INTRODUCTION

Effective communication relies on several key factors that contribute to the successful exchange of meaning (Ahmadi & Weisi, 2023). Among these factors, politeness plays a crucial role in fostering understanding and ensuring messages are received appropriately.   

     Politeness refers to adhering to social norms and behaving in ways deemed acceptable within a given society (Jiang, 2010). It involves demonstrating consideration for others, as Murliati (2013) describes it as a behavior that acknowledges and respects people’s emotions. Brown (2015) expanded this idea by defining politeness as a framework of social rules that guide both speech and behavior. Similarly, Sembiring and Sianturi (2019) highlight that politeness entails treating others with respect and maintaining awareness of their feelings. Syaputra (2020) believed that politeness helps individuals communicate effectively by minimizing conflicts and fostering harmonious interactions. Landone (2022) further explains that politeness is a flexible and context-sensitive phenomenon that incorporates strategies of tact and face management to promote positive social relations. Likewise, O’Driscoll and Haugh (2024) define politeness as a set of behavioral strategies designed to sustain social connections and interpersonal balance.

Impoliteness emerges as the conceptual opposite of politeness. The researchers choose to investigate the phenomenon of impoliteness due to its prevalent use over polite language in contemporary communication (Ramanda, 2023). Culpeper et al. (2003) assert that the key distinction between politeness and impoliteness lies in the speakers’ intent. While politeness serves to enhance and protect an individual’s social image (Culpeper, 2005; Bousfield & Locher, 2008), impoliteness involves behavior that challenges or damages that image. This can occur when a speaker deliberately undermines someone’s social standing or when a listener interprets an act as offensive.

There have been numerous definitions of impoliteness from the early studies on impoliteness. Bousfield (1997) describes impoliteness as a deliberate act intended to launch an attack on another individual. Culpeper (2005) defined impoliteness as a negative expression or behavior that goes against the expected norms of appropriate behavior in a given context. Culpeper (2013) describes impoliteness as communication that is perceived as aggressive or disruptive, violating expectations of respectful interaction. Such actions often contribute to social tension and conflict.

Diani (2015) characterizes impoliteness as behavior that strays from conventional politeness norms and is often seen as disrespectful, leading to discomfort in social exchanges. Culpeper (2017) emphasizes the role of both speaker intent and listener perception, defining impoliteness as a communication intended to offend or disrupt social harmony, or behavior that is interpreted that way. Gustiani et al. (2022) argue that impoliteness stems from violating socially accepted norms of appropriate behavior. More recently, Ambarita (2024) described impoliteness as conduct that disrupts social unity and has the potential to provoke conflict.

The relationship between language, gender and language has been the center of attraction for most sociolinguistics (Haji Maibodi & Fazilatfar, 2015; Hosseinian Ahanghar Nezhad et al., 2023). Linguistically, the term "gender" does not pertain to biological differences but rather denotes a socially constructed identity shaped by cultural and societal norms (Threadgold, 1988). Researchers have long examined how males and females differ in their use of language, with a focus on speech patterns such as politeness, topic preference, and communication style. Studies suggest that females tend to use more polite, indirect, and cooperative language, often centering conversations around personal relationships and emotional expression (Holmes, 1995; Lakoff, 1975; Tannen, 1990). In contrast, males are generally more direct, assertive, and inclined to discuss topics related to status, such as politics and sports (Coates, 2015; Mills, 2003). Wardhaugh (2009) also highlights the distinct linguistic behaviors of males and females, noting that gendered language use is shaped by social roles and expectations. These differences are further reflected in how each gender uses and perceives impoliteness, with females’ deviations from politeness norms often appearing more prominent due to societal expectations (Suhandoko et al., 2021; Younes et al., 2023).

Despite these valuable insights, there is a gap in research on impoliteness and gender differences in online contexts, particularly in English comments on Instagram. Social media, which has become a dominant form of communication, can lead to unintended violations of politeness principles, as people may overlook the emotions of others in comments (Baym, 2015). Instagram, as a platform for public discourse, has seen increasing use of impolite language in comments, influenced by factors such as gender. While numerous studies have explored impoliteness and gender differences across various contexts, such as plays (Aydınoglu, 2013), films like Mother (Mirhosseini et al., 2017) and the Big Wedding (Pratama, 2020), animated series like Family Guy series (Mulyadi et al., 2024), and podcasts like Whatever (Dating Talk 69) (Putri, 2024), a few studies have been done to explore how gender shapes impoliteness strategies in online spaces, particularly in English comments on Instagram. This study aims to fill this gap by analyzing gender differences in impoliteness strategies within comments on Instagram’s broadcast pages, based on Culpeper’s (2011) model of impoliteness.

The significance of this study lies in its contribution to understanding impoliteness in digital communication, particularly within the context of Instagram comments on major news platforms. By applying Culpeper’s (2011) impoliteness model, the research provides insights into gender-based differences in impoliteness strategies, addressing a gap in previous studies that have largely focused on different contexts. This study enhances digital literacy by informing language instructors, online communicators, and content developers about how impoliteness manifests in social media discourse, emphasizing the need for further exploration of nonverbal cues, cultural influences, and evolving online interaction patterns.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Previous Theoretical Frameworks of Impoliteness

Although Brown and Levinson’s (1987) framework primarily focuses on politeness, it also provides valuable insights into impoliteness through its concepts of face (both positive and negative) and face-threatening acts (FTAs). Impoliteness is understood as an intentional act that harms an individual’s face, either by targeting their positive face (undermining their self-esteem or desire for social approval) or by challenging their negative face (restricting their autonomy or imposing on them). However, the framework has been criticized for assuming that communication is predominantly cooperative, thereby overlooking inherently conflictual exchanges.

To overcome the limitations of earlier politeness models, Culpeper (1996, 2005, 2011) proposed a set of impoliteness strategies: (bald-on-record impoliteness, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness, off-record, and withhold politeness). His framework evolved to emphasize context, power dynamics, and multimodal cues. In his 2011 revision, Culpeper clearly outlines five refined strategies:

• Bald on-record impoliteness: The speaker directly threatens the listener’s face without attempting to soften the impact, as seen in direct insults or commands.
• Positive impoliteness: This strategy seeks to damage the listener’s positive face by disregarding them or establishing social distance.
• Negative impoliteness: The speaker targets the listener’s negative face, using threats, commands, or coercion to restrict their autonomy.
• Off-record impoliteness: Indirect communication conveys impoliteness through rhetorical questions, metaphors, or insinuations.
• Withhold politeness: Expected politeness is deliberately omitted, such as failing to greet someone when socially anticipated.

Culpeper’s (2011) model introduces several refinements. It distinctly categorizes "withhold politeness" as a form of impoliteness, emphasizing the role of omission. Additionally, the model underscores intentionality and accountability, recognizing that impoliteness may not always be deliberate but can be strategically employed. It also integrates social and contextual factors, including power relations, cultural norms, and the influence of social settings on perceptions of impoliteness. The concept of face is expanded to include not only direct threats but also subtler forms of impoliteness, such as omission and rhetorical devices. By incorporating these elements, Culpeper’s (2011) framework provides a more comprehensive understanding of how impoliteness is conveyed through language and interaction.

Previous Empirical Studies on Impoliteness

Numerous studies have examined impoliteness and gender differences through the lens of Culpeper’s (1996, 2005, 2011) impoliteness models across various contexts. These include analyses of politeness and impoliteness strategies concerning gender differences in plays (Aydınoğlu, 2013), films such as Mother (Mirhosseini et al., 2017), and The Big Wedding (Pratama, 2020). Further research has explored impoliteness in The Edge of Seventeen (Suhandoko et al., 2021), the American comedy series (Ghayedi Karimi et al., 2021), the Family Guy series (Mulyadi et al., 2024), and podcast episodes like Whatever ("Dating Talk 69") (Putri, 2024). Additionally, studies have analyzed how Indonesian netizens use impoliteness strategies in Instagram discussions (Sigalingging et al., 2025). These studies highlight the significant role of gender in shaping impoliteness strategies in various forms of media and communication.

Aydınoğlu (2013) analyzed dialogues from six one-act plays by Geralyn L. Horton to explore gender differences in impolite language. Using Culpeper’s (2011) framework and Bousfield’s (2008) model, the study found that males used impolite language more frequently than females, employing a wider range of strategies, particularly direct and confrontational ones. In contrast, females tended to use less aggressive strategies, such as sarcasm and indirect negativity. The study highlighted how societal expectations and gender roles shape language use, showing that males and females navigate power dynamics and face-threatening situations differently through their language choices.

Mirhosseini et al. (2017) analyzed the use of impoliteness strategies in the Iranian film Mother, revealing gendered differences in language use. The study applied Culpeper's (2011) five impoliteness strategies. Their findings showed that the male characters employed more impolite strategies than the female characters, with positive impoliteness being the most frequent. These differences were attributed to Iran’s patriarchal society, where male dominance is reflected in language. The study highlighted that males use impoliteness to assert power, while females, in a subordinate role, tend to use impoliteness more subtly. The research underscores the influence of societal structures on language and communication patterns, emphasizing how Culpeper’s framework can reveal underlying power dynamics in gendered communication.

Pratama (2020) studied gender differences in the use of impoliteness strategies in the Big Wedding film using Culpeper’s (1996) framework. The study found that both male and female characters employed all five impoliteness strategies, but the frequency and context differed by gender. Male characters used more direct strategies like bald-on-record and negative impoliteness, often to assert power, while female characters favored more subtle approaches such as positive impoliteness and sarcasm. These differences reflected the characters’ social roles and relationships, showing how impoliteness strategies can mirror and reinforce gendered power dynamics in communication.

Suhandoko et al. (2021) examined impoliteness strategies in the Edge of Seventeen series based on Culpeper’s (1996) model of Impoliteness. The findings revealed that both males and females use impoliteness to assert power, but in different ways. Females, often stereotyped as using powerless language, preferred positive impoliteness, which targets the interlocutor’s social face to maintain relationships. Males, on the other hand, favored negative impoliteness to assert dominance by limiting the interlocutor’s freedom. The study highlighted that impoliteness is used by both genders to shape their identities and navigate power dynamics, with distinct strategies reflecting their roles in social interactions.

Ghayedi Karimi et al. (2021) compared the use of sarcasm as an impoliteness strategy employed by Persian and American males and females in a Persian comedy series, based on Culpeper’s (2011) model of impoliteness. They found that both sets of characters predominantly used sarcasm, but cultural differences influenced how it was expressed. American characters used sarcasm more directly, while Persian characters employed it more subtly to align with cultural norms that prioritize social harmony. The study highlights how sociocultural contexts shape impoliteness strategies, particularly sarcasm, and emphasizes the role of cultural values in communication.

Mulyadi et al. (2024) examined gender-based impoliteness strategies in the Family Guy series using Culpeper’s (1996) model of impoliteness. They found that while male characters used more impolite language overall, both male and female characters employed similar types of impoliteness strategies, such as sarcasm and positive impoliteness. Despite the higher frequency of impolite remarks from male characters, the similarities in strategy used between the genders challenged the stereotype that women are more polite than men. This study highlighted the complexity of gendered language use, particularly in comedic settings where exaggeration and irony prevail.

Putri (2024) analyzed impoliteness strategies used by males and females in the Whatever podcast, using Culpeper’s (1996) framework. The study found that females used impolite strategies more frequently than males, challenging the typical stereotype of females being more polite. The increased use of impoliteness by females in this podcast context suggested that females were more dominant in their use of face-threatening language. This finding highlights how impoliteness can serve as a tool for asserting authority, especially in informal or contentious environments, challenging traditional gender expectations of politeness.

Sigalingging et al. (2025) investigated gender differences in impoliteness strategies in Instagram discussions about the Vadel issue, using Culpeper's (1996) impoliteness model. The results revealed that, female users predominantly used bald-on-record and negative impoliteness strategies, displaying direct hostility, while male users favored positive impoliteness and sarcasm, employing more indirect forms of aggression. The study highlights how both genders express hostility in different ways, reflecting gendered communication styles and the influence of societal norms on online discourse.

While many studies have explored gender differences in impoliteness strategies across various contexts, no study has specifically examined gender differences in employing impoliteness strategies on English comments on Instagram based on Culpeper’s (2011) model of impoliteness. This study aims to fill this gap by analyzing gender-based differences in employing impoliteness strategies in English comments on the broadcast pages of BBC, CNN, FOX News, and The New York Times. This study aims to explore how male and female users employ impoliteness strategies in these settings, identifying significant differences between them in their use of impoliteness.

Research Questions

1. What impoliteness strategies are used by male and female Instagram users on Instagram’s broadcast pages according to Culpeper’s (2011) model of impoliteness?
2. Which impoliteness strategies are used by male and female Instagram users on Instagram’s broadcast pages according to Culpeper’s (2011) model of impoliteness?
3. Is there any statistically significant difference between males and females in employing impoliteness strategies on Instagram’s broadcast pages according to Culpeper’s (2011) model of impoliteness?

METHOD

Design of the Study

This study employed both quantitative and qualitative corpus analysis to examine impoliteness strategies in English comments on the broadcast pages of BBC, CNN, FOX News, and the New York Times, applying Culpeper’s (2011) impoliteness framework. In the qualitative part of the study, we analyzed and codified the type of impoliteness strategies employed by female and male Instagram users when commenting on these broadcast pages. The quantitative component focused on measuring the frequency of various impoliteness strategies, including bald-on-record, positive and negative impoliteness, off-record, and withholding politeness, used by male and female users with particular attention to gender differences in their usage. The study explored gender-based variations in the use of these strategies to gain a deeper understanding of how these behaviors either align with or challenge societal and cultural gender expectations. However, the statistical framework used in this study may require further refinement to strengthen its robustness.

Corpus of the Study

Instagram was chosen as the primary data source for this study. To build the corpus, four famous broadcast pages of CNN, BBC, Fox News, and The New York Times were selected due to their reputations, global influence, and diverse audience engagement. The analysis focused on English comments posted by males and females on these pages. A combination of purposive and convenience sampling methods was used. Emojis comments, lengthy, and factual statements because of context dependent, difficulty of interpretation, and multilayer discourse were excluded. The comments posted solely by males and females as replies to other users were included. The selected comments covered a range of topics, including politics, technology, sports, social issues, health, animal welfare, environmental concerns, cinema, economics, space exploration, medical advancements, and transportation topics frequently discussed on these broadcast pages. Throughout the study, the anonymity and confidentiality of commenters were strictly maintained.

The written corpus of the present study consisted of 17850 words, 520 comments, and 85 posts generated by 256 females and 264 males on the four broadcast pages of CNN (18 posts, 135 comments (68 female and 67 males), BBC (20 posts, 130 comments (68 females and 62 males), Fox News (22 posts, 126 comments (59 females, 67 males), and The New York Times (25 posts, 129 comments (61 females, 68 males). The comments were made between 2022 and2025. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the corpus.

Table 1: Characteristics of the Corpus

Table 1 presents an overview of the corpus used in the study, detailing the distribution of Instagram comments collected from four major broadcast pages: CNN, BBC, Fox News, and The New York Times. It shows that a total of 85 posts generated 520 English comments, contributed by 256 female and 264 male users, resulting in a balanced gender representation. The comments were gathered between 2022 and 2025 and amounted to a total of 17,850 words. This table highlights the breadth and diversity of the data, emphasizing the representativeness of the sample across multiple prominent news platforms and supporting the reliability of the gender-based analysis of impoliteness strategies.

Corpus Analysis

The English comments that were posted by females and males, on the four broadcast pages of BBC, CNN, Fox News, and New York Times, during 2022-2025, were copy-pasted into a Word file and were analyzed based on Culpper’s (2011) model of impoliteness. The criteria for selecting relevant samples included Instagram comments that female and male users solely posted in response to other users. The comments were read several times to identify relevant comments based on Culpper’s five impoliteness strategies. The utilized politeness strategies were coded. Comments that failed to adhere to the principle of politeness, such as those containing emojis and factual statements were disregarded. Out of the total corpus of 700 comments, 520 comments that posted by 256 females, and 264 males were chosen for further analysis.

For the statistical analysis, SPSS version 26, a widely used program in social sciences and acquired by IBM in 2009, was employed to provide descriptive statistics, visualize data to illustrate the relative frequencies of five impoliteness strategies, and conduct Chi-square test to identify significant differences between females and males in using impoliteness based on the Culpper’s (2011) model of impoliteness.

RESULTS

Impoliteness Strategies

The result of corpus analysis revealed from 520 comments, generated by 264 males and 256 females, 1634 impoliteness strategies were found. Further analysis of these strategies revealed the following distribution: 475 strategies were based on bald-on-record (29.9%), 434 strategies were based on positive (26.56%), 316 strategies were based on negative (19.33%), 216 strategies were based on off-record (13.21%), and 193 strategies were based on withholding (11.81). (Table 2).

Table 2: Frequency and Percentage of Impoliteness Strategies

Note: Most comments have more than one strategy.

Table 2 revealed the bald-on-record strategy has the most frequency and percentage (475, 29.9 %), and the withholding politeness strategy has the least frequency and percentage (193, 11.81%) among strategies. Figure 1, illustrates the percentage of these strategies.

Figure 1: Percentage of Impoliteness Strategies

Bald-on-Record

After observing and classifying English comments based on Culpeper’s (2011) model of impoliteness, 475 (29.9%) comments were classified as bald-on-record impoliteness strategy. An example from a corpus that was uttered by a female in response to a male was illustrated below:

Male: Two phony impeachments. A phony criminal investigation. A phony investigation in Albany, New York, a phony investigation in Fulton Country, Georgia, a January sixth unconstitutional committee, (and) a U.S. attorney with ties of Obama, completely rouge and out of control. 

Female: oh very, you are just a schmok!

Positive Impoliteness Strategy

After observing and classifying English comments, based on Culpeper’s (2011) model of impoliteness, 434 comments (26.56%) were classified as positive impoliteness strategy. An example from a corpus that was uttered by a female in response to a male is illustrated below:

Male: As a guy that makes homemade action figures for a living. I can relate.

Female: you as a guy that makes action figures for a living should………. Wait what was I talking about   

Negative Impoliteness Strategy

After observing and classifying English comments, based on Culpeper’s (2011) model of impoliteness, 316 comments (19.33%), were classified as negative impoliteness strategy. An example from a corpus was uttered by a male in response to a female is illustrated below:

Female: The world will never forget the war crimes of Israel.

Male: a month after the day where most Jews were slaughtered since the holocaust, most of them were burned alive and this is your take on this war that Israel didn’t start? You should like a n@zi.

Off-record Impoliteness Strategy

After observing and classifying English comments, based on Culpeper’s (2011) model of impoliteness, 216 comments (13.21%), were classified as off-record impoliteness strategy. An example from a corpus uttered by a male in response to a male is illustrated below:

Female: The issue is homelessness and mental illness! Not crime! This will just fund more cops on their phones all day.

Female: exactly! Love having my tax dollars pay for cops to play Candy Crush

Withholding Politeness Strategy

After observing and classifying English comments, based on Culpeper’s (2011) model of impoliteness, 193 comments (11.81%) were classified as withholding politeness strategy. An example from a corpus was uttered by a male in response to a female is illustrated below:

Female: Stone Age mindset leadership

Male: get yourself stoned then 

Impoliteness Strategies Used by Males and Females

The corpus analysis revealed the frequency distribution of impoliteness strategies among male and female Instagram users. Out of 475 instances of bald on-record impoliteness, 240 were produced by males and 235 by females, showing a nearly equal distribution. Similarly, out of 434 occurrences of positive impoliteness, 222 were attributed to males and 212 to females. Regarding negative impoliteness, females slightly exceeded males (160 vs. 156). The off-record strategy appeared 216 times, with males producing 113 instances and females 103. Lastly, withholding politeness was documented in 193 cases (99 from males and 94 from females). (Table 3). Figure 2, also illustrates the frequency of each these strategies among females and males.

Table 3: Frequency and Percentage of Impoliteness Strategies among Males and Females

Based on Table 3, it can be concluded among male users, the bald-on-record has the most frequency and percentage than other strategies (240, 28.91%). Also, among female users, the bald-on-record strategy has more frequency and percentage (235, 29.22%) than other strategies. Also, this study revealed that female users use negative strategy (160, 9.75%) more than male users (156, 9.5%).

Figure 2: Frequency of Impoliteness Strategies among Males and Females

Significant Differences between Males and Females in the Use of Impoliteness Strategy

To analyze the significant differences between males and females in the use of impoliteness strategies, a Chi-square test was conducted by using SPSS software. The results of this test are presented in the following tables.

Table 4: Chi-Square Test for Gender Differences in Using Impoliteness Strategies

**+: The strategy employed in the comments.

-: The strategy did not employ in the comments.

The results of the chi-square test for examining the relationship between gender and the strategies under study showed no significant relationship. The test value, degrees of freedom, total sample size, and p-value for each strategy are as follows: Bald on record: χ² (1, N = 520) = 0.130, p = .719, positive impoliteness: χ²(1, N = 520) = 0.154, p = .695, negative impoliteness: χ²(1, N = 520) = 0.634, p = .426, off-record: χ²(1, N = 520) = 0.353, p = .552, withholding: χ²(1, N = 520) = 0.034, p = .854.

An analysis of strategies used frequencies between males and females revealed slight differences across various strategies, with males and females each favoring certain approaches marginally more than the other. However, all p-values associated with these differences exceeded 0.05, indicating that none of the observed variations are statistically significant. Therefore, it can be concluded that gender does not significantly impact the selection of these impoliteness strategies.

Table 5: Standardized residuals for gender differences in impoliteness strategies

    **+: The strategy employed in the comments.

-: The strategy did not employ in the comments.

 According to the Bonferroni correction for controlling Type I errors, a new significance level was determined. In this method, the original significance level (usually 0.05) is divided by the number of comparisons or tests conducted. In this study, the number of tests is 4, as five different strategies have been considered: bald-on-record, positive, negative, off-record, and withholding. Therefore, the adjusted significance level is 0.0125. As a result, for a factor to be considered significant, its p-value must be less than 0.0125. Hence, only factors with a p-value lower than 0.0125 will be statistically significant.

Table 6: Effect size (Cramer’s V) for Chi-Square Test of Impoliteness Strategies with Bonferroni-adjusted p Values

To examine the strength of the relationship between gender and the studied variables, Cramér’s V was calculated. The results showed:

Bald-on-record: Cramér’s V = 0.016 (small effect), p-value = 0.719, Positive: Cramér’s V = 0.017 (small effect), p-value = 0.695, Negative: Cramér’s V = 0.035 (small effect), p-value = 0.426, Off-record: Cramér’s V = 0.026 (small effect), p-value = 0.552, Withholding: Cramér’s V = 0.008 (small effect), p-value = 0.854.

As observed, all Cramér’s V values are below 0.1, indicating a small effect size and a very weak relationship with no practical significance. Additionally, all p-values exceed 0.05, suggesting that these relationships are not statistically significant. Therefore, it can be concluded that gender has a negligible effect on these variables, and no substantial relationship was found.

DISCUSSION

This section summarizes the findings of the present study and discusses them with previous research.

The First Research Question

The first research question is “What impoliteness strategies are used by male and female Instagram users on Instagram’s broadcast pages according to Culpeper’s (2011) model of impoliteness?”

The findings of the present study revealed that both male and female Instagram users employed five impoliteness strategies: bald-on-record, positive, negative, off-record, and withholding politeness. The bald-on-record impoliteness strategy has a higher frequency and percentage (475; 29.9%) than other strategies, and the withholding politeness strategy has the least frequency and percentage (193; 11.8`%) than other strategies.

The findings of the present study are in line with those of some studies, indicating bald- on-record had the highest frequency and percentage in specific contexts (nurse-patient interaction; Ezenwa-Ohaeto & Asuzu, 2023, movie and series; Mulyadi et al., 2024, and Pratama, 2020). The result is in contrast with some studies, in specific contexts like (English and Arabic Facebook comments; Hammod & Abdul-Rassul, 2017, Movie; Khaqqi & Pradipta, (2024), and digital era and social media: Karina et al., 2023; Pung & Faizal (2023) that revealed, the positive impoliteness strategy has the highest frequency and percentage than other strategies.   

This variation underscores how platform-specific communication norms, audience expectations, and cultural factors all play significant roles in shaping the choice and frequency of impoliteness strategies. As demonstrated by Pung and Faizal (2023), the context of each digital space influences whether users lean toward direct insults, sarcasm, or more restrained forms of impoliteness. Similarly, research by Aydınoğlu (2013) and Pacheco-Baldo (2019) highlights that cultural and gender differences further shape these choices, with some cultures and genders favoring more indirect or face-saving approaches. Collectively, these findings illustrate that impoliteness in digital discourse is not fixed but highly adaptable, reflecting the complex interplay of platform design, community norms, and cultural influences.

The Second Research Question

The second research question is “Which impoliteness strategies are used by male and female Instagram users on Instagram’s broadcast pages according to Culpeper’s (2011) model of impoliteness?”

The findings of the present study also revealed a near-equitable distribution of bald-on-record impoliteness between male and female participants. Out of the 475 instances identified, bald-on-record impoliteness was employed by males in 240 cases and by females in 235. A similar pattern was observed with positive impoliteness strategies: among 434 instances, males employed this strategy in 222 cases and females in 212. In the case of negative impoliteness, a slight gender difference was noted, with females employing this strategy in 160 instances, compared to 156 for males. Off-record impoliteness was used 216 times, with males employing it in 113 instances and females in 103. Withholding politeness was documented in 193 cases, with males employing it in 99 cases and females in 94.

In terms of the distribution of impoliteness strategies, it was found that among male users, the bald-on-record strategy has more frequency and percentage (240, 28.91%) than other strategies, while withholding politeness has the least frequency and percentage (99, 11.92%). Similarly, among female users, the bald-on-record strategy also has more frequency and percentage (235, 29.22%) than other strategies, and withholding politeness has the least frequency and percentage (94, 11.69%). The study also revealed that female users employ the negative impoliteness strategy slightly more than males (160 instances, 9.75%, compared to 156 instances, 9.5%).

Among the studies reviewed, only the study by Hoang (2023), is in alignment with the findings of the present research. This study reported that both females and males used the bald-on-record impoliteness strategy more frequently than other strategies across various contexts (e.g., negotiations in shark Tank America and Shark Tank Vietnam. However, some studies have different results in different contexts (Instagram comments; Erza & Hamzah, 2018; Movie context; Ghayadi Karimi, 2022; Suhandoko et al., (2021), and Workplace; Holmes, 1995).  

Based on the findings of the present study and insights from previous research, the use of impoliteness strategies by male and female Instagram users appears to be shaped primarily by gender-based communication styles and the public, informal nature of the platform. While cultural expectations and individual communication preferences may also play a role, these factors were not examined in this study and should be explored in future research. Both genders are more likely to use bald-on-record strategies due to Instagram's informal and public environment, which encourages straightforward communication. However, females tend to favor negative politeness strategies slightly more, aligning with societal norms that promote face-saving behaviors. Both males and females also utilize off-record and withholding politeness, often for humor or critique, with their choices influenced by the goals of the interaction, audience reactions, and their communication style. The way they balance direct and indirect strategies depends on these factors, indicating that both genders adjust their strategies according to the social context and their communicative objectives.

The Third Research Question

Is there any statistically significant difference between males and females in employing impoliteness strategies on Instagram’s broadcast pages according to Culpeper’s (2011) model of impoliteness?

The results of the statistical analysis (χ², p > 0.05) revealed that there is no significant difference among male and female Instagram users in employing impoliteness strategies based on Culpeper’s (2011) model of impoliteness.

This study’s results have some implications for language instructors, students, and material developers. For instructors, it highlights the need to raise awareness of digital communication norms, gendered language use, and pragmatic competence in online discourse. Students can benefit by developing a deeper understanding of impoliteness strategies, enhancing their critical digital literacy, and reflecting on gender differences in communication. For material development, the study suggests incorporating authentic social media discourse, interactive activities, and tasks that foster critical engagement with online language use. Overall, these insights can help improve digital communication skills and promote a more nuanced understanding of impoliteness in online interactions.

CONCLUSION

It can be concluded that multiple factors influence the use of different impoliteness strategies across diverse contexts and communication settings among males and females. The use of impoliteness strategies by male and female Instagram users is shaped by various factors like gender-based communication styles, and platform-specific norms, particularly the informal and public nature of Instagram. Both genders are more likely to use bald-on-record strategies due to Instagram's informal and public environment, which encourages straightforward communication. However, females tend to favor negative politeness strategies slightly more, aligning with societal norms that promote face-saving behaviors. Both males and females also utilize off- record and withholding politeness, often for humor or critique, with their choices influenced by the goals of the interaction, audience reactions, and their communication style. The way they balance direct and indirect strategies depends on these factors, indicating that both genders adjust their strategies according to the social context and their communicative objectives. Overall, gender influences the use of impoliteness strategies on Instagram, with both males and females adapting their approach based on platform norms, societal expectations, and communicative goals.

Future studies can compile a larger and more diverse corpus across various digital platforms than what was used in the present study. Collecting a broader and more representative dataset will enhance the reliability and generalizability of the findings. Future research can also examine the use of emojis and other non-linguistic symbols to explore additional modes through which impoliteness is expressed. Moreover, researchers can investigate whether there is significant gender-based differences in the use of these non-verbal elements in online impoliteness. Future studies can further examine gender differences in the use of impoliteness strategies across diverse contexts, with particular attention to cultural settings such as Iran, where social norms and gender roles may influence linguistic behavior. Ultimately, researchers may apply other (im)politeness frameworks, such as Bousfield’s (2008) model, to gain deeper insights into gendered communication. Finally, the role of AI moderation in detecting, filtering, and shaping impolite expressions in digital discourse represents another promising area for exploration.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID