CHAPTER 5: REFUSAL AND ACCEPTANCE STRATEGIES USED BY
5.2 Acceptance Strategies Used by Romantic Confessees
The total tokens of refusal strategies used by the 107 romantic confessees are 102 (See Table 12). On average, each confessee adopts about 4.6 strategies per romantic confession (See Table 13). Out of the 2 categories of strategies in confession acceptance, all confessees tend to favor rationale-based strategies (62.7 %) more than reward-based strategies (37.3 %). When the factor of gender is taken into consideration, no salient difference can be perceived from the data (See Table 14 for further details on the
average numbers of each persuasive strategy type used per confession).
Table 12. Token numbers and percentages of acceptance strategies used by confessees
Categories
All Male Female
Token % Token % Token %
Reward-Based
Strategies 38 37.3 23 39.7 15 34.1
Rationale-Based
Strategies 64 62.7 35 60.3 29 65.9
Total 102 100 58 100 44 100
Table 13. Average numbers of acceptance strategies used per confession
Categories All Male Female
Reward-Based Strategies 1.7 1.9 1.5
Rationale-Based Strategies 2.9 2.9 2.9
Total 4.6 4.8 4.4
Table 14. Average numbers of acceptance strategies used per confession (by types)
Types of Strategies All Male Female
Reward-Based
Ingratiation 1.36 1.58 1.1
Promise 0.18 0.33 0
Thanks 0.18 0 0.4
Rationale-Based
Direct Acceptance 0.68 0.67 0.7
Hinting 1.64 1.42 1.9
Challenge 0.59 0.83 0.3
As discussed in Chapter 3, only 2 categories of acceptance strategies – reward-based strategies and rationale-based strategies – were identified in the data to make up the model of acceptance strategies used by romantic confessees. These strategies were commonly used as verbal encouragement or affirmation to the confessors, and they could be adopted to aid the confessor in formulating a more convincing romantic persuasion. While a fair number of reward-based strategies were used in confession acceptance, even more rationale-based strategies were adopted by the confessees. This might be because reward-based strategies were mostly used as verbal
rewards that encouraged the confessors to continue building up the confessions and that indicated confessees’ interest to the request, whereas rationale-based strategies were
mostly adopted to give the confessors the actual agreement to the request. As a result, rationale-based strategies would be the category with the most token numbers in the data since many uses of these strategies were verbal agreements to the confessors’ offer.
In the sections below, detailed discussions of the 2 categories of acceptance strategies are presented. To be exact, the strategies are: (1) reward-based strategies:
ingratiation, promise, and thanks; and (2) rationale-based strategies: direct acceptance, hinting, and challenge.
5.2.1 Reward-Based Strategies
The category of reward-based strategies consists of ingratiation, promise, and thanks. These strategies reward the confessor or make him/her feel good during the confession. Confessees would often use these strategies to encourage the confessors to carry on with their confession/persuasion and further give the confessors confidence to propose the offer of establishing a relationship together in the end. Therefore, as one of the two co-constructors of romantic confession, confessees would commonly use this category of strategies to facilitate the communicative process.
Ingratiation
The strategy of ingratiation includes several verbal and nonverbal tactics to make the confessor feel good about himself/herself or the confessee. After the confessors had confessed their feelings towards the confessees, if the confessees were also interested in the confessors, they would often give gifts, provide services, and/or pay compliments to make the confessors feel good. For instance, knowing that the confessee loves to sing, the confessor told the confessee that if they were together in the future, he could accompany her with instruments when she sings. She later indirectly complimented the confessor by saying that she likes boys that can play the piano (See Excerpt 33).
(33) CONFESSOR; 我自己唱得不好聽但是我可以給妳伴奏.
I don’t sing well but I can accompany you (with instruments).
I like guys that can play the piano. ((SMILE))
As demonstrated in the excerpt, the confessee’s use of the ingratiation strategy served as a verbal encouragement indicating that she was perhaps happy with the idea of them performing together as a couple. As a result, the confessor might become more confident and continue to confess his feelings to the confessee. The adoption of the ingratiation strategy is thus important in confession acceptance and is one of the most frequently used strategies in the data for it facilitates the communicative process of the romantic confession and further guides the conversation towards a positive direction.
Promise
This strategy is used to make the confessors feel good by promising to do something for them in the future (after accepting the offer) so as to further encouraging the confessees to carry on with their confessions. This strategy was adopted to show the confessors that the confessees would also take the initiative and make an effort to contribute to the relationship in the future. For instance, in Excerpt 34, after learning that the confessor would be willing to travel to Hong Kong often to be with him, the confessee also gave the same promise to the confessee.
(34) CONFESSEE; 妳:之後:會經常過來香港嗎？
Are you going to come to Hong Kong often in the future?
CONFESSOR; …如果你願意的話我會.
If you are willing (to be with me), I will.
CONFESSEE; ..好那我:也會經常過來北京找妳的.
Okay, then I will also come to Beijing often to see you.
In our data, only male confessees adopted the promise strategy. As discussed in the previous section, the reason for this might the limited time that the male confessees had to promote themselves. Since men would not get too much time to introduce themselves and their views on relationships in front of each female guests on the show, male confessees, and especially ones that were interested in establishing a relationship with the female confessors, would tend to show the confessors their willingness to contribute and commit to the relationship using the strategy of promise. On the other hand, since female confessees already had quite some time to explain their views on relationships and the kind of partner they would be in a relationship in previous segments of the show,
they perhaps did not find it necessary to make extra promises when accepting the confessor’s offer. Another reason for this difference in the usage of this strategy might
be due to the social expectation for men to be more active in a relationship. As established by previous dating behavior studies, men are often expected to be more responsible for initiating dating and sexual relationships than women (Ferng and Yen, 2007; Laner, and Ventrone, 2000). Hence, in the cases when the roles are reversed, the male confessees would be more likely to also make a proposal of their own and promise to bring something into the relationship in the future.
Thanks
The strategy of thanks would be identified when the confessee shows gratitude or appreciation (often with the expression 謝謝 ‘thanks’) in return for what the confessor has done or offered. In one of the confessions, the confessor knew that the confessee suffered from chronic shoulder pain so he massaged her shoulders. After his massage, the confessee immediately thank him for his service (See Excerpt 35).
(35) CONFESSOR; ((幫 CONFESSEE 按摩))
((MASSAGE THE CONFESSEE)) CONFESSEE; …謝謝.
Thank you.
Contrary to the usage of the thanks strategy in confession refusals, this strategy was rarely used in confession acceptance (only two tokens were found). And even when it was used, it was adopted immediately after the confessors had offered a service or given the confessees a gift and as a verbal reward to encourage the confessors to continue with their confession. In other words, the use of this strategy in confession acceptance did not interrupt the flow of the confessors’ persuasion, whereas in the context confession refusal, this strategy often marked the beginning of a series of other refusal strategies devised to reject the request.
5.2.2 Rationale-Based Strategies
As identified in the data, the rationale-based strategies for acceptance are direct acceptance, hinting, and challenge. Such strategies are devised based on the rationale
behind the acceptance and they often serve as the final agreement to the confessor’s offer or means to elicit more information from the confessor to confirm the confessee’s decision to accept the request. As discussed before, this category of strategies is
frequently adopted in the data because many of them are used to reveal the confessees’
decision of acceptance to the confessors’ offer.
Direct Acceptance
The confessees would adopt the strategy of direct acceptance to accept the request in a straightforward manner by using accepting vocabulary or statements such as 會
‘Yes’ or 我願意 ‘I am willing.’ As seen in the following excerpt, after the confessor
asked the confessee whether she would be willing to leave the stage with him, the confessee indicated her willingness in a direct manner.
(36) CONFESSOR; …你願意跟我走嗎？
((伸出右手))
Are you willing to come away with me? ((HOLD OUT RIGHT HAND))
CONFESSEE; …我願意.
…I am (willing).
In our data, this strategy is found to be commonly used by confessees in confession acceptance. After evaluating the arguments presented by the confessors and being convinced to take the offer, the confessees would sometimes directly indicate their willingness to comply. As discussed in Section 4.1.4, due to the verbal reward and the encouragement given by confessees in successful confessions, confessors tend to be
more confident in using the strategy of direct request in their persuasion. This would, in turn, affect the confessees’ response as they would often directly accept the request in the form of a question-answer minimal pair. Furthermore, another possible reason for the frequent usage of this strategy may be the more “preferred” and pleasant nature of acceptance as discussed by previous studies (Heritage, 1984; Kitzinger and Frith, 1999).
Since an acceptance is what the confessors are looking for, there is no need to carry out a lengthy or elaborate acceptance since no threat would be imposed on either one of the parties in the context of an acceptance.
Hinting
The hinting strategy is used to present the situational context in a way that the confessor is led to conclude the confessees’ acceptance to the request. Instead of directly
accepting the offer to be in a relationship, the confessees would verbally and nonverbally hinted at their willingness to agree to the confessors’ request. For example,
one confessee, after putting the coat offered by the confessor around her shoulder, stated that she would not accept anyone else’s coat other than one from her own boyfriend to indicate that she now considered the confessor as her boyfriend (See Excerpt 37).
(37) CONFESSEE; …披外套不是隨便披的, ..我只會披我男朋友給的外套.
I don’t randomly put coats over my shoulders. I only accept my boyfriend’s coat over my shoulders.
In the data, nonverbal hinting tactics include hugging the confessor, taking the hand that was offered by the confessor, or singing a love song to the confessor, etc. were also found to be used by the confessees in their acceptance.
From the average numbers of the acceptance strategies used per confession, it could be seen that the strategy of hinting was most commonly adopted by romantic
confessees among all the other acceptance strategies. This might be due to the influence of the confessors’ strategy choice in their romantic persuasion. In the data, it is observed
that when the confessors adopt the hinting strategy to confess their feelings and make
the request to be together with the confessees, the confessees would also agree to the confessors’ request by using the same strategy. For instance, after a confessor sang a
love song to indirectly confess his feelings to the confessee, the confessee responded by also singing a love song to indicate her willingness to take the confessor’s offer. Or as in
another case, a confessor held out his hand to ask for the confessee’s hand in a relationship. The confessee then accepted the request by taking the confessor’s hand. As a result, it is understandable that the strategy of hinting is commonly adopted by romantic confessees in the data because the effect of conversational interaction might lead the speakers to mirror each other in terms of strategy selection.
Challenge
Challenge is a strategy that the confessee uses to express concerns or doubts about the confessor’s intention or the feasibility of the request with a view to gaining more
explanation from the confessor to confirm his/her decision to accept the request. This strategy was often used in the interrogative form to seek more information from the confessor. Unlike the challenge strategy in confession refusals that were targeted towards problems that were unsolvable by the confessor at the moment, the confessees in confession acceptance adopted this strategy to allow a more detailed discussion with the confessor on the feasibility of dating as a couple to take place.
Usually, when the confessees used the strategy of challenge, they were tempted to comply with the confessors but were still hesitant about agreeing for some reasons; thus, they would further devise this strategy to gain more information and assurance from the confessors or hope to work out with the confessors a solution to the problems that were bothering them. As demonstrated in Excerpt 38, the confessee was worried that the
confessor might have a misconception about his personality and was wondering whether the confessor’s claim on their compatibility would still be true after he explained
himself better.
(38) CONFESSEE; ..妳說妳比較的:
就是沉穩, ..我-
這樣的話妳覺得我們合適嗎？
..就是我- 我其實:
..還:就是跟朋友在一起, 就是-就是比較能鬧的那種.
You said that you are calmer (in terms of personality). I..if that’s the case do you think we are a good match? Because I..I’m actually..When (I’m) with my friends, (I) am the type (of person) that is more vivacious.
The confessor then responded by telling him that she was also the type of person that would be calm when alone but vivacious when with friends. Her answer was accepted by the confessee and the two later left the stage together as a couple. Therefore, by using the strategy of challenge and providing a chance for the two to further discuss an issue, the confessee was actually co-constructing the confession in a positive manner and helping the confessor to further convince him during the process.
In the data, it is found that male confessees tend to adopt the strategy of challenge more frequently than female confessees do (See Table 14). Since male confessors are regular cast members of the show, they met many different women and witnessed or were even involved in many different confessions. This would result in the confessors having a more specific sense of what they wanted in a (potential) partner or in a confession. Therefore, they would be more likely to value both the “rush in the head”
(i.e., the emotionally appealing element) when being confessed by a woman as well as the logical reasoning and the feasibility (i.e., the rationally appealing element) behind the request. In other words, while the female confessees might be more willing to agree
to the request if they were emotionally touched by the confessors (as stated by a few confessees on the show), the male confessees often wanted to get more explanation from the confessors in order to make the final decision to comply. Nonetheless, whether this difference has more to do with the format of the show or the gender differences between male and female dating behaviors still awaits the confirmation of future studies.
5.3 Discussion
The result and analyses of the refusal and acceptance strategies adopted by the confessees demonstrated both the important elements of reason and emotion in the context of romantic confession. As mentioned in the previous chapter and earlier discussions, reward-based strategies are commonly devised by the confessees as a more emotionally appealing approach to reject or accept the confessors’ romantic persuasion.
On the other hand, rationale-based strategies are of similar importance for they provide the logical reasoning to sustain the confessees’ dissuasion or acceptance. Again, although the strategies in the models are discussed individually in this chapter, they are frequently combined into a series of strategies throughout the romantic confession.
From the analyses of the data, it can be seen that the discourse of romantic confession is a process of co-construction in which the confessors and confessees plan
and adjust the use of strategies in order to achieve their communicative goals. Generally speaking, the confessors would start off the confessions by using reward-based strategies to make the confessees feel good and leave a good impression. Then the confessees would use reward-based strategies or rationale-based strategies to either encourage or dissuade the confessors of their persuasion. This is when the confessors would choose to use rationale-based strategies, punishment-based strategies, or altruism-based strategies to further persuade the confessee to comply. Finally, the confessees would decide to either accept the request with rationale-based strategies, or reject the offer by using rationale-based, altruism-based, or even punishment-based
strategies. Moreover, we have also observed in our data how confessees would adopt strategies to interrupt or facilitate the confessors’ flow of persuasion. This further
illustrates the important effect of cooperation and co-construction in the context of romantic confession in which both speakers can take part in verbally and nonverbally manipulating the development of the conversation. (Please see Chapter 6 for more details on the strategy selection and conversational interaction between the confessor and confessee in different stages of a confession).
Once again, we would like to note that although possible explanations behind the patterns of strategy selection are presented in this chapter, it is not the goal of the study to suggest that any of these factors are the only reasons behind the choices of strategy
for the confessors and confessees in the data. For instance, we have mentioned that subtle gender differences found in the refusal and acceptance strategy use of romantic confessees may be a result of socio-cultural influences on gender roles, the format of the show, or the effect of co-construction between speakers. The discussions we provided demonstrate the complexity of conversation in general and that there could be more than one factor influencing the pattern of strategy use in romantic confessions. Nonetheless, it would require the exploration of future studies to pinpoint the exact factors that have a determining impact on the strategy selection of romantic confessors and confessees.
In Chapter 4 and Chapter 5, the detailed results and thorough analyses on the persuasive, refusal, and acceptance strategies adopted by confessors and confessees have provided us with a micro level view on how interlocutors verbally and nonverbally achieve communicative purposes in romantic confessions. In the next chapter, the discourse structure of romantic confession is discussed on a macro level to reveal the
In Chapter 4 and Chapter 5, the detailed results and thorough analyses on the persuasive, refusal, and acceptance strategies adopted by confessors and confessees have provided us with a micro level view on how interlocutors verbally and nonverbally achieve communicative purposes in romantic confessions. In the next chapter, the discourse structure of romantic confession is discussed on a macro level to reveal the