Rethinking Politeness: The Distinction Between Behavioral and Biological Politeness
Politeness is widely regarded as a fundamental social virtue, woven into linguistic conventions, cultural traditions, and interpersonal expectations. Across societies, it is linked to respect, diplomacy, and the maintenance of social harmony. A polite individual is generally expected to adhere to established etiquette, minimize unnecessary conflict, and facilitate cooperation in both personal and professional spheres. However, this conventional understanding fails to recognize that politeness is not a singular trait but a dual-faceted phenomenon. In this article, I introduce a new framework that differentiates between behavioral politeness, which is learned and strategically applied, and biological politeness, which is an inherited personality trait rooted in agreeableness. This distinction allows for a more precise understanding of how politeness functions — and sometimes limits individuals — in professional and high-stakes environments. (And to preempt any misconceptions: when I use the term "deconstructing," it has nothing to do with postmodernism. My students already know I am openly critical of nearly everything postmodernist, and this is no exception.)
Linguistically, politeness is often framed as a behavioral ideal — something that one demonstrates or lacks depending on the context. In Western cultures, it is linked to civility and tact, whereas in Eastern cultures, politeness often manifests as hierarchical deference and indirect communication. While these expressions vary, the underlying assumption remains the same: politeness is a social lubricant that facilitates smoother interactions.
However, this widely accepted view fails to distinguish between politeness as a learned behavior and politeness as an innate personality trait. By treating politeness as a singular concept, we overlook its dual nature — one that can be strategically applied but also, when biologically ingrained, can hinder an individual’s ability to assert themselves, negotiate effectively, and achieve personal and professional success.
To provide a more nuanced and practical framework, I propose a clear distinction: Behavioral Politeness and Biological Politeness. This conceptual separation helps us understand why politeness can be both a strength and a liability, and how Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVHs) can mitigate its limiting effects.
The Two Types of Politeness: Behavioral vs. Biological Politeness
Behavioral Politeness is a learned and adaptive skill, shaped by social exposure, education, and self-regulation. It is not necessarily tied to an individual's innate disposition but is instead a strategic choice—a person can be polite in one setting and assertive in another, depending on the demands of the situation. Behavioral politeness is highly context-sensitive and is often used as a social tool rather than a deep-seated personality trait.
In contrast, Biological Politeness is a sub-trait of Agreeableness, largely inherited, and defines an individual’s baseline level of compliance, conflict avoidance, and emotional discomfort in assertive situations. People with high biological politeness feel an instinctive need to conform, accommodate others, and avoid confrontation, often at the expense of their own interests. Research suggests that agreeableness (which includes politeness) is at least 35-50% heritable, making biological politeness a stable personality feature rather than a learned behavior (Kandler et al., 2014).
The difference between the two is critical. Behavioral politeness is a skill that can be applied or withdrawn at will, whereas biological politeness is an internal predisposition that dictates a person’s natural inclination toward deference and social compliance.
The Effects of Behavioral and Biological Politeness
Behavioral Politeness is overwhelmingly beneficial in professional and social environments. Individuals who master situational politeness can navigate complex interactions, build alliances, and maintain influence while still exercising assertiveness when needed. Their politeness is not a compulsion but a strategic asset.
Biological Politeness, on the other hand, is a double-edged sword. While it fosters cooperation and likability, it can also lead to excessive deference, career stagnation, and an inability to negotiate better conditions for oneself. People with high biological politeness often:
Struggle with setting boundaries and saying no, even when it harms their personal or professional well-being.
Avoid necessary conflicts, leading to missed opportunities and undercompensation in the workplace (Judge et al., 2012).
Feel silent resentment as they continuously prioritize others' needs over their own.
This explains why research has consistently found that agreeableness (which includes politeness) is negatively correlated with salary growth and leadership success. While polite individuals may be well-liked, they often lack the assertiveness required to push for promotions, challenge authority, or demand better compensation (Spurk & Abele, 2011).
How SIVHs Reverse the Limiting Effects of Biological Politeness
The most effective way to counteract the restrictive effects of high biological politeness is to implement a Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH). SIVHs act as a cognitive restructuring tool, allowing individuals to override instinctive agreeableness and realign their behavior with a higher purpose.
SIVHs shift the source of motivation from external validation to internal conviction. Instead of defaulting to compliance for social approval, an individual aligns their actions with their chosen long-term aim, reducing the emotional pull of politeness-driven conformity.
They preserve behavioral politeness while lowering automatic agreeableness, ensuring that politeness remains a conscious choice rather than an uncontrollable instinct.
They provide internal reinforcement for assertive behaviors, making it easier for highly polite individuals to negotiate, set boundaries, and engage in necessary conflicts without excessive emotional discomfort.
At SelfFusion, we have observed that professionals who implement an SIVH not only reduce excessive agreeableness but also develop greater negotiation skills, strategic assertiveness, and resilience in high-stakes environments. This transformation allows them to retain the social benefits of politeness without suffering its career-limiting consequences.
Conclusion
The concept of politeness has long been treated as a single, monolithic trait, but this perspective fails to account for its dual nature. Behavioral politeness is a social skill that can be developed, refined, and applied selectively, while biological politeness is an innate predisposition that can hinder personal growth if left unchecked. Understanding this distinction allows us to recognize that politeness is not always a strength—it can become a limiting factor when it leads to excessive compliance, suppressed ambition, and diminished assertiveness.
Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVHs) offer a strategic solution, helping individuals retain the benefits of politeness while overcoming its restrictive effects. By shifting motivation from social conformity to internal purpose, SIVHs empower individuals to assert themselves, negotiate effectively, and push beyond the limitations imposed by high biological politeness.
In an era where leadership and personal success demand both social intelligence and assertive decision-making, the ability to differentiate between behavioral and biological politeness is essential. Recognizing this distinction and implementing the right cognitive frameworks can make the difference between career stagnation and long-term professional dominance.
Some of the Resources used for the Article
Ames, D. R., & Flynn, F. J. (2007). What breaks a leader: The curvilinear relation between assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 307-324. Link
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. Link
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 880-896. Link
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2016). Planning promotes goal striving. Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications, 3rd ed., 223-244. Link
Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Conceptual and empirical foundations. Annual Review of Psychology, 66,1-26. Link
Judge, T. A., Livingston, B. A., & Hurst, C. (2012). Do nice guys—and gals—really finish last? The joint effects of sex and agreeableness on income. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(2), 390-407. Link
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (1999). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80-92. Link
Kandler, C., Zimmermann, J., & McAdams, D. P. (2014). Core and surface characteristics for agreeableness: Differential associations with personality traits, psychopathological symptoms, and relationship outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 883. Link
McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61(3), 204-217. Link
Rosen, C. C., Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2016). The emotional implications of organizational politics: A process model. Human Relations, 69(2), 379-407. Link
Schultz, W. (2016). Dopamine reward prediction error coding. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23(1), 229-238. Link
Spurk, D., & Abele, A. E. (2011). Who earns more and why? A multiple mediation model from personality to salary. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(1), 87-103. Link
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65-94. Link
Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination, performance, stress, and health: The costs and benefits of dawdling. Psychological Science, 8(6), 454-458. Link
Widiger, T. A., & Oltmanns, J. R. (2017). Neuroticism is a fundamental domain of personality with enormous public health implications. World Psychiatry, 16(2), 144-145. Link
