This examination suggested classification schemes similar to existing schemes (e.g. Pomerantz 1978; Herbert 1988; Herbert and Straight 1989). In the end, the classification scheme that most appropriately fitted the data was similar to, but still different from, earlier classifications. It consisted of three broad categories (i.e. acceptances, mitigations, and rejections) and subcategories. The specific subcate-gories are provided in the Results and Discussion section of this article in Tables D5.1 and D5.2. Following guide-lines set forth by Krippendorf (1980) and Holsti (1969), the categories were exhaustive (i.e. all data were represented in one of the categories) and mutually exclusive (i.e. a response could belong to only one category). After the classification scheme was developed, one of the researchers and a graduate research assistant coded each of the English compliment responses as belong-ing to one of the categories. The Arabic compliment responses were coded by two of the researchers; one of whom is a native Arabic speaker. The coders worked independently and coded all of the compliment responses. Intercoder reliability was determined by comparing both coders’ scores. Intercoder reliability was 92 per cent for the American data and 88 per cent for the Arabic. Next, the coders reviewed the coding guide-lines and the items on which there was disagreement. They recoded until they came to a consensus; thus, in the end, agreement on all compliment responses was achieved. This section presents the analysis of the American and Syrian compliment response types.

DOI link for This examination suggested classification schemes similar to existing schemes (e.g. Pomerantz 1978; Herbert 1988; Herbert and Straight 1989). In the end, the classification scheme that most appropriately fitted the data was similar to, but still different from, earlier classifications. It consisted of three broad categories (i.e. acceptances, mitigations, and rejections) and subcategories. The specific subcate-gories are provided in the Results and Discussion section of this article in Tables D5.1 and D5.2. Following guide-lines set forth by Krippendorf (1980) and Holsti (1969), the categories were exhaustive (i.e. all data were represented in one of the categories) and mutually exclusive (i.e. a response could belong to only one category). After the classification scheme was developed, one of the researchers and a graduate research assistant coded each of the English compliment responses as belong-ing to one of the categories. The Arabic compliment responses were coded by two of the researchers; one of whom is a native Arabic speaker. The coders worked independently and coded all of the compliment responses. Intercoder reliability was determined by comparing both coders’ scores. Intercoder reliability was 92 per cent for the American data and 88 per cent for the Arabic. Next, the coders reviewed the coding guide-lines and the items on which there was disagreement. They recoded until they came to a consensus; thus, in the end, agreement on all compliment responses was achieved. This section presents the analysis of the American and Syrian compliment response types.

This examination suggested classification schemes similar to existing schemes (e.g. Pomerantz 1978; Herbert 1988; Herbert and Straight 1989). In the end, the classification scheme that most appropriately fitted the data was similar to, but still different from, earlier classifications. It consisted of three broad categories (i.e. acceptances, mitigations, and rejections) and subcategories. The specific subcate-gories are provided in the Results and Discussion section of this article in Tables D5.1 and D5.2. Following guide-lines set forth by Krippendorf (1980) and Holsti (1969), the categories were exhaustive (i.e. all data were represented in one of the categories) and mutually exclusive (i.e. a response could belong to only one category). After the classification scheme was developed, one of the researchers and a graduate research assistant coded each of the English compliment responses as belong-ing to one of the categories. The Arabic compliment responses were coded by two of the researchers; one of whom is a native Arabic speaker. The coders worked independently and coded all of the compliment responses. Intercoder reliability was determined by comparing both coders’ scores. Intercoder reliability was 92 per cent for the American data and 88 per cent for the Arabic. Next, the coders reviewed the coding guide-lines and the items on which there was disagreement. They recoded until they came to a consensus; thus, in the end, agreement on all compliment responses was achieved. This section presents the analysis of the American and Syrian compliment response types.