(Im)politeness in the face of digital rejection: an analysis of whether gender affects the response to an impolite refusal of a Facebook friend request

2.1 (Im)politeness theory

Brown and Levinson’s (1978) politeness theory defined politeness as employing language in conversation to minimize conflict with others, while considering the interlocutors’ feelings and desires. They based their model of politeness on Goffman’s (1967) concept of “face”, a term derived from the Chinese notion of self-esteem or self-image. Building on this model, they developed the concepts of positive face and negative face. Brown and Levinson (1987: 62) describe positive face as “the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others” – in other words, the desire to be accepted and appreciated by others. Negative face is “the want of every ‘competent adult member’ that his actions be unimpeded by others” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 62). FTAs are actions that inherently damage an interlocutor’s positive or negative face and are essential tools for understanding (im)politeness (Brown and Levinson 1978).

Culpeper and Hardaker (2017) categorize the existing studies on impoliteness into three waves of research. The first wave of the framework includes categories such as bald on record, positive, negative, off record, and withholding of politeness, whereas sarcasm and mock politeness were added later (Culpeper et al. 2003). The second wave moved to the discursive orientation of (im)politeness, focusing on the construction of the phenomenon and the constant battle over its definition. The last wave, associated with Bousfield (2008) and Bousfield and Culpeper (2008), focuses on speaker-hearer turns, context of use, and fixed meanings of particular linguistic forms according to Culpeper and Hardaker’s (2017) review of (im)politeness research.

2.2 Cultural context and norms

Context is essential to understanding (im)politeness. Actions or utterances that might be considered impolite when viewed in isolation might appear otherwise, depending on their context (Culpeper 2010; Kádár et al. 2021; Kecskes 2015; Spencer-Oatey and Kádár 2016). When said between friends, an apparent insult like “You are such a moron” is more likely to be an example of mock impoliteness or banter than an utterance intended to offend (Culpeper 2005; Haugh and Bousfield 2012; Taylor 2015). In addition to the relationship between interlocutors or the specific social environment (see Culpeper 1996 on army training camps), context must also account for gender, communication medium, and culture.

Thus, cultural context and norms become an essential component in the construction of (im)politeness in digital communication, as illustrated by the case of rejecting a Facebook friend request. There is a significant cultural impact on how politeness is both conveyed and received between people of different genders. In terms of some cultures, it is considered rude and/or improper to say no directly, while in others, such directness is appropriate and acceptable (Spencer-Oatey 2008).

Moreover, culture has a strong influence on disparities between genders in communication through elements like authority, religion, self-perception, identity, pride, honor, and the law. Research also highlights the importance of cultural norms in influencing the cognition, language, and behavior of individuals. It reflects that gender constructs are crucial in determining attitudes, emotions, and social roles (Enaifoghe 2023).

Cassell and Blake (2012) and Alkahtani et al. (2013) have examined Saudi Arabian communication, including a dislike of stress/pressure, conflict, and a negative attitude toward technology use and the importance of dignity and respect. For Arabs, particularly Saudis, politeness is about being tactful and self-restraint, influenced by religious values that emphasize humility, hospitality, and respect (Bouchara 2015; Hariri 2017). Daily speech contains religious words in greetings and casual conversations, such as Masha Allah (As God has willed), InshaAllah (God Willing), Barak Allahu feek (May God bless you), Alhamdollillah (praise to be God). The phrases are used to acknowledge God and to bless longevity. These expressions are polite according to religious and cultural traditions, rather than typical European politeness norms, which serve to avoid conflict (Bouchara 2015; Shum and Lee 2013). This study will also contribute to the understanding of (im)politeness in various cultural settings.

2.3 Gender and (im)politeness

In this article, gender is considered a crucial social attribute that generally influences language usage and influences individuals’ inclination to employ impolite tactics in communication during interactions. Studies further indicate that language use reflects and reinforces gender roles as well as different communication styles (Salsabila et al. 2024). The development of different approaches was influenced by evolving perceptions of how gender is defined. First-wave scholars (e.g., Brown and Levinson 1978; Holmes 1995; Lakoff 1975; Leech 1983) viewed gender as binary and assigned social and linguistic practices to a specific gender. In her book, Language and Woman’s Place, Lakoff (1975) offered a theory describing unique features of women’s speech. She argued that “women’s speech” is inherently politer than “men’s speech”.

However, other scholars criticized Lakoff’s observations for using “men’s speech” as the basis against which she measured “women’s speech”. Holmes (1995) rejected Lakoff’s (1975) assertion of a deficiency in female language dynamics, proposing that where evidence suggests that women are more inclined to respond with sensitivity, this is likely due to environmental influence rather than biological disposition. Holmes (1995) further suggested that these behaviors were more likely emulations of successful communicative efforts observed in people working in positions of power (Chalupnik et al. 2017).

Later research into language and gender was highly influenced by Butler’s (1990) performativity theory, which redefined gender as a verb (the way people act and speak), rather than a fixed biological trait. Gender as performance draws on social and linguistic resources to construct an identity that has “profound effects on their production of social reality” (Chalupnik et al. 2017: 518–519; see Butler 2011). Mills’s (2003) social constructionist theory of gender and politeness posits that it is essential to assess both the gender identity of the speaker and how they believe their language use may be judged by others in a specific community of practice. Mills (2003) therefore argues that (im)politeness is shaped by sociological identity factors that arise in specific contexts. This study adopts Mills’s (2003) social constructionist notion of gender. Gender will be treated as an independent variable in this study to enable quantitative analysis, specifically to analyze trends in responses to (im)politeness and to determine whether gender affects how participants respond.^[1] However, it is explicitly recognized that differences in (im)politeness are not inherent traits; instead, they are shaped by societal expectations and reflect how individuals perform and express their gender in social interactions.

2.4 Reactions to acts of refusal and impoliteness

Culpeper et al. (2003) developed an (im)politeness choices model to investigate how people respond to acts of (im)politeness (see Figure 1 below). The model has four stages following the “triggering” act of impoliteness. The first stage is whether or not to reply. The second one is to respond to the impoliteness or reject it; accepting an impolite speech implicates taking responsibility (Bousfield 2007). Culpeper et al. (2003) suggests two counter strategies: the offensive approach aimed at attacking the speaker and the defensive strategy designed to protect the recipient. Bousfield (2007) developed defensive counter strategies (see Appendix B), which are more concerned with defending the face of the receiver than attacking the original speaker.

Figure 1:

Culpeper et al.’s (2003) impoliteness response options model.

A vital feature of impoliteness theory is examining the speech event in context. As Bousfield (2007: 2190) states, “[i]mpoliteness does not exist in a vacuum.” Instead, there is often a “triggering event” or confrontation that the speaker perceives as a face attack or face threat preceding impoliteness.

Apart from this, there is considerable literature on gender as a variable in (im)politeness research. Chen and Abedin (2014) studied the extent to which men and women retaliate in response to rejection and criticism. Their findings support prior research (Bushman and Huesmann 2010; Fischer 2011; Herring 2000; Wood and Eagly 2010), which suggest that while men are more overt in aggressive behavior, women are more likely to withdraw. However, they found that men responded differently to rejection than to criticism, whereas women responded to both as aversive speech. Other studies (Anderson et al. 2014; Papacharissi 2004; Wolak et al. 2007) have observed that rejection and criticism of others have increased in recent years in online communities. In a study of gender differences in impoliteness on Tumblr, Hairetdin (2018) found that while women were just as impolite as men, the strategies they used were different. Whereas men were more likely to use taboo words and insults, women were more likely to scorn or disassociate from the impolite offender. According to Lapidot-Lefler and Barak (2012), individuals are more likely to act impolitely and aggressively in online settings because they often interact anonymously. They found that lack of eye contact is a significant factor contributing to this behavior.

The literature has revealed differences in overall reactions to face threats such as rejection and criticism (Blackhart et al. 2009; Chen and Abedin 2014; Downey et al. 2004), but not many researchers have analyzed responses to face threats in terms of gender. Existing studies suggest that both male and female participants employ impoliteness strategies in Internet communication, but do so in quite dissimilar ways.

The findings from studies such as Chen and Abedin (2014) and Hairetdin (2018) support studies conducted on face-to-face communication (Mills 2003) and suggest that online (im)politeness and gender are contextual and dependent on the specific online environment. However, a persistent gap in the literature is the lack of research exploring gendered aggressive responses to social media threats. This study intends to address the gap in the literature by investigating the politeness of elicited participant responses rather than studying a standard intuitive communicative narrative. Thus, rather than assessing responses in a typical setting where norms and regulations may prevent spontaneous responses, this study explores provoked responses.

3.1 Research design

The study collected data from the responses of a group of Muslim men and women to the rejection of a friend request and a message of criticism from the requestee’s profile. The participants had all sent unsolicited friend requests to the profile of an Islamic academic researcher known for controversial opinions on politics and religion. The profile had reached the maximum number of 5,000 Facebook friends, leading to subsequent friend requests being rejected. Initially, all participants sent a friend request to the researcher’s active Facebook page. They received a private message in reply that was designed to damage their negative face wants. Out of the many responses, only those that showed signs of annoyance were taken for deeper consideration and analysis. It is important to note that not every respondent who employs defensive techniques is perceived to be losing “face”. However, the study suggests the possibility of “losing face” when respondents use offensive strategies.

Moreover, negative impoliteness strategies are also known to elicit more responses (Culpeper 1996; Culpeper et al. 2003), a strategy intended to constrain the recipient’s desire for autonomy and individuality. The message read:

This study investigates how the gender variable affects how participants respond to the affront they received, whether the counter-response is offensive or defensive, and further, which (im)politeness strategies and formulae they use to save face.

Despite a small sample size, an explanatory research design was adopted to identify a causal link between gender and responses to an act of rejection and impoliteness. This study utilizes a deductive explanatory research method with a mixed methods approach to analyze participant responses to a message of refusal/rejection. It identifies (im)politeness strategies employed by the participants.

3.2 Data

This paper aims to analyze the responses elicited by a private Facebook message that commits face-threatening acts in both refusing the request and expressing criticism of the requester. Among the 120 responses, 61 were from self-identified men and 59 from self-identified women. The data was analyzed using an explanatory mixed methods approach.

3.3 Participants

Demographic data was gathered from participants’ Facebook pages. Most participants were second-language English speakers with Arabic as a first language. Of the 120 Facebook friend requests received, men sent 61 and women 59. All the participants were of the Islamic faith; however, their geographical locations and ages were too varied to be used as reliable variables. Once the participants provided the initial response, a follow-up message, explaining the study’s purpose, a promise of anonymity, and a request to use their responses was sent. Those who did not react to the follow-up message were also counted for the overall effective response rate but were not considered for further analysis.

3.4 Data analysis

As previously mentioned, a mixed methods approach was employed to analyze the data, involving a three-step process. First, a qualitative analysis of the responses was conducted using a truncated version of the model of impoliteness response options by Culpeper et al. (2003) (see Figure 1). Next, for the quantitative analysis, Bousfield’s (2007) defensive counterstrategies (Appendix B) were applied to the data identified as defensive (im)politeness, while Culpeper’s (1996, 2005) impoliteness super-strategies model (Appendix A) was applied to the data identified as offensive (im)politeness. Finally, Culpeper’s (2010) impoliteness formulae assisted in further categorization of the offensive responses. In the qualitative analysis, we used the insights gained from Bousfield’s model, Culpeper’s impoliteness super strategies, and his impoliteness formulae to identify possible data patterns and how they relate to gender and culture as variables.

As for the theoretical framework of this investigation, it is crucial to note that context and co-text are the cornerstones of (im)politeness theory. In constructing the theoretical framework for this study, it is essential to underline that context and co-text are the foundations of (im)politeness theory. However, in computer-mediated communication (CMC), the concept of context collapse (Marwick and boyd 2011) is particularly relevant. Context collapse is the integration of formerly distinct social contexts in online environments, resulting in the convergence of numerous users and standards. This challenges the implementation of cultural norms because people are often not aware of the full reach of their audience.

Based on this theoretical framework, the present investigation explored participants’ responses to an FTA in the form of scorn and rudeness delivered privately in the context of rejecting a friend request. The negative words that were used seemed abusive and the second-person pronoun “you” were directed to the recipient. This behavior is regarded as intentional offending and is categorized as an act of impoliteness aimed at lowering the recipient’s dignity. The type of impoliteness known as reactive rudeness, described by Kienpointner (1997), occurs when individuals respond to a perceived provocation with reciprocal impoliteness as an act of self-defense or retaliation.

4.1 Quantitative results

The quantitative analysis followed Culpeper et al.’s (2003) impoliteness response options model, which has four stages. Each stage leading from the initial “triggering” event offers further analysis of the data set. From this initial triggering event, the recipient has the choice of whether to respond. Choosing to respond opens other branches, and choosing not to respond involves not engaging, staying silent, or simply ignoring the event. Seventy-four responses to the FTA were received, with 4 participants choosing not to respond. The gender split reflected the results of previous studies (Mercadal 2021; Mills 2003; Stone and Can 2021) which indicate that women are generally less likely to engage in face-threatening acts. In this study, 44 % of female participants chose not to participate, compared to 33 % of men. This means that 56 % of the female participants responded, compared to 67 % of the male participants.

The results show that 52.63 % of male participants responded with acceptance, compared to 47.37 % of female participants (see Table 1). The level of male acceptance responses is slightly higher than those of female participants. Overall, there was a near-equal split between responses that expressed acceptance (51.35 %) and those that countered with impoliteness (48.65 %).

Examples of acceptance can be seen below:

In the next stage of Culpeper’s response model, two choices branch out from the “counter” option: defensive or offensive counter strategies. Table 1 shows that there are countering responses from 36 of the total participants. Applying Bousfield’s (2007) and Culpeper’s (2005, 2011) classifications for defensive and offensive counterstrategies, 17 participants chose to employ offensive counterstrategies, and 19 used defensive strategies. A third category – “query” – emerged from the data. This involved the use of interrogatives, question marks, or short questions to counter the FTA by querying the message. While these responses counter the triggering message, they are not classified as either offensive or defensive.

As shown in Table 2, 64.705 % of responses from female participants could be classed as “offensive”, compared to 35.294 % of male responses.

Additionally, Table 2 above indicates more defensive responses (46.34 %) than offensive responses (41.46 %). In both cases, a higher percentage of male participants (35.29 % for offensive and 73.68 % for defensive) than female participants (64.71 % for offensive and 26.32 % for defensive) used counterstrategies. Almost double the percentage of female participants used offensive counterstrategies (64.71 %) compared to defensive ones (26.32 %). The number of query responses was higher for male participants (60.0 %) than for female participants (40.0 %).

4.2 Qualitative results

As previously discussed, in (im)politeness theory, understanding co-text and context is an essential analysis factor. In this instance, we have a context: the private message that initiated the FTA. In addition to rejecting an offer of friendship, an already fraught act, the message further expresses criticism and condescension. Within the super-strategies frameworks of Culpeper (1996) and Culpeper et al. (2003), these are both elements of negative impoliteness, as they are designed to damage the recipient’s negative face. Further, the private message sent to participants uses the second-person singular pronoun “you” to establish a clear association between the recipient and the negative aspect. Responses that express a similar intention are referred to as reactive rudeness (Kienpointner 1997). This highlights both the cause of and the intention behind the act of impoliteness.

4.2.1 Offensive super-strategies

Applying Culpeper’s (1996, 2005) framework identifies both strategies as negative impoliteness, designed to damage the recipient’s negative face. Across both genders, only two offensive super-strategies were employed: negative impoliteness and sarcasm/mock politeness. With only two strategies identified, it was necessary to explore the exact nature of these strategies and identify the underlying (im)politeness formulae (Culpeper 2011). The initial FTA included elements of condescension, scorn, contempt, and belittling, as well as the use of the second-person singular pronoun “you” to further provoke a response. Table 3 illustrates seven examples of negative impoliteness:

Table 3:

Responses that make use of (im)politeness super-strategy negative impoliteness.

#	Negative impoliteness example	Formula
A	When I send You a request? I don’t know you. Sorry and bye. By the way, I don’t want to talk with people who have the attitude I consider them sick	Condescension Insult
B	You can remove the ‘Add as a friend button’ from your timeline page You aren’t that important to act that way though.	Condescension Insult
C	This Facebook is for networking purposes not solitary alone, but if try to find your comrade, seek a friend who is the greatest Taqwa or tremendous God fearing to add more and more reward in hereafter. Not to connect a girl who is a stranger because Satan is between you and him.	Condescension Implicature
D	Excuse me You don’t need to explain or message me if you do not accept my friend request.	Condescension
E	Are you normal? I never send you a friendship request try to check instead you talk without proof sorry bro I’m not like you think I preserve myself too I do not provoke men	Insult Condescension
F	Sorry, I don’t follow you seem angry? if you don’t want to know new people that is up to you but you don’t have to say that to people.	Condescension

1. Spelling mistakes have been corrected for ease of legibility, and all words in square brackets are English translations of non-English languages.

While almost all responses include condescension, only responses A, B, and E include insults. Response E does so with the question “Are you normal?”, the implication being that the aggressor does not conform to the rules of politeness and is therefore aberrant in some way. In comparison, B is an example of a personalized negative insult, again, the use of “you” followed by an assertion of the researcher’s unimportance. Finally, E is an example of personalized third-person negative references. The insult is indirect (“I consider them sick”): it offers a certain amount of face-saving as the insult is an association rather than a direct comment. Responses A and E show denial and insist they did not initiate a friend request. This strategy redirects the blame by framing the “impolite act” as inappropriate, breaking the rules of politeness for no reason. The universal use of condescension across almost all offensive responses could be an example of equal impoliteness reciprocity, returning like for like and meeting condescension with condescension. (Im)politeness is disguised as helpfulness.

The examples of “mock politeness” in Table 4 were identified using the following definition: “mock politeness occurs when there is an im/politeness mismatch leading to an implicature of impoliteness” (Haugh 2014: 278, as cited in Taylor 2015: 130). Moreover, Haugh’s (2015) idea of impoliteness implicature strengthens this analysis as it also captures how an impolite meaning can be inferred from a context even where politeness is performed. This supports the assertion that mock politeness works through actual indirectness whereby the intent is core rude despite surface-level politeness.

Table 4:

Responses that make use of meta-strategy sarcasm/mock politeness.

#	Sarcasm/mock politeness sample
A.	Jazak Allah! [May God Reward you] You are too much to be a public figure.
B.	SALAM ALAIKOM. I am sorry for the inconvenience I might have caused for you. Your posts look intriguing and great. But you need more etiquette in giving advice. Jazak Allah [May God Reward you]
C.	jazakallahu khair [May God Reward you]. I am not looking for a bf but looking for a friend on fb. LOL
D.	(ALHAMDULELLAH) [Thank God]. OK, I know now. I seek your PARDON “SIR”
E.	(JazakALLAH Khairan) [May God Reward you] now i know why we should NOT be rude
F.	Bro Jazak ALLAH KHAIR! This is fb and not real life. Are you aware of that? LOL

In each instance of mock politeness, the expression of thankfulness, especially the phrase “Jazak Allahu”, appears genuine but conceals ridicule, particularly if it is followed by either sarcasm or mockery. While it appears courteous, the use of (Jazak ALLAH) in condescending settings implies mock politeness, in which the gratitude is not sincere but aims to covertly critique or disrespect the recipient.

This phenomenon is particularly notable in some Muslim cultures, where JazakAllah is very polite but is not always used genuinely. It could also be used as a mock politeness technique. This typically occurs when the speaker does not absolutely wish to express goodwill but instead uses the phrase to convey annoyance or to mock someone. In this study, some responses initially showed annoyance and ended up saying “Kazakh Allah” as a strategy to minimize the negative face. It can sometimes be interpreted as “Shut up! I do not want to continue arguing”. However, not all “Kazakh Allah” in the responses were interpreted as “mock politeness”. Only those responses that showed initial annoyance were viewed in this way. The phrase translates as “May Allah/God reward you”. This phrase traditionally ends with the word khayr (‘good’), which specifies that God should reward you (with) goodness (Meaning of Jazakallah Khair or Jazakallah Khairan). While Jazak Allahu is often used as an abbreviation of the entire phrase, it does leave the nature of the blessing open to interpretation. Respondents have used this phrase to express both politeness and mock politeness in reaction to the FTA.

4.2.2 Defensive counterstrategies

The use of defensive counterstrategies was far more prominent across both genders than the use of offensive counterstrategies. Most respondents, regardless of gender (63 %), employed Bousfield’s (2007) “offer an account/explanation” strategy. We only begin to see gender-specific strategies when we look at the next most common response category, abrogation. Of the seven respondents who used this defensive strategy, only one was male, and the rest were female. Three male respondents used “ignore the Face Attack and offer insincere agreement”, with “plead”, “direct contradiction”, and “dismiss/make a light joke” as the outliers (see Table 5 for details).

Table 5:

Counter-defensive strategies.

Defensive strategy	Responses	%	Male (N = 19)	%	Female (N = 5)	%
Direct contradiction	1	5 %	1	5 %	0	N/A
Abrogation	7	36 %	1	5 %	6	31 %
Dismiss	2	10 %	2	10 %	0	N/A
Ignore	3	15 %	3	15 %	0	N/A
Offer an account/explanation	12	63 %	7	36 %	5	26 %
Plead	1	5 %	0	N/A	1	5 %

As can be seen from Table 5, offering an account/explanation was the most common strategy for both genders (63 %), with male participants (36 %) using this strategy more than female participants (26 %). Abrogation was the second most common strategy (36 %) but was used overwhelmingly by female participants (31 %) than by male participants (5 %). “Ignore” made up 15 % of the total responses but was only used by (15 %) of men. Next, “dismiss” was again only used by (10 %) of men. “Plead” and “direct contradiction” were each only used once, by a female participant and a male participant, respectively. As offering an explanation was used by most participants (63 %), this strategy will be discussed in greater detail. Offering an explanation also included negotiation to save face. Several of these responses appealed to the researcher’s identity as a Muslim, either in apology or to renegotiate the refusal of their friend request. Responses categorized as offering an account/explanation are presented in Table 6.

Table 6:

Offering an account/explanation.

#	Response	Strategy
P	I am sorry I should have asked permission and I want to follow your account only for sound knowledge	Offer an account/explanation
Q	I AM sorry many times MY grandson USED MY iPad SO I guess they SEND you friends request BY mistake. Sorry.	Offer an account/explanation
R	I’m following your post. Will that be fine right?	Offer an account/explanation
S	I’m sorry for the inconvenience. I actually don’t know you but with your picture as a good man that’s why I sent you the friend request. Thanks	Offer an account/explanation
T	It’s ok. I sent you friend request because you are living in Saudi Arab. I thought that you would be helpful for me in the fact of job there. So, I sent you request. I hope you will able to consider my problem.	Offer an account/explanation
U	Masha Allah (As God has willed) brother from Saudi it’s alright I understand We actually use to be friends here before I had some issues with my account which I had to reset it you actually use to do some nice posting and interesting stories of which is always read and learn something which are really beneficial for me but Alhamdulillah (Praise be to God) my brother if can’t be friends on Facebook again	Offer an account/explanation
V	Not a problem…I’m woman and I understand brother. Just interested in my Deen [religion]. Learning as I’m revert. Your posts inspiring…my apologies indeed.	Offer an account/explanation
W	Ok thank for that advise but us a Muslim i need to know my Muslim brother even if I don’t know him or I know him or her so my brother by the names	Offer an account/explanation
X	Thanks for advise dear. By the way, we used to sit together in Memphis Tennessee, I am [redacted] I am so sorry and may God bless you. You may remember me when you were in studying in the States.	Offer an account/explanation
Y	we have over 100 friends in common so that is why the friend request. In’Sha Allah Khair Asalam (God willing, May God come and peace be with you) Brother	Offer an account/explanation
Z	why is that…you are friend with my brother	Offer an account/explanation
AA	You welcome, and I respect your privacy… I just add people to share knowledge…. I’m sorry if I bother you.	Offer an account/explanation

In many of the responses, an apology is offered. Other participants used cultural or geographical references to explain their actions: “Masha Allah (As God has willed) brother from Saudi”, “I sent you a friend request because you are living in Saudi Arabia”, and “I need to know my Muslim brother”. Other responses mentioned sharing knowledge/information: “I just add people to share knowledge”, “your posts inspiring used to do some nice posting and interesting stories”, “I want to follow your account only for sound knowledge”. Finally, some of the responses referred to their relationship with the researcher: “We have over 100 friends in common”, “You are friend with my brother”, “We used to sit together in Memphis Tennessee”, “We used to be friends here”. Thus, participants used various strategies when offering an account/explanation.

The following section will explore abrogation, which was the second most used defensive counterstrategy in the dataset. Abrogation is a strategy that shifts the blame for provoking the initial act of impoliteness. Each respondent denies sending the initial friend request, again calling out the author of the impoliteness act as behaving unreasonably, as there was no provocation. Although this could also be recognized as a form of denial, it was the initial act that was denied, not the criticism (see Table 7). As was shown in Table 5, there was a gender imbalance in the use of abrogation, which was used by 31 % of female participants and just 5 % of male participants.

Table 7:

Abrogation examples.

#	Response	Strategy
G	I didn’t send you a request. You had to have sent me one because I don’t send requests but thanks for letting me know	Abrogation
H	I never sent you one. I think there is a mistake somewhere, maybe.	Abrogation
I	I’m sorry I didn’t send any request to you	Abrogation
J	I’m sorry, I don’t understand the purpose of your message. Which request are you referring to?	Abrogation
K	I am not understanding what you are talking about	Abrogation
L	lol, I wanted to press the follow button on your page. Might have accidentally pressed the add friend button.	Abrogation
M	Waalakemasalaam no problem I cannot remember adding you, to be honest.	Abrogation

As a strategy, abrogation was similar to “offering an account/explanation”, as it also featured the common use of apology. Most of the examples denied having sent the request: “You had to have sent me one because I don’t send requests”, “I never sent you one”, “I didn’t send any request to you”, “What request are you referring to?”, or indicate lack of understanding: “I don’t understand the purpose of your message”, “I am not understanding what you are talking about”, “I cannot remember adding you, to be honest”. One example characterized the incident as an accident: “might have accidentally pressed the add friend button”. Thus, in the case of abrogation, most of the participants who employed the strategy denied having sent the request in the first place.