A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Differences in Politeness Perception of Irony and Prosocial Lies:
Exploring the Role of Age, Gender, and Geographic Location
Pavitra Rao Makarla
1, 2
, Gitte Henssel Joergensen
1, 3
, Kendal Brice Tyner
4
,
Caroline Sprinkle
4
, and Kathrin Rothermich
4
1
Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Connecticut
2
Department of Cognitive Science, University of Connecticut
3
Connecticut Institute for the Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Connecticut
4
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, East Carolina University
In daily interactions, individuals use irony and prosocial lies for various reasons, for example, to be
humorous, to criticize, or to be polite. While some studieshave examined individual differences in perceiving
the politeness of such language, research using naturalistic, context-rich materials is lacking. To address
this gap, we utilized short videos to assess politeness perception in literal, ironic, and prosocial lie scenarios
while also exploring differences based on age, gender, and geographical location. Our sample included
288 participants from the United States and the United Kingdom. We focused on five different types of
language: literal positive, blunt, sarcastic, teasing, and prosocial lies. Participants rated the politeness of these
statements and completed surveys on communication preferences (Self-Reported Sarcasm Questionnaire
and Conversational Indirectness Scale Questionnaire). While the demographic groups showed similarities,
individual factors also shaped politeness perception. Older adults perceived teasing as less polite than
middle-aged and younger adults, and male participants rated blunt and sarcastic statements as more polite.
Geographical variations were found for prosocial lies, with U.K. participants rating them more polite than
their U.S. counterparts. These findings underscore the importance of considering context-rich materials
and individual factors in understanding the social functions of irony and prosocial lies.
Public Significance Statement
Exploring similarities and differences in how individuals interpret irony and prosocial lies. The results
reveal similarities and subtle differences in perceiving the politeness of these types of language based
on age, gender, and geographical location.
Keywords: sincerity, pragmatics, videos, cultural differences, nonliteral language
Supplemental materials: https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000324.supp
In 1975, Paul Grice identified four conversational maxims
that define the rules we intuitively follow during conversations.
These maxims have been useful to describe implicit norms of
social communication, for example, that we expect interlocutors to
be informative, truthful, concise, and relevant (Grice, 1975). At the
heart of this theory is the Cooperative Principle, which assumes
that conversation partners follow rules that lead to a mutual
understanding of what is being said. Frequently, we violate or flout
Gricean maxims by using deception, indirect language, and forms of
irony such as teasing or sarcasm. Reasons for these deviations often
include humor, increasing affiliation or politeness (Attardo, 2000;
Bowes & Katz, 2011;Jorgensen, 1996).
1
An example for flouting
the maxims of quality (being truthful) is sarcasm, also described as
“overt untruthfulness”(Dynel, 2013). To signal sarcasm, speakers
employ contextual and nonverbal cues to communicate the intended
meaning beyond the literal surface form, commonly referred to as
“conversational implicature.”This approach ensures that the listener
is not misled and can decipher the speaker’s intention. To clearly
convey sarcasm, speakers employ overt cues such as changes in
prosody or facial expressions that indicate their sarcastic intent.
The present study focuses on how demographic variables such as
age, gender, and geographical location influence the perception
of politeness concerning sarcasm and other communicative types
of language. Specifically, we employ naturalistic and dynamic video
This article was published Online First March 7, 2024.
Kathrin Rothermich https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7586-3842
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kathrin
Rothermich, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, East
Carolina University, 3310 AD Health Sciences Building, 600 Moye
Boulevard Mail Stop 668, Greenville, NC 27858, United States. Email:
ROTHERMICHK17@ecu.edu
1
It has to be noted that Raskin and colleagues (Attardo, 2017;Raskin,
1985) have suggested that while jokes/humor violate the Cooperative
Principle, they represent communication that does not have information
transfer as the primary goal (also called non-bona-fide communication).
In this context, Goatly (2012) suggested that for a joke to work, the violation
of norms has to be recognized almost immediately, thus reducing the
violation to a flout rapidly.
Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology /
Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale
ISSN: 1196-1961 2024, Vol. 78, No. 2, 100–113
© 2024 Canadian Psychological Association https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000324
100
