benefactor about a past act(s) that benefited the speaker (Searle, 1976). People also express appreciation for anticipated benefits they will receive in the future (Lee, 2014; Lee & Park, 2011) Furthermore, an expression of appreciation may serve as a signal of the end of a conversation (e.g., “That's all. Thank you”; Eisenstein & Bodman, 1986). Finally, appreciation can also be used to decline or accept a suggestion (e.g., “Thank you for the suggestion but I cannot do it”; see Lee, 2014).

Some of these functions of apology and appreciation apply in support-seeking situations. Given that support-seeking gives rise to perceptions of indebtedness if support-seekers assume message recipients will bring about the asked-for state or event, an anticipatory apology indicates the support-seekers’ actual acknowledgment of their indebtedness to the message recipients (Lee, 2014; Lee & Park, 2011). Meanwhile, an anticipatory appreciation can be used in anticipation of potential benefits in support-seeking situations (Lee & Park, 2011).

As noted earlier, from the perspective of politeness theory, a speaker can employ various positive and negative politeness strategies (also referred to as facework) to decrease the degree of face threat. Positive politeness strategies that reduce threat to a recipient's positive face include using in-group language, presupposing knowledge or common ground, complimenting, expressing liking and understanding, or showing sympathy with the recipient (Goldsmith & MacGeorge, 2000). On the other hand, negative politeness strategies aim to minimize threat to a recipient's negative face and may include making the message more limited, less specific, or depersonalized or using questions. Reducing the forcefulness of the face-threatening act is also useful in reducing threat to a recipient's negative face (Goldsmith & MacGeorge, 2000).

Expressing apologies is an other-oriented negative politeness strategy (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Eslami-Rasekh, 2004). Through apologies, speakers convey that they are aware of having impinged on the hearer's negative face by delimiting his/her freedom of action (Holmes, 1989). In support-seeking situations, anticipatory apology expressions can alleviate threat to the message recipient's negative face by diminishing the message recipient's responsibility for it.

Expressing appreciation can be viewed as a positive politeness strategy in support-seeking situations (see Holmes, 1988, 1989; Lee & Park, 2011). The message recipient is reckoned to be capable of assisting the target with alleviating the problematic situation. Appreciation demonstrates that a support seeker has a favorable attitude toward a message recipient(s) by respecting or admiring him/her in an explicit or implicit way. Seen in this light, anticipatory appreciation expressions thus honor the message recipient's positive face.

Person-Centeredness as an Index of Support Message Quality

It is a well-established notion that not all supportive messages are equally effective (Goldsmith & Fitch, 1997; MacGeorge et al., 2011). Some supportive messages are more effective than others at helping a distressed individual cope with a problematic situation (see Bodie et al., 2010; Burleson, 2008, 2009). The level of person-centeredness has been identified as an indicator of quality of support messages (Applegate, 1980; Burleson, 1982, 2008, 2003). Person-centeredness “reflects an awareness of and adaptation to the subjective, affective, and relational aspects of the interactants and the communicative contexts” (Burleson, 2003a, p. 395). In supportive communication, verbal person-centeredness refers to the extent to which the feelings and perspectives of individuals in stressful situations are clearly acknowledged, elaborated, legitimized, and contextualized (see MacGeorge et al., 2011).

Highly person-centered (HPC) support messages identify and legitimize the message recipient's emotions. These messages describe reasons why the recipient is feeling the emotions or may present a different view or perspective on the problematic situation (Burleson, 1994). Messages reflecting a moderate level of person centeredness (MPC) covertly acknowledge the stressed individual's emotions or offer sympathy but concurrently try to shift his or her attention from the stressful situation (Burleson, 1994). Low person-centered (LPC) support messages are less likely to consider the recipient's emotions and perspectives. These messages challenge or disparage the legitimacy of the recipient's emotions and tell the recipient how to behave or feel in a certain way. LPC support messages have a tendency to reject the thoughts, views, and emotions of individuals in difficulties (Burleson, 1994). Considerable research has demonstrated that HPC support messages are more effective than MPC or LPC support messages because HPC support messages do a better job at alleviating the recipient's negative emotions and helping the recipient to cope (see Burleson, 2003b; High & Dillard, 2012). Overall, research shows that HPC is a characteristic of sensitive and helpful supportive message (e.g., Feng et al., 2016; Jones, 2004; Jones & Guerrero, 2001).

Politeness as an Index of Support Message Quality

The degree of politeness has also been considered as an index of support message quality (e.g., Goldsmith & MacGeorge, 2000; Li & Feng, 2015; MacGeorge et al., 2008). As noted earlier, support-seeking can threaten a support seeker's negative and positive face (Johnson, 2007; Kunkel et al., 2003). In this regard, attending to the support seeker's face needs can also alleviate the seeker's stress and facilitate his or her coping with the problem (MacGeorge et al., 2004). Not surprisingly, substantial research shows that supportive messages addressing the support seeker's face concerns tend to be perceived as more sensitive, appropriate, and effective than messages ignoring the recipient's face needs (MacGeorge et al., 2008).

In sum, anticipatory apology and/or appreciation in online support-seeking messages may serve as politeness strategies. Polite support-seeking messages in which anticipatory apology and/or appreciation are expressed may alleviate negative face threat to the support-provider or enhance the support-provider's positive face. As a result, polite support-seeking messages may lead support providers to produce support messages that exhibit higher levels of person-centeredness and politeness compared to support-seeking messages without politeness strategies. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H1: Support-seeking messages in online forums containing anticipatory apology will elicit support messages with (a) a higher level of verbal person-centeredness and (b) a higher level of politeness compared to support-seeking messages without expression of anticipatory apology.

H2: Support-seeking messages in online forums containing anticipatory appreciation will elicit support messages with (a) a higher level of verbal person-centeredness and (b) a higher level of politeness compared to support-seeking messages without expression of anticipatory appreciation.

H3: The effect of anticipatory apology in online support-seeking messages on support-provider's responses in terms of verbal person-centeredness and politeness will be mediated by the support-provider's perceptions of the support-seeker's regard for face.

H4: The effect of anticipatory appreciation in online support-seeking messages on support-provider's responses in terms of verbal person-centeredness and politeness will be mediated by the support-provider's perceptions of the support-seeker's regard for face.

In a support-seeking message, anticipatory apology and appreciation expressions can be employed in diverse ways. The message may contain only one expression (apology or appreciation) or both apology and appreciation expressions. The combination of the expressions in support-seeking messages may affect the quality of the supportive message from the recipient of the support-seeking message. The effect of an expression may thus differ depending on the presence or absence of the other expression. Therefore, a research question was proposed:

RQ1: Will the anticipatory apology and appreciation expressions in support-seeking messages interact to influence the elicitation of support messages in terms of (a) emotion-focused supportiveness and (b) the use of politeness strategies?

Cultural Differences in Uses and Perceptions of Apologies and Appreciation

It is a well-known notion that culture is one of the many factors that can affect the use of language (Pan, 2012; Tanaka et al., 2008). Although politeness is a culturally universal concept, research shows that cultural variation exists in linguistic politeness (Kim & Wilson, 1994; Reiter, 2000). Although apologies and appreciation are both extensively used across cultures, individuals’ preference for and responses to these speech acts are culturally variable (Tanaka et al., 2008). For example, Japanese are inclined to apologize more often than Americans and tend to verbalize their gratitude through apology expressions (e.g., Maddux et al., 2011; Takaku et al., 2001). Guan and Park (2005) compared Chinese and Americans and found that Chinese tend to apologize less than Americans. Their follow-up study (Park & Guan, 2006) showed that Chinese had stronger intentions to apologize than Americans when their acts threatened the other's positive face and explained that the relationship between culture and apology use is affected by situational characteristics of an interaction. Recent research has shown that Koreans more frequently include apologies in support-seeking messages than Americans (Lee & Park, 2011; Park & Lee, 2012). To our knowledge, however, no published research has examined the role of anticipatory apology in support-seeking process. This study fills this gap in the literature by comparing and contrasting the roles of anticipatory apology in support-seeking in Korean and American cultures.

Past research suggests several reasons for why Koreans may use apologies more frequently than Americans in support-seeking situations (Lee & Park, 2011). East Asians (specifically in Confucian cultures) highly value self-critical, self-improving or self-effacing attitudes, emphasize modesty, and deemphasize publicly revealing the positivity of the self (Cai et al., 2011). They are less likely to show a clear tendency for self-enhancement than Americans (Heine & Hamamura, 2007; Heine et al., 2001; Kim, 2003). On the other hand, Americans are highly motivated to maintain or increase a positive self-view and enhance their self-esteem. They tend to have stronger self-enhancing motivations than East Asians (Heine, 2001, 2003).

Offering an apology is the kind of self-deprecating mannerism regarded as a virtue in East Asian cultures, and it can be positively accepted by individuals as a sign of care and concern for others. East Asian people are less likely to view apologies as a charge of culpability (Maddux et al., 2011). In contrast, Americans may be less likely to acknowledge individual faults or confess to a weakness through apologies because doing so may convey low self-esteem or negative characteristics about the self (Maddux et al., 2011). Consequently, in support-seeking situations, Koreans would positively perceive support-seeking messages with anticipatory apology and in turn favorably respond to these support-seeking messages in terms of producing support messages with high levels of person-centeredness. Based on this rationale, the following hypothesis was proposed:

H5: The effect of anticipatory apology in online support-seeking messages on support-provider's responses in terms of verbal person-centeredness and politeness will be greater for Koreans than for Americans.

To date, a handful of studies have examined appreciation expressions focusing on comparison of East Asians (e.g., Koreans and Japanese) with Americans. They found that Americans more frequently included appreciation in support-seeking messages compared to East Asians (Lee & Park, 2011; Lee et al., 2012; Park & Lee, 2012). However, no research has examined how anticipatory appreciation expressions in support-seeking messages influence the recipients’ responses. Therefore, the following research question was posed:

RQ2: Will the effect of anticipatory appreciation in online support-seeking messages on support-provider's responses in terms of verbal person-centeredness and politeness differ as a function of national culture (i.e., Korea vs. U.S.)?

Method

Participants

A total of 983 participants were drawn from online survey programs in the U.S. (568 participants, Amazon Mechanical Turk, https://www.mturk.com) and Korea (415 participants, iPanelOnline, http://kr.ipanelonline.com).¹ 1509 (51.8%) were female and 450 (45.8%) were male and the average respondent age was 37.21. All participants received a small amount of monetary compensation for their participation.

Experimental Design and Procedure

The experiment used a 2 (Apology: presence vs. absence) x 2 (Appreciation: presence vs. absence) x 3 (Problem type: job vs. loneliness vs. marriage) factorial design. The three hypothetical problem situations (being underpaid vs. feeling depressed and lonely vs. conflict with parents about marriage) were chosen for two reasons: first, they are topics that the general public should be familiar with and they do not require much expertise knowledge to respond to; second, inclusion of different problem situations allows us to assess the generalizability of the findings pertaining to effects of anticipatory apology and appreciation across different topic situations. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the twelve versions.²

When participants logged onto the website (MTurk or iPanelOnline) and agreed to participate in the experiment, they clicked a link that automatically connected them to a Qualtrics.com survey. On the first screen, they were given a brief introduction of this study. On the next screen, the specific instructions for participation were provided: (1) they would access an online forum and read and post a response to a support-seeking posting, (2) after they finished responding to the support-seeking posting, they would return to the Qualtrics page and continue with the survey; and (3) they were then instructed to answer questions about their demographic information and perceptions of the support-seeking message.

Message Manipulations

Examples of support-seeking messages are shown in Table 1 (English version). The support-seeking messages were written in both English and Korean. Back-translation and inspection by speakers proficient in both languages was utilized to ensure equivalence and appropriateness of the translation.³

Table 1.

Examples of Support-Seeking Messages with Apology and/or Appreciation.

Topic: Trouble with my parents

[Appreciation Only]
I’m having a problem and would appreciate any suggestions you can give. My parents are constantly pushing me to get married. Since most of my friends already got married, they believe it's also time for me to start a family. However, I am not ready for marriage yet. I haven't met anyone whom I want to marry. I don't know how to deal with my parents. I don't want to get married just for the sake of marriage but I also don't want to make them worry. Thank you again for any help you can give.

[Apology Only]
Sorry to bother you guys, but I’m having a problem and need some help. My parents are constantly pushing me to get married. Since most of my friends already got married, they believe it's also time for me to start a family. However, I am not ready for marriage yet. I haven't met anyone whom I want to marry. I don't know how to deal with my parents. I don't want to get married just for the sake of marriage but I also don't want to make them worry. Sorry again for taking your time to read this.

[Appreciation & Apology]
Sorry to bother you guys, but I’m having a problem and need some help. My parents are constantly pushing me to get married. Since most of my friends already got married, they believe it's also time for me to start a family. However, I am not ready for marriage yet. I haven't met anyone whom I want to marry. I don't know how to deal with my parents. I don't want to get married just for the sake of marriage but I also don't want to make them worry. Thank you for any suggestions you can give.

[None]
I’m having a problem and need some help. My parents are constantly pushing me to get married. Since most of my friends already got married, they believe it's also time for me to start a family. However, I am not ready for marriage yet. I haven't met anyone whom I want to marry. I don't know how to deal with my parents. I don't want to get married just for the sake of marriage but I also don't want to make them worry.

Scenario Realism

Four items ranked on a 9-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree,” 9 = “strongly agree”) were used to measure whether participants perceived the support-seeking message to be realistic and believable (e.g., “The support-seeking message portrayed a possible real-life situation” and “The support-seeking message is realistic and believable”). The internal consistency for these items was calculated at.86.

Measures

Verbal person-centeredness. The coding scheme was adapted from Applegate's (1980) and Burleson's (1982) modified operationalization of highly person-centered (HPC), moderately person-centered (MPC), and low person-centered (LPC) support messages (see Feng et al., 2016). Each message was coded into one of the nine sublevels embedded in the three major levels such as HPC (major level 1), MPC (major level 2), or LPC (major level 3), on the basis of the elements listed in Table 2. If a message presented more than one characteristic, it was coded into only one characteristic based on the characteristic most dominant in the message.

Table 2.

Elements and Examples of Verbal Person-Centeredness Support Message.

Major Level 3 (LPC)

1. Speaker condemns the target's feelings (e.g., I know this issue is really important to you. However, I don't think you should be stressed out because you didn't make any effort to actively find someone).
2. Speaker challenges the legitimacy of the target's feelings or actions related to those feelings (e.g., But you cannot do anything at this point for them. There is no point in still feeling down about it).
3. Speaker ignores the target's feelings by not talking about the target's feelings or telling the target to ignore his or her feelings (e.g., If I were you, I would have a candid talk with my parents).

Major Level 2 (MPC)

4. Speaker attempts to reframe the situation in a positive way by diverting the other's attention away from the event, “smoothing over” the negative feelings, offering some sort of compensation, or suggesting a method of repair (e.g., You should at least be happy that your parents really care about your future).
5. Speaker acknowledges the target's feelings but does not attempt to help the target understand why those feelings are being experienced or how to cope with them (e.g., I know you do not want to get married yet, but on the other hand, marriage is one of life's most important events).
6. Speaker provides a non-feeling-centered explanation of the situation intended to reduce the target's distressed emotional state. This explanation must forward some circumstance or principle for interpreting the target's situation (e.g., I think the biggest thing to remember is that marriage is not always important for all people. If you are already satisfied with your life, not getting married does not mean that your life is failed or unhappy).

Major Level 1 (HPC)

7. Speaker explicitly recognizes and acknowledges the other's feelings and provides a non-elaborated explanation of these feelings (e.g., I’m sorry that you have the problem. I can understand that you are very stressed about this, especially if you are at the best age to marry. Even though it is very stressful, try to have a candid talk with your parents. There are more people with these problems than we think, so don't feel like you are the only one).
8. Speaker provides an elaborated acknowledgment and explanation of the other's feelings (e.g., I am sorry to hear that you are very stressed; I know finding or meeting a marriage partner can be very difficult. You think you will get married someday but you just haven't met someone to get married to, right? If you share this thought and your current situation with your parents, they will definitely understand you).
9. Speaker helps the other to gain a perspective on his or her own feelings and attempts to help the other see feelings in relation to a broader context or the feelings of others in the situation (e.g., I know how you feel. Every single day can be demanding but do not be stressed out. Many people at this age are going through the same thing you are. You shouldn't rush into a marriage. You do not need to get married just to be married. That is the worst reason of all. Marriage will happen at the right time. Take your time to find the one, because getting married to the one you want to be with later is better than settling now. Although the problems with your parents can be tiring, you shouldn't avoid having a candid conversation with them. Marriage is a very important issue in your life. You should be open and honest with them, and your earnest and candid expression will help them understand you and stop pushing you).

Politeness strategies of support messages. Brown and Levinson's (1987) characterization of negative and positive politeness strategies and coding schemes for politeness strategies revised by other scholars (Feng et al., 2016) were adapted for this study. A total of 19 politeness strategies were used for this study (see Table 3). Coders marked whether each politeness strategy was present or absent in a participant's response (1 = present and 0 = not present), and a total score of politeness (the frequency of politeness strategies used in the response) was calculated. In addition, an overall impression of politeness was coded as overall level of politeness (1 = extremely impolite to 9 = extremely polite).

Table 3.

Elements and Examples of Polite Support Messages.

Positive politeness strategies

1. Use informal address/greeting phrase (e.g., Hi).
2. Show interest in or approval of what the other wrote in the message (e.g., You are right).

3. Use in-group identity markers to convey in-group membership (e.g., I can understand how you feel).

4. Include the support-seeker in the discussion by using first-person plural pronouns to refer to the writer or reader (e.g., Our problem).

5. Use discourse markers (e.g., Well, don't be too stressed out).
6. Use jokes or slang (e.g., Shit happens).

7. Be optimistic; use optimistic words (e.g., Good luck! I hope you will find a nice person).

8. Show sympathy or understanding of the support-seeker's feelings or situation (e.g., I can totally understand your situation).

9. Acknowledge the support-seeker's competence or positive attributes (e.g., You are almost done).

10. Soften negative attributions about the support-seeker (e.g., Everyone is worried about marriage).

11. Give reasons for the recommended behavior (e.g., It is good to have a candid talk with your parents so they can fully understand your thought and situation).

12. Assume or assert reciprocity (e.g., If you have any more concerns, please email me).

Negative politeness strategies

1. Use formal address/greeting phrase (e.g., Dear).
2. Be conventionally indirect by questioning the hearer's ability or willingness to perform an act (e.g., Can you try to have a candid talk with your parents?).

3. Hedge; use words to indicate that the writer is not assuming that the reader will want to comply with the writer (e.g., Perhaps you can have a candid talk with your parents).

4. Minimize the imposition; use words to imply a lesser imposition on the reader than it seems (e.g., If I were you, I would try to have a candid talk with my parents).

5. Show deference by using words (e.g., I don't know much about it, but if I were you, I would…).

6. Impersonalize the situation or discussion by using general words (e.g., When people have the problem you have, the best thing to do is to have a candid talk with the parents).

7. Explicitly apologizes or admits that he/she is impinging on the support seeker's negative face (including thoughts and behaviors). (e.g., I hate to say it, but you might have to..)

Perception of support-seeker's regard for face. Feng and Burleson's (2006) 15-item scale of politeness was used to measure participants’ perceptions of the support-seeker's regard for face. The respondents rated each of the items on a 9-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree,” 9 = “strongly agree”). Sample items include “The support seeker did not challenge the recipient's competence,” and “The support-seeking message did not impose too much on the recipient.” These items constituted a reliable scale (α = .89 for Americans and α = .89 for Koreans).

Intercoder reliability. A coding manual was developed to guide the coding process. Two coders proficient in both English and Korean were trained through several coding sessions and then coded the responses of participants. For approximately 30% of the messages (n = 336; English messages = 187, Korean messages = 149), the two coders coded independently in order to test reliability. Coding discrepancies between the two coders were resolved through discussion. Inter-coder reliability was assessed using Krippendorff's alpha. All variables were acceptably reliable: .891 for Americans and .801 for Koreans (verbal person-centeredness), .910 for Americans and .709 for Koreans (positive politeness strategies of support messages), .811 for Americans, and .759 for Koreans (negative politeness strategies of support messages), and .871 for Americans and .818 for Koreans (overall level of politeness). One coder coded the remaining messages (Table 4).

Table 4.

Zero-Order Correlations Among Variables.

	1	2	3	M	SD
1. Verbal person –centeredness				4.02	1.41
2. Politeness strategies	.50**			1.66	1.64
3. Overall Politeness	.54**	.68**		4.97	1.87
4. Regard for face	.15**	.13**	.17**	5.77	1.44

**p <.01.

Results

Descriptive Analyses

The average rating for the realism of the scenarios was 6.39 on a 9-point scale. This result indicates that participants perceived the support-seeking message in the online forum to be realistic and believable.

The Effect of Anticipatory Apology and Appreciation in Support-Seeking Messages on Recipients’ Support Provision

H1 proposed that support-seeking messages containing anticipatory apology will elicit support messages with (a) a higher level of verbal person-centeredness and (b) a higher level of politeness compared to support-seeking messages without expression of anticipatory apology. A 2 × 3 ANOVA was conducted to test H1. The between-groups factors included manipulation of apologies in support-seeking messages (presence vs. absence) and problem type (being underpaid vs. feeling lonely vs. conflict with parents). The dependent variables were verbal person-centeredness and politeness strategies (i.e., the number of politeness strategies and the overall level of politeness) each. The ANOVA results showed significant main effects of anticipatory apology on recipients’ verbal person-centeredness, F(1,977) = 5.632, p = .018, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .006 ( $η_{}^{2}$ = .001), the use of politeness strategies, F(1, 977) = 3.921, p = .048, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .004 ( $η_{}^{2}$ = .002), and overall level of politeness F(1, 977) = 4.785, p = .029, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .005. ( $η_{}^{2}$ = .001). Participants who viewed anticipatory apology expressions offered support messages with a higher level of verbal person-centeredness (M = 4.1, SD = 1.5), more politeness strategies (M = 1.8, SD = 1.7), and a higher level of overall politeness (M = 5.1, SD = 1.9) in their support messages compared to others who did not view anticipatory apology expressions (M = 3.9, SD = 1.3, M = 1.6, SD = 1.6, M = 4.8, SD = 1.8). Thus, H1(a) and H1(b) were supported.⁴

H2 predicted the effect of anticipatory appreciation on recipients’ support provision. A 2 × 3 ANOVA was conducted, as in H1. The between-groups factors included manipulation of support-seeking messages with appreciation (presence vs. absence) and the three problem types. Verbal person-centeredness and politeness strategies (i.e., the number of politeness strategies and the overall level of politeness) were the dependent variables. The results displayed a significant main effect of support-seeking message containing anticipatory appreciation on recipients’ overall level of politeness, F(1,977) = 6.142, p = .013, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .006 ( $η_{}^{2}$ = .001), but no significant main effect of anticipatory appreciation in support-seeking message on recipients’ emotion-focused supportiveness, F(1,977) = .612, p = .434, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .001( $η_{}^{2}$ = .000), and the use of politeness strategies, F(1,977) = .937, p = .333, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .001( $η_{}^{2}$ = .000). Those who read support-seeking messages with anticipatory appreciation provided support messages with a higher level of polite supportiveness (M = 5.1, SD = 1.9) than those who read support-seeking messages without anticipatory appreciation (M = 4.8, SD = 1.9). Thus, H2(a) was not supported, but H2(b) was partially supported (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Screenshots of Online Forum Interface Used in the U.S. and Korea.

The first research question was about the interaction effect of anticipatory apology and appreciation on verbal person-centeredness and politeness strategies. A 3 × 3 ANOVA was conducted. The results showed a significant interaction effect of anticipatory apology and appreciation in support-seeking messages on recipients’ emotion-focused supportiveness, F(1,971) = 6.362, p = .012, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .007( $η_{}^{2}$ = .001), but there were no interaction effects on the use of politeness strategies, F(1, 971) = .039, p = .843, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .000 ( $η_{}^{2}$ = .000), or overall level of politeness F(1, 971) = .930, p = .335, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .001( $η_{}^{2}$ = .000).

As shown in Figure 2, simple effects analyses demonstrated that if there is an anticipatory apology expression, participants responded more positively by offering more emotion-focused supportiveness (M = 4.2, SD = 1.5) when there is no anticipatory appreciation expression than when there is an anticipatory appreciation expression (M = 4.0, SD = 1.5). On the other hand, if there is no anticipatory apology expression in support-seeking messages, participants tend to include a higher level of emotion-focused supportiveness in their support messages when there is an anticipatory appreciation expression (M = 4.1, SD = 1.4) than when there is no anticipatory appreciation expression (M = 3.8, SD = 1.1).

Figure 2.

Interaction Effects of Apology and Appreciation on Dependent Variables.

However, all participants responded to support-seeking messages in similar ways in terms of the number of politeness strategies and the level of overall politeness. For the use of politeness strategy, if a support-seeking message includes an anticipatory apology expression, there was not a significant difference between when there is an anticipatory appreciation expression (M = 1.8, SD = 1.8) and when there is not (M = 1.7, SD = 1.6). Similarly, if a support-seeking message does not include an anticipatory apology expression, there was no significant difference between when there is an anticipatory appreciation expression (M = 1.6, SD = 1.6) and when there is not (M = 1.5, SD = 1.5). Regarding the overall level of politeness, if there is no anticipatory apology expression in support-seeking messages, there is no significant difference whether there is an anticipatory appreciation expression (M = 5.1, SD = 1.8) or not (M = 4.6, SD = 1.9). Likewise, if there is an anticipatory apology expression in support-seeking messages, there is no significant difference whether there is an anticipatory appreciation expression (M = 5.2, SD = 1.9) or not (M = 5.0, SD = 1.9). Overall, there was a significant interaction effect of anticipatory apology and appreciation expressions in support-seeking messages on recipients’ emotion-focused supportiveness, although there was no interaction effect on the other dependent variables (i.e., the number of politeness strategies and the level of overall politeness).

