Identity Implications 9
Based on the distinct face threats of advice and favors, it seems likely that message
sources will vary their use of self- versus other-focused reasons across advice versus favor
episodes. Wilson et al. (1998) found that message sources gave a larger number of reasons when
giving advice than when asking favors. That study, however, failed to distinguish self- and other-
focused reasons.
Message sources, when giving advice, should be especially aware of the target’s face.
Advice has the potential to communicate disapproval of the target (i.e., positive face threat) as
well as to constrain the target (i.e., negative face threat; see Table 1). In contrast, sources who ask
favors constrain the target’s autonomy but do not communicate disapproval. Asking a favor itself
implies that the target possesses desired abilities and resources. Assuming that message sources
give reasons to redress those face threats made salient by the influence goal defining their
situation, it is expected that (H3) sources who give advice, relative to those who ask favors, will
report giving more other-focused reasons.
Message sources, when asking favors, should be especially aware of their own face.
Asking a favor potentially can threaten the source’s own desire for approval and autonomy (see
Table 1). Sources who give advice may threaten their own positive, but not their negative, face.
Hence, (H4): sources who ask favors, compared to those who give advice, will give more self-
focused reasons.
If Message sources give reasons in part to redress perceived face threats, then
perceptions of the five specific face threats in Table 1 should predict the degree to which
participants give, or withhold, reasons. More specifically, (H5): sources’ ratings of five specific
face threats will be associated with the number of self- and other-focused reasons present in their
Convention