Exploring Gender-Associated Patterns of Politeness and Directness in EFL Students' Prompts to Generative AI
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31963/rial.v4i2.6440Keywords:
Generative AI, EFL learners, politeness strategies, directness strategiesAbstract
This study investigates how EFL students employ politeness and directness strategies in their prompts to Generative AI and explores the underlying motivations shaping these linguistic choices. While prior studies have examined gendered communication and prompt effectiveness separately, limited research has integrated these perspectives within AI-mediated interaction. Grounded in Politeness Theory, the CCSARP framework, and Genderlect Theory, this study adopts a qualitative design combining directed content analysis and thematic analysis. The dataset consists of twenty-six prompts generated by four Indonesian EFL students, supported by semi-structured interviews. Findings reveal that bald-on-record and conventionally indirect strategies dominate, reflecting a balance between efficiency and minimal politeness. Thematic analysis identifies four key factors influencing prompting behavior: politeness strategies, directness strategies, variation strategies, and perceptions of AI. Politeness is shaped by sociocultural norms and expectations of improved output quality, whereas directness is driven by efficiency and reduced cognitive effort. Participants also demonstrate adaptive prompting behavior, reflecting emerging AI literacy through iterative refinement. Importantly, no strong gender-based differences were observed, suggesting that individual preferences and task demands play a more significant role. The study highlights that politeness and directness function as complementary strategies in AI-mediated communication and offers implications for developing AI literacy in language learning contexts.References
Aini, N., Rahmat, A., & Widodo, P. (2023). Are men more polite than women? Deconstruct the politeness strategy in disagreement statements. NOBEL: Journal of Literature and Language Teaching, 15(1), 35–49.
Putri, F. R. S., & Firmonasari, A. (2024). Are men more polite than women? Deconstruct the politeness strategy in disagreement statements. NOBEL: Journal of Literature and Language Teaching, 15(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.15642/NOBEL.2024.15.1.35-49
Bakhtiyarovna, M. M. (2024). Gender differences in language use and politeness strategies. ResearchGate.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90192-5
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Ablex.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085s
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2022). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). SAGE.
Deng, Y., Liao, L., Chen, L., Wang, H., Lei, W., & Chua, T.-S. (2023). Prompting and evaluating large language models for proactive dialogues: Clarification, target-guided, and non-collaboration. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, 10602–10621. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.711
Ding, Y., Guo, R., Lyu, W., & Zhang, W. (2024). Gender effect in human–machine communication: A neurophysiological study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 18, 1376221. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2024.1376221
Dobariya, O., & Kumar, A. (2025). Mind your tone: Investigating how prompt politeness affects LLM accuracy (short paper). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.04950
Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi, M. A., Alalwan, A. A., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., ... Wright, R. (2023). “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
Grassini, S., & Lauman, K. (2022). Gender differences in human–computer interaction. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 6, 100178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100178
Jeon, J. (2024). Exploring the use of generative AI in language education: A systematic review. ReCALL. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344024000054
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerger, M., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., ... Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. Harper & Row.
Li, J., Wang, N., & Wang, Y. (2025). The double-edged sword effect of generative AI anthropomorphism on users’ emotional attachment: The moderating role of task types. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-03-2025-0125
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
Liu, X., Wang, J., Yuan, X., Sun, J., Dong, G., Di, P., & Wang, D. (2026). Prompting frameworks for large language models: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 58(10), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3789253
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press.
Reynolds, L., & McDonell, K. (2021). Prompt programming for large language models: Beyond the few-shot paradigm. In Extended abstracts of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (Article 314, pp. 1–7). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451760
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. William Morrow.
Wan, Z. (2019). Participant selection and access in case study research. In K. Tsang, D. Liu, & Y. Hong (Eds.), Challenges and opportunities in qualitative research. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5811-1_5
Walter, Y. (2024). Embracing the future of artificial intelligence in the classroom: The relevance of AI literacy, prompt engineering, and critical thinking in modern education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00448-3
Yin, Z., Wang, H., Horio, K., Kawahara, D., & Sekine, S. (2024). Should we respect LLMs? A cross-lingual study on the influence of prompt politeness on LLM performance. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Social Influence in Conversations (SICon 2024) (pp. 9–35). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.sicon-1.2
Zamfirescu-Pereira, J. D., Wong, R. Y., Hartmann, B., & Yang, Q. (2023). Why Johnny can’t prompt: How non-AI experts try (and fail) to design LLM prompts. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (Article 361, pp. 1–21). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581388
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Baiq Ulfiya HAFIZAH, Kadek Meisani Dinda CANTIKA, Wira Adhi PRASETYA, Mirjam ANUGERAHWATI
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Licensing
All articles published in RIAL are licensed under a Creative Commons License, specifically the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0). This license allows others to share copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially. It also allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. Visit: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ for detail information.
Author Rights
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. This ensures their right to share, reuse, and archive their work freely while acknowledging the journal as the original place of publication.
Collaborative Works:
For collaborative works, authors should ensure that they have secured the necessary permissions from co-authors to submit the manuscript and grant the rights outlined in this policy.
Archiving and Access:
RIAL upholds an open access policy, ensuring that articles are freely accessible to a global audience upon publication. Authors' work will be archived electronically, facilitating its long-term availability and visibility.