The Mediating Role of Regard for Face

To assess the mediating role of perceived regard for face (H3) between anticipatory apology expressions in support-seeking messages and recipients’ responses, a mediation analysis (model 4) was conducted using PROCESS. Verbal person-centeredness, politeness strategies, and overall level of politeness strategies were each entered as an outcome variable (Y). Support-seeking message with apology was entered as an independent variable (X), recipient's perceptions of regard for face was entered as mediator (M), and scenario realism was entered as a covariate variable. To probe this analysis, 5,000 bootstrap resamples and a bias corrected and accelerated (BCa) 95% confidence interval (CI) were used. An indirect effect is statistically significant only when the CI does not include zero (see Preacher et al., 2007). The results showed significant indirect effects of use of anticipatory apology on all of the dependent variables through regard for face. Specifically, the perception of regard for face mediated the effect of a support-seeking message with anticipatory apology on verbal person-centeredness (b = .06, SE = .02, 95% CI = [0.0258, 0.1021]), the use of politeness strategies (b = .05, SE = .02, 95% CI = [0.0196, 0.0960]), and overall level of politeness (b = .08, SE = .03, 95% CI = [0.0399, 0.1448]). Accordingly, H3 was supported.

H4 predicted the mediating role of regard for face between anticipatory appreciation expression and recipients’ responses. Presence of anticipatory appreciation expression in support-seeking was entered as an independent variable. For the other variables, all of the procedures were identical to those for testing H3. The results displayed non-significant indirect effects of a support-seeking message with expression of anticipatory appreciation on all of the dependent variables through regard for face (verbal person-centeredness, b = .01, SE = .01, 95% CI = [-0.0179, 0.0341], the use of politeness strategies, b = .01, SE = .01, 95% CI = [-0.0161, 0.0306], and overall level of politeness, b = .01, SE = .02, 95% CI = [-0.0247, 0.0470]). Thus, H4 was not supported.

The Moderating Role of National Culture

To test H5 (the effect of anticipatory apology in online support-seeking messages on support-provider's responses in terms of verbal person-centeredness and politeness will be greater for Koreans than for Americans), a 3 × 3 ANOVA was conducted. The between-groups factors included manipulation of apology in support-seeking messages (presence vs. absence), problem type (being underpaid vs. feeling lonely vs. conflict with parents), and national culture (U.S. vs. Korea). The dependent variables were verbal person-centeredness and politeness strategies. ANOVA results demonstrated that there were no significant interaction effects of anticipatory apology and national culture on recipients’ verbal person-centeredness, F(1, 898) = .427, p = .514, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .000 ( $η_{}^{2}$ = .000), the use of politeness strategies, F(1, 898) = .001, p = .971, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .000 ( $η_{}^{2}$ = .000), and overall level of politeness F(1, 898) = .393, p = .531, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .000 ( $η_{}^{2}$ = .000).

Americans and Koreans did not significantly differently reply to anticipatory apology in terms of verbal person-centeredness, the number of politeness strategies, and the level of overall politeness. Americans who viewed anticipatory apology expressions provided a higher level of verbal person-centeredness (M = 4.3, SD = 1.6), more politeness strategies (M = 2.0, SD = 1.8), and a higher level of overall politeness (M = 5.2, SD = 1.9) than those who did not (M = 4.1, SD = 1.4; M = 1.8, SD = 1.7, M = 5.0, SD = 1.9). Koreans also offered a higher level of verbal person-centeredness (M = 3.9, SD = 1.4), more politeness strategies (M = 1.4, SD = 1.6), and a higher level of overall politeness (M = 5.1, SD = 1.8) when reading support-seeking messages with anticipatory apology than when reading support-seeking messages without anticipatory apology (M = 3.8, SD = 1.2; M = 1.2, SD = 1.2; M = 4.7, SD = 1.8). Overall, there were no significant moderated effects of national culture on the relationship between anticipatory apology in support-seeking messages and recipients’ supportiveness. Accordingly, H5 was not supported.

The second research question was about the effect of anticipatory appreciation expressions on the recipients’ responses for Americans and Koreans. A 3 × 3 ANOVA was conducted to address this research question. The between-groups factors included manipulation of appreciation in support-seeking messages (presence vs. absence), problem type (being underpaid vs. feeling lonely vs. conflict with parents) and national culture (U.S. vs. Korea). The dependent variables were verbal person-centeredness and politeness strategies, respectively. The analyses showed that there were no significant interaction effects of anticipatory appreciation on support-seeking messages and national culture on recipients’ verbal person-centeredness, F(1, 898) = .658, p = .418, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .001 ( $η_{}^{2}$ = .000), the use of politeness strategies, F(1, 898) = .452, p = .501, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .001( $η_{}^{2}$ = .000), and overall level of politeness F(1, 898) = .069, p = .793, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .000 ( $η_{}^{2}$ = .000).

Americans and Koreans did not differ significantly in their responses to anticipatory appreciation expressions in terms of verbal person-centeredness, the number of politeness strategies, or the level of overall politeness. Americans who read anticipatory appreciation expressions provided responses with a higher level of verbal person-centeredness (M = 4.2, SD = 1.5), more politeness strategies (M = 2.0, SD = 1.9), and a higher a level of overall politeness (M = 5.2, SD = 2.0) than those who did not (M = 4.1, SD = 1.4; M = 1.9, SD = 1.7, M = 5.0, SD = 1.9). Koreans offered a higher level of verbal person-centeredness (M = 3.8, SD = 1.4) and a higher level of overall politeness (M = 5.0, SD = 1.8) to support-seeking messages with anticipatory appreciation than to those without (M = 3.8, SD = 1.3; M = 4.7, SD = 1.9). However, Koreans who did not view anticipatory appreciation expressions offered slightly more politeness strategies (M = 1.3, SD = 1.4) than those who did (M = 1.3, SD = 1.4).

Discussion

Despite the significance of support-seeking as a common first-step in supportive interaction episodes, support-seeking does not guarantee that support or good quality support will be received. In the context of online forums, in particular, it can be difficult to obtain support from unknown others given the limited time, energy, and motivation individuals have to read and respond to others’ support-seeking requests (Feng et al., 2016). Furthermore, the responses from helpers are multifarious in terms of quality (Aakhus & Rumsey, 2010). The way support is sought can influence the availability or quality of support. In online forums, support-seeking is limited by the use of nonverbal cues and typically occurs within unacquainted relationships. As a result, the effects of textual messages should be more salient in online than offline contexts (Feng et al., 2018). The current study attempted to understand how inclusion of two politeness language features in online support-seeking messages—apology and appreciation—may enhance the effectiveness of online support-seeking.

Consistent with our predictions, the results of the current study revealed that online support-seeking messages with anticipatory apology expression elicited more person-centered and polite supportive messages than those without. Expressing anticipatory appreciation in online support-seeking messages also elicited more polite supportive messages. According to the theory of constructivism, sophisticated social perception capacities and motivation are required to generate highly person-centered messages (Burleson, 2007; Burleson & Rack, 2008). Although social perception skill is a relatively stable ability among adults, motivation to produce highly person-centered messages tends to be affected by various dispositional and situational factors. Our results indicate that, as a message feature, politeness in support-seeking messages in the form of anticipatory apologies enhances support providers’ motivation to offer higher-quality support messages. Interestingly, however, our results also revealed that anticipatory appreciation expression did not appear to have any impact on person-centeredness of received support messages. This result can be understood through findings of Park and Lee's (2012) research on the effectiveness of a gratitude statement in email advertising messages. In their study, a gratitude statement was not effective in generating positive attitudes to the messages. Park and Lee (2012) opined that an appreciation statement might not be powerful enough to receive attention from the message recipients. Supportive communication on online forums usually takes place within weak-tie relationships which did not establish close connections and can be easily disconnected (see Green-Hamann et al., 2011). Given that support provision is completely voluntary in online forums, the anticipatory apology expressions (“Sorry to bother you” or “Sorry for taking your time”) might be more salient in this context.

As predicted, our results also showed that the effect of anticipatory apology on recipients’ responses in terms of a higher level of person-centeredness and a greater use of politeness strategies was mediated by the message recipient's perceptions of the support seeker's regard for face in online forums. This finding also supports the assumption that apology expression is a politeness strategy (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Eslami-Rasekh, 2004). The expression of anticipatory apology decreases the threat to the message recipient's negative face by minimizing the message recipient's responsibility or obligation for the task. This finding is also in concordance with Kimura's (1994) explanation that apology expression alleviates the imposition on message recipients when the speaker requests a favor. On the other hand, there was no mediating role of the support seeker's regard for face on the relationship between anticipatory appreciation expression and recipients’ greater use of politeness strategies. One potential explanation for this unexpected result is that, as aforementioned, message recipients might perceive the expression of anticipatory appreciation to be merely customary.

Although past research showed cultural differences in the use of apology expression (e.g., Lee, 2014; Lee & Park, 2011; Lee et al., 2012; Maddux et al., 2011; Park & Lee, 2012), our results did not reveal any significant moderating effects of national culture on the relationship between anticipatory apology expression and recipients’ supportiveness. Koreans and Americans responded to support-seeking messages with anticipatory apology expression in a similar way. Although Koreans use apology expressions more frequently in diverse situations than Americans, people from these two nations do not appear to differ in terms of their perceptions of anticipatory apology expressions by others. Given that apology serves as a social lubricant and is effective for maintaining social and relational harmony (see Frantz & Bennigson, 2005; Kador, 2009), it seems that people across cultures prefer apologies when an undesirable event occurs due to another's actions (Itoi et al., 1996).

Regarding the interaction effect of anticipatory apology and appreciation in a support-seeking message, the combined expressions influenced emotion-focused supportiveness but did not affect politeness in supportive messages. A support-seeking message with anticipatory apology expression only elicited more emotion-focused supportive messages than a support-seeking message with anticipatory appreciation only. Interestingly, a support-seeking message including anticipatory apology expression only elicited more emotion-focused supportive messages compared to a support-seeking message with both anticipatory apology and appreciation expressions. Anticipatory apology expression along with anticipatory appreciation expression might be perceived as a superficial expression online, while anticipatory apology expression only might not. It seems that when anticipatory apology expression is used with anticipatory appreciation expression, it loses some of its potency. Overall, the results showed that like many other message features that have been investigated in supportive communication, the effects of anticipatory appreciation and apology were small (but still meaningful) in magnitude. These message features are among many elements that can affect the processes of supportive communication.

This study has several limitations that deserve discussion. The major limitations pertain to the experimental design and procedure. More specifically, this study attempted to employ the interface of an actually existing online forum. As finding two identical online forums in both Korea and the U.S. was technically impossible, this study decided to select a real online forum in the U.S. and used it as a template. All of the conditions (e.g., banner advertisement content) are identical in both interfaces, except for language (Korean vs. English), but the website design or function might not be familiar to Korean participants to some extent. This may have partially influenced the results in that the Korean participants’ responses might not adequately reflect their real-life behaviors in online support forums. In addition, we included only one statement of anticipatory apology and one statement of anticipatory appreciation in the combined condition in order to keep the length of the entire message constant, resulting in a reduced “dosage” of anticipatory appreciation and apology expressions in the combined condition. In the meantime, given that the use of online experiments involving more naturally occurring supportive communication has its own limitations (e.g., participants’ misunderstanding of the instructions, distraction and forgetfulness, see Howell, 2021), we believe that the experimental design employed in the current study was an appropriate choice. Furthermore, this study asked participants to reply to the support-seeking messages in an effort to obtain enough support messages and analyze their message features. However, in reality, support-seeking messages often elicit little or no attention (Pan et al., 2017). Future research should consider participants’ volition or motivation to produce support messages.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jls-10.1177_0261927X221147274 - Supplemental material for The Effect of Anticipatory Apology and Appreciation in Online Support-Seeking Messages on Support Provision in the U.S. and Korea

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jls-10.1177_0261927X221147274 for The Effect of Anticipatory Apology and Appreciation in Online Support-Seeking Messages on Support Provision in the U.S. and Korea by JooYoung Jang and Bo Feng in Journal of Language and Social Psychology

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We received valuable and constructive feedback from two anonymous reviewers and the editor, Dr. Howard Giles. We are greatly thankful for their help in improving the manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

JooYoung Jang

Bo Feng

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

JooYoung Jang is a research fellow at the Strategic Digital Communication Lab at the University of Alabama. She is exploring how supportive communication unfolds online and how members of different cultural groups are both similar and different. Her research interests have recently expanded to include supportive communication in mobile app platforms among individuals with emotional health issues.

Bo Feng is a Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of California, Davis. Dr. Feng's research focuses on supportive communication in face-to-face and technologically mediated contexts.

References

Aakhus

Rumsey

(2010). Crafting supportive communication online: A communication design analysis of conflict in an online support group. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(1), 65–84. http://doi.org/10.1080/00909880903483581

Ali

Farrer

Gulliver

Griffiths

K. M.

(2015). Online peer-to-peer support for young people with mental health problems: A systematic review. JMIR Mental Health, 2(2), e19. http://doi.org/10.2196/mental.4418

Applegate

J. L.

(1980). Adaptive communication in educational contexts: A study of teachers’ communicative strategies. Communication Education, 29(2), 158–170. http://doi.org/10.1080/03634528009378407

Barbee

A. P.

Cunningham

M. R.

(1995). An experimental approach to social support communications: Interactive coping in close relationships. Communication Yearbook, 18(1), 381–413. http://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1995.11678921

Bodie

G. D.

Burleson

B. R.

Gill-Rosier

McCullough

J. D.

Holmstrom

A. J.

Rack

J. J.

Hanasono

Mincy

(2010). Explaining the impact of attachment style on evaluations of supportive messages: A dual-process framework. Communication Research, 38(2), 228–247. http://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210362678

Brown

Levinson

S. C.

(1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.

Burleson

B. R.

(1982). The development of comforting communication skills in childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 53(6), 1578–1588. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.ep8588469

Burleson

B. R.

(1994). Comforting messages: Features, functions, and outcomes. In Daly

J. A.

Wiemann

J. M.

(Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication (pp. 135–161). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Burleson

B. R.

(2007). Constructivism: A general theory of communication skill. In Whaley

Samter

(Eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and exemplars (pp. 105–128). Lawrence Erlbaum.

10.

Burleson

B. R.

(2008). What counts as effective emotional support. In Motley

M. T.

(Ed.), Studies in applied interpersonal communication (pp. 207–227). Sage.

11.

Burleson

B. R.

(2009). Understanding the outcomes of supportive communication: A dual-process approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(1), 21–38. http://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509105519

12.

Burleson

B. R.

(2003b). The experience and effects of emotional support: What the study of cultural and gender differences can tell us about close relationships, emotion, and interpersonal communication. Personal Relationships, 10(1), 1–23. http://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00033

13.

Burleson

B. R.

(2003a). Emotional support skills. In Greene

J. O.

Burleson

B. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 551–594). Lawrence Erlbaum.

14.

Burleson

B. R.

Mortenson

S. R.

(2003). Explaining cultural differences in evaluations of emotional support behaviors exploring the mediating influences of value systems and interaction goals. Communication Research, 30(2), 113–146. http://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202250873

15.

Burleson

B. R.

Rack

J. J.

(2008). Constructivism theory. In Baxter

L. A.

Braithwaite

D. O.

(Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication (pp. 51–63). Sage.

16.

Cai

Sedikides

Gaertner

Wang

Carvallo

O’Mara

E. M.

Jackson

L. E.

(2011). Tactical self-enhancement in China: Is modesty at the service of self-enhancement in east Asian culture? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(1), 59–64. http://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610376599

17.

Clark

H. H.

Schunk

D. H.

(1980). Polite responses to polite requests. Cognition, 8(2), 111–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(80)90009-8

18.

Cutrona

C. E.

Suhr

J. A.

MacFarlane

(1990). Interpersonal transactions and the psychological sense of support. In Duck

(Ed.), Personal relationships and social support (pp. 30–45). Sage.

19.

Eisenstein

Bodman

J. W.

(1986). ‘I very appreciate’: Expressions of gratitude by native and non-native speakers of American English. Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 167–185. http://doi.org/10.1093/applin/7.2.167

20.

Eslami-Rasekh

(2004). Face-keeping strategies in reaction to complaints: English and Persian. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 14(1), 179–195. http://doi.org/10.1075/japc.14.1.11esl

21.

Faisal

M. S.

Daud

Akram

A. U.

Abbasi

R. A.

Aljohani

N. R.

Mehmood

(2019). Expert ranking techniques for online rated forums. Computers in Human Behavior, 100, 168–176. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.013

22.

Feng

Burleson

B. R.

(2006). Exploring the support-seeking process across cultures: Toward an integrated analysis of similarities and differences. In Orbe

M. P.

Allen

B. J.

Flores

L. A.

(Eds.), The same and different: Acknowledging the diversity within and between cultural groups (pp. 243–266). National Communication Association.

23.

Feng

(2016). Is a profile worth a thousand words? How online support-seeker’s profile features may influence the quality of received support messages. Communication Research, 43(2), 253–276. http://doi.org/10.1177/0093650213510942

24.

Feng

MacGeorge

E. L.

(2010). The influences of message and source factors on advice outcomes. Communication Research, 37(4), 553–575. http://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210368258

25.

Feng

Zhu

Zhou

Y. N.

(2018). Advice in cyberspace. In MacGeorge

Swol

L. M. V.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of advice (pp. 363–380). Oxford University Press.

26.

Frantz

C. M.

Bennigson

(2005). Better late than early: The influence of timing on apology effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(2), 201–207. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.07.007

27.

Goldsmith

D. J.

Fitch

(1997). The normative context of advice as social support. Human Communication Research, 23(4), 454–476. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00406.x

28.

Goldsmith

D. J.

MacGeorge

E. L.

(2000). The impact of politeness and relationship on perceived quality of advice about a problem. Human Communication Research, 26(2), 234–263. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00757.x

29.

Green-Hamann

Campbell Eichhorn

Sherblom

J. C.

(2011). An exploration of why people participate in second life social support groups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(4), 465–491. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01543.x

30.

Guan

Park

H. S.

(2005, November). A China-U.S. cross-cultural comparison in apology. Paper resented at the annual convention of National Communication Association, Boston, MA.

31.

Guan

Park

H. S.

Lee

H. E.

(2009). Cross-cultural differences in apology. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(1), 32–45. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.10.001

32.

Heine

S. J.

(2001). Self as cultural product: An examination of East Asian and North American selves. Journal of Personality, 69(6), 881–905. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.696168

33.

Heine

S. J.

(2003). Making sense of East Asian self-enhancement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(5), 596–602. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022022103256481

34.

Heine

S. J.

Hamamura

(2007). In search of East Asian self-enhancement. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(1), 4–27. http://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294587

35.

Heine

S. J.

Kitayama

Lehman

D. R.

Takata

Ide

Leung

Matsumoto

(2001). Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North America: An investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 599. http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.599 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.599

36.

High

A. C.

Dillard

J. P.

(2012). A review and meta-analysis of person-centered messages and social support outcomes. Communication Studies, 63(1), 99–118. http://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2011.598208

37.

Holmes

(1988). Paying compliments: A sex-preferential politeness strategy. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(4), 445–465. http://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90005-7

38.

Holmes

(1989). Sex differences and apologies: One aspect of communicative competence. Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 194–213. http://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.2.194

39.

Howell

(2021). Online psychology experiments: Everything you need to know. https://www.psychstudio.com/articles/online-experiments/.

40.

Itoi

Ohbuchi

K. I.

Fukuno

(1996). A cross-cultural study of preference of accounts: Relationship closeness, harm severity, and motives of account making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(10), 913–934. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1996.tb01117.x

41.

Jacobson

(2004). Apologies and apologetic attitude in early modern English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 3(3), 187–204. https://ojs.ub.gu.se/index.php/njes/article/viewFile/260/257 https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.62

42.

Jansen

Janssen

(2010). Effects of positive politeness strategies in business letters. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(9), 2531–2548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.02.013

43.

Jessmer

S. L.

Anderson

(2001). The effect of politeness and grammar on user perceptions of electronic mail. North American Journal of Psychology, 3(2), 331–346.

44.

Johnson

D. I.

(2007). Politeness theory and conversational refusals: Associations between various types of face threat and perceived competence. Western Journal of Communication, 71(3), 196–215. http://doi.org/10.1080/10570310701518427

45.

Jones

S. M.

(2004). Putting the person into person-centered and immediate emotional support emotional change and perceived helper competence as outcomes of comforting in helping situations. Communication Research, 31(3), 338–360. http://doi.org/10.1177/0093650204263436

46.

Jones

S. M.

Guerrero

L. K.

(2001). The effects of nonverbal immediacy and verbal person centeredness in the emotional support process. Human Communication Research, 27(4), 567–596. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2001.tb00793.x

47.

Kador

(2009). Effective apology: Mending fences, building bridges, and restoring trust. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

48.

Kim

M. S.

Wilson

S. R.

(1994). A cross-cultural comparison of implicit theories of requesting. Communications Monographs, 61(3), 210–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759409376334

49.

Kim

(2003). Korean cultural codes and communication. International Area Review, 6(1), 93–114. http://doi.org/10.1177/223386590300600107

50.

Kimura

(1994). The multiple functions of sumimasen. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 279–302. http://doi.org/10.5070/L452005185

51.

Kramer-Moore

Moore

(2003). Pardon me for breathing: Seven types of apology. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 60(2), 160–169. https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/42578290

52.

Kunkel

A. D.

Wilson

S. R.

Olufowote

Robson

(2003). Identity implications of influence goals: Initiating, intensifying, and ending romantic relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 67(4), 382–412. http://doi.org/10.1080/10570310309374780

53.

Lee

H. E.

(2014). The effectiveness of apologies and thanks in favor asking messages: A cross-cultural comparison between Korea and the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 43, 335–348. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.10.004

54.

Lee

H. E.

Park

H. S.

(2011). Why Koreans are more likely to favor “apology,” while Americans are more likely to favor “thank you”. Human Communication Research, 37(1), 125–146. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01396.x

55.

Lee

H. E.

Park

H. S.

Imai

Dolan

(2012). Cultural differences between Japan and the United States in uses of “apology” and “thank you” in favor asking messages. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31(3), 263–289. http://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X12446595

56.

Feng

(2015). What to say to an online support-seeker? The influence of others’ responses and support-seekers’ replies. Human Communication Research, 41(3), 303–326. http://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12055

57.

Feng

Wingate

(2019). Give thanks for a little and you will find a lot: The role of a support seeker’s reply in online support provision. Communication Monographs, 86(2), 251–270. http://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2018.1539237

58.

MacGeorge

Feng

Guntzviller

(2016). Advice: Expanding the communication paradigm. In Cohen

E. L.

(Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 40, pp. 213–244). Routledge.

59.

MacGeorge

E. L.

Feng

Burleson

B. R.

(2011). Supportive communication. In Knapp

M. L.

Daly

J. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 317–354). Sage.

60.

MacGeorge

E. L.

Feng

Butler

G. L.

Budarz

S. K.

(2004). Understanding advice in supportive interactions: Beyond the facework and message evaluation paradigm. Human Communication Research, 30(1), 42–70. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00724.x

61.

MacGeorge

E. L.

Feng

Thompson

E. R.

(2008). “Good” and “bad” advice: How to advise more effectively. In Motely

M. T.

(Ed.), Studies in applied interpersonal communication (pp. 145–164). Sage.

62.

Maddux

W. W.

Kim

P. H.

Okumura

Brett

J. M.

(2011). Cultural differences in the function and meaning of apologies. International Negotiation, 16(3), 405–425. http://doi.org/10.1163/157180611X592932

63.

Pan

P. C.

(2012). Interlanguage requests in institutional e-mail discourse. In Economidou-Kogetsidis

Woodfield

(Eds.), Interlanguage request modification (pp. 119–161). John Benjamins.

64.

Pan

Feng

(2020a). Online support groups dedicated to specific health problems. In Egbert

Wright

(Eds.), Social support and health in the digital age (pp. 109–128). Lexington Books.

65.

Pan

Feng

Wingate

(2020b). What to say when seeking support online: A comparison among different levels of self-disclosure. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 978. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00978

66.

Pan

Shen

Feng

(2017). You get what you give: Understanding reply reciprocity and social capital in online health support forums. Journal of Health Communication, 22(1), 45–52. http://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2016.1250845

67.

Park

H. S.

Guan

(2006). The effects of national culture and face concerns on intention to apologize: A comparison of the USA and China. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35(3), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475750601026933

68.

Park

H. S.

Lee

H. E.

(2012). Cultural differences in “thank you”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31(2), 138–156. http://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X12438536

69.

Preacher

K. J.

Rucker

D. D.

Hayes

A. F.

(2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate behavioral research, 42(1), 185–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316

70.

Rains

S. A.

Tsetsi

Akers

Pavlich

C. A.

Appelbaum

(2019). Factors influencing the quality of social support messages produced online: The role of responsibility for distress and others’ support attempts. Communication Research, 46(6), 866–886. http://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218796371

71.

Reiter

R. M.

(2000). Linguistic politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A contrastive study of requests and apologies (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, Vol. 83). John Benjamins.

72.

Searle

J. R.

(1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.

73.

Searle

J. R.

(1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837

74.

Shek

D. T.

(1998). Help-seeking patterns of Chinese parents in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work, 8(1), 106–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650993.1998.9755782

75.

Smith

(2005). The categorical apology. Journal of Social Philosophy, 36(4), 473–496. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2005.00289.x

76.

Takaku

Weiner

Ohbuchi

K. I.

(2001). A cross-cultural examination of the effects of apology and perspective taking on forgiveness. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 20(1-2), 144–166. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02321.x

77.

Tamoyan

(2017). Taxonomy of apology speech situations. Bulletin of Yerevan University, 22(1), 59–73. http://ysu.am/files/TAXONOMY-OF-APOLOGY-SPEECH-SITUATIONS.pdf

78.

Tanaka

Spencer-Oatey

Cray

(2008). Apologies in Japanese and English. In Spencer-Oatey

(Ed.), Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory (2^nd ed., pp. 73–94). Continuum.

79.

Tracy

(2011). A facework system of minimal politeness: Oral argument in appellate court. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behavior, Culture, 7(1), 123–145. http://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2011.006

80.

Tracy

Craig

R. T.

Smith

Spisak

(1984). The discourse of requests: Assessment of a compliance-gaining approach. Human Communication Research, 10(4), 513–538. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1984.tb00030.x

81.

Youngvorst

L. J.

High

A. C.

(2018). Anyone free to chat?” using technological features to elicit quality support online. Communication Monographs, 85(2), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2018.1426871

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB