Cover not available

Article published In: Applied Pragmatics: Online-First Articles

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

The influence of closeness and anonymity on peer feedback

ORCiD logo with link | Shimane University
Published online: 5 March 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.22014.tu
Abstract
This study investigates the effect of closeness and anonymity between Japanese university students on their degree of discomfort and quality of feedback exchanged during L1 peer feedback in an L2 English classroom. The investigations focus on learners’ praise and critique exchanged in their first language when reviewing each other’s English essays, as well as their reported degree of discomfort during the process. These variables are investigated by pairing each participant with three classmates: a known classmate with whom they are mutually close, a known classmate with whom they are mutually distant, and a classmate whose identity is unknown. These pairs exchange feedback on their writing and rate their level of discomfort when giving and receiving feedback. The investigations find lower degrees of discomfort among learners who share a close relationship. Furthermore, the results indicate that anonymity does not reduce the discomfort experienced by learners during the peer feedback process. The results also show that learners exchange similar feedback, regardless of their closeness or anonymity. The study alleviates concerns that closeness or anonymity influences the quality of peer feedback exchanged in the EFL classroom, with the caveat that learners who are close may experience the least discomfort during the process.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Critique as a face-threatening act
    • 2.2Closeness and face-threatening acts
    • 2.3Anonymous versus identified feedback
    • 2.4The need for peer feedback in Japanese
    • 2.5Research questions
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Japanese usage
    • 3.3Procedures
      • 3.3.1Informed consent
      • 3.3.2Measurement of closeness
      • 3.3.3Selecting participants
      • 3.3.4Short TOEFL essays
      • 3.3.5Peer feedback form
      • 3.3.6Responding to feedback form
    • 3.4Data analysis
      • 3.4.1Ratings
      • 3.4.2Free response
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Discomfort ratings
      • 4.1.1Giving feedback
      • 4.1.2Receiving feedback
    • 4.2Reasons for discomfort
      • 4.2.1Giving feedback
      • 4.2.2Receiving feedback
    • 4.3Differences in praise and critique
      • 4.3.1Amount of feedback
      • 4.3.2Quality of the feedback: Usefulness and clarity
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1RQ1: To what extent is discomfort experienced by peers who are close, distant, or anonymous when exchanging feedback in Japanese?
    • 5.2RQ2: What are the differences in the praise and critique exchanged between peers who are close, distant, or anonymous?
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
References (55)
References
Ahmad, I. (2014). Mixed messages in criticisms in Iranian PhD dissertation defenses. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 11(3), 270–291.
Alsulami, S. (2015). The effectiveness of social distance on requests. Arab World English Journal, 6(3), 382–395. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aron, A., Aron, E., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bos, A., & Tan, E. (2019). Effects of anonymity on online peer review in second-language writing. Computers & Education, 1421. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cao, Z., Yu, S., & Huang, J. (2019). A qualitative inquiry into undergraduates’ learning from giving and receiving peer feedback in L2 writing: Insights from a case study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 631, 102–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (2005). Peer assessment of language proficiency. Language Testing, 22(1), 93–121. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cote, R. (2014). Peer feedback in anonymous peer review in an EFL writing class in Spain. Gist Education and Learning Research Journal, 91, 67–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., Shauer, G., Marti, L., Mei, M., & Minna, N. (2014). Impoliteness and emotions in a cross-cultural perspective. SPELL: Swiss Papers in English Language and Literature, 301, 67–88.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Don, Z., & Ahmad, I. (2013). Interactionally achieving face in criticism-criticism response exchanges. Language & Communication, 33(3), 221–231. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 400–414. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fukuda, A., & Asato, N. (2004). Universal politeness theory: Application to the use of Japanese honorifics. Journal of Pragmatics, 361, 1991–2002. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gächter, S., Starmer, C., & Tufano, F. (2015). Measuring the closeness of relationships: A comprehensive evaluation of the ‘inclusion of the other in the self’ scale. PLoS ONE, 10(6). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gaffney, A. (2015). Uncovering embedded face threat mitigation in landscape architecture critique feedback. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15(4), 110–125. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work. Psychiatry, 18(3), 213–231. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldsmith, D., & MacGeorge, E. (2000). The impact of politeness and relationship on perceived quality of advice about a problem. Human Communication Research, 26(2), 234–263. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 241, 443–461. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hadden, A., & Frisby, B. (2019). Face threat mitigation in feedback: An examination of student feedback anxiety, self-efficacy, and perceived emotional support. Communication Quarterly, 67(1), 60–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haugh, M., Culpeper, J., & Johnson, D. (2017). (Im)politeness: Metalinguistic labels and concepts in English. In R. Giora & M. Haugh (Eds.), Doing pragmatics interculturally: Cognitive, philosophical, and sociopragmatic perspectives (pp. 135–147). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopkinson, C. (2021). Realizations of oppositional speech acts in English: A contrastive analysis of discourse in L1 and L2 settings. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(2), 163–202. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hosack, I. (2004). The effects of anonymous feedback on Japanese university students’ attitudes towards peer review. Ritsumeikanhougaku Bessatsu, 11, 297–322.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huisman, B., Saab, N., Broek, P., & Driel, J. (2019). The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: A meta-analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 863–880. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Itakura, H., & Tsui, A. (2011). Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese and English book reviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 431, 1366–1379. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaya, F. (2021). Emotions related to identifiable/anonymous peer feedback: A case study with Turkish pre-service English teachers. Issues in Educational Research, 31(4), 1088–1100.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, J. (2018). Negotiations and criticisms in L2 peer review sessions. Modern English Education, 361, 59–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lin, G. (2017). Anonymous versus identified peer assessment via a Facebook-based learning application: Effects on quality of peer feedback, perceived learning, perceived fairness, and attitude toward the system. Computers & Education, 1161, 81–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, P., & You, X. (2019). Metapragmatic comments in web-based intercultural peer evaluation. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(1), 57–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lu, R., & Bol, L. (2007). A comparison of anonymous versus identifiable e-peer review on college student writing performance and the extent of critical feedback. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(2), 100–115.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ly, A. (2016). Internal e-mail communication in the workplace: Is there an “east-west divide”? Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(1), 37–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 121, 403–426. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGarrell, H. (2010). Native and non-native English speaking student teachers engage in peer feedback. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 131, 71–90.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McMahon, T. (2010). Peer feedback in an undergraduate programme: Using action research to overcome students’ reluctance to criticize. Educational Action Research, 18(2), 273–287. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mercader, C., Ion, G., & Díaz-Vicario, A. (2020). Factors influencing students’ peer feedback uptake: Instructional design matters. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(8), 1169–1180. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nguyen, M. (2008). Criticizing in an L2: Pragmatic strategies used by Vietnamese EFL learners. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(1), 41–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ohbuchi, K., Hayashi, Y., & Imazai, K. (2000). Motivational analysis of avoidance in organizational conflicts: Japanese business employees’ concerns, strategies, and organizational attitudes. Psychologia, 431, 211–220.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ohbuchi, K., Imazai, K., Sugawara, I., Tyler, T., & Lind, E. (1997). Goals and tactics in within- and between-culture conflicts. Tohoku Psychologica Folia, 561, 1–13.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ohbuchi, K., & Takahashi, Y. (1994). Cultural styles of conflict management in Japanese and Americans: Passivity, covertness, and effectiveness of strategies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 241, 1345–1366. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panadero, E., & Alqassab, M. (2019). An empirical review of anonymity effects in peer assessment, peer feedback, peer review, peer evaluation and peer grading. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(8), 1253–1278. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Park, S., & Howell, T. (2015). Implementation of a flipped classroom educational model in a predoctoral dental course. Journal of Dental Education, 79(5), 563–570. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Patchan, M., Schunn, C., & Clark, R. (2017). Accountability in peer assessment: Examining the effects of reviewing grades on peer ratings and peer feedback. Studies in Higher Education, 43(12), 2263–2278. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Patton, C. (2011). ‘Some kind of weird, evil experiment’: Student perceptions of peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(6), 1–13. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paulus, T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pizziconi, B. (2003). Re-examining politeness, face and the Japanese language. Journal of Pragmatics, 351, 1471–1506. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 611–633. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stephan, E., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2010). Politeness and psychological distance: A construal level perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 268–280. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Topping, K. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tracy, K., & Eisenberg, E. (1990). Giving criticism: A multiple goals case study. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 241, 37–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Usami, M. (2002). Discourse politeness in Japanese conversation: Some implications for a universal theory of politeness. Hitsuji Shobo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van de Vliert, E., Ohbuchi, K., Van Rossum, B., Hayashi, Y., & Van der Vegt, G. (2004). Conglomerated contending by Japanese subordinates. International Journal of Conflict Management, 151, 192–207. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wakabayashi, R. (2008). The effect of peer feedback on EFL writing: Focusing on Japanese university students. OnCUE Journal, 2(2), 92–110.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yalch, M., Vitale, E., & Ford, J. (2019). Benefits of peer review on students’ writing. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 18(3), 317–325. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yu, S. (2019). Learning from giving peer feedback on postgraduate theses: Voices from master’s students in the Macau EFL context. Assessing Writing, 401, 42–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yucel, R., Bird, F., Young, J., & Blanksby, T. (2014). The road to self-assessment: Exemplar marking before peer review develops first-year students’ capacity to judge the quality of a scientific report. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(8), 971–986. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue