The subject of gender differences appears to have engaged peoples' curiosity for as long as people have been writing down their thoughts, from as far back as the writing of the creation of Adam and Eve, to its current popular expression in books such as "Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus" (John Gray, 1992). In it, the author expresses the premise that our expectations for the opposite sex to be more similar to our own lead to anger and frustration, as does the fact that we, in effect, speak different languages. This issue is even addressed in an article for children (Monroe, 1995), which describes differences in brain structure, hormones, and socialization, all of which contribute to perceived differences in thought processes and behavior.
Of particular interest is the question of how the genders are perceived to express themselves differently in the form of communications, if at all, and whether or not actual differences exist according to scientific research. This paper has as its goal the examination of research literature related to these differences, and the specific applied and basic research of relevance.
The validity of such research was addressed by Canary and Hause (1993). In their study, the authors assert that 50 years of research on sex differences in communications brought about no conclusive findings for such differences, although such differences might reasonably be expected. The authors' meta-analyses of findings from a broad array of studies provided evidence for an expectation of small differences due to sex: approximately 1% of variance, with those effects being moderated by socio-cultural variables. However, they also assert that true elucidation of those difference are overlooked due to methodological errors and sex role stereotyping. Such stereotyping perpetuates myths about sex differences, and does not serve to accurately predict behavior. The researchers recommend avoiding the use of gender as an independent variable which affects communication in favor of seeing it as a dependent variable where communication effects peoples' attitudes and beliefs about, among other things, gender expectations.
This evaluation by Canary and Hause (1993) regarding basic research concerned with gender differences illustrates the need for theoretical explanations for the connections between sex, gender, and communications. These might then lead to discovery of ithe communication-based reasons for peoplesi gender differences.
Deborah Tannen is another notable proponent for this point of view, which likens differences in gender styles to those experienced by different ethnic groups which speak the same language using differing styles deriving from cross-cultural influences. She also would avoid using gender as an ultimate explanation for behavior since it is socialization which is the source of the patterns which are learned and expressed in our communication (Tannen, 1990). Tannen asserts that the basic uses of conversation by women are to establish and support intimacy; for men it is to establish status. These styles are a reflection of cultural differences, and one is not necessarily better than the other. However, she also notes her findings that men tend to interrupt more and are more resistant to asking questions. In fact, a woman's tendency to ask more questions has been known to result in her obtaining lower grades from male professors who saw her frequent questioning as proof that she "knew" less than classmates in a male-dominated class. These kinds of communication differences can lead to misunderstanding and frustrations between the sexes. Cohen (1991), in his article regarding Tannen's beliefs, points out one mystery in this connection. Since women are primarily responsible for child-rearing and therefore disproportionately responsible for teaching the species to speak, when is it that boys learn to speak in the male style?
Two aspects of speech differences have been examined for which males are seen as more strongly predisposed. These involve the use of expletives and aggressive/argumentative predispositions. De Klerk (1991) examined the relationship between social power and expletive usage, which is considered high-intensity language whose usage is variable cross-culturally. Their use in Western cultures are typically associated with masculinity and strength. In a group of adolescent males and females, De Klerk found some support for the thesis that gender is related to expletive usage (somewhat higher use in males than females), but that it is only one of several factors related to social position, including age and social status, which determine usage. Female scores were noted to be much higher than was expected by the researcher.
Other researchers have sought to compare not only differences in predispositions for aggressive speech and argumentativeness, but also peoples' expectations for these differences. Nicotera and Rancer (1994) found that aggressive communication predispositions, which include argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness, are both expected by males and females to be higher in males, and indeed are higher in generalized males. The consequences of these perceptions are significant in that not only do they predispose males for the behaviors in terms of socialization, but the behaviors themselves tend to place those who exhibit the behaviors in a more credible position in circumstances which involve organizational hierarchies. This may contribute somewhat to male dominance in the corporate world. Furthermore, the authors assert that those lower in motivation and ability for arguing tend to be more likely to resort to verbal aggression in interpersonal disputes. This may be a predispositional factor in situations involving domestic violence, as verbal aggression can act as a trigger for physical violence. This finding could have consequences in applied research for improving marital communication as well as for strengthening females, in particular, for successes in bureaucratic systems.
Whelan and Verdi (1992) found evidence which seems to contradict previous findings for gendered communication styles in groups. Where earlier research had found support for stereotypical patterns in which females tended toward socioemotional communications and males toward task-oriented patterns, the researchers found that these styles of interacting break down after the first 30 minutes of a group interaction. After that time, interval there tended to be no clear patterns related to gender differences. The authors suggest thatthis variability may be accounted for by participantsi anxiety during early group formation being managed by performance based on social role expectations.
Research in content analysis of conversational topics used by the sexes was first studied systematically by Moore in 1922. His research was reviewed and compared to the findings of a 1990 study by Bischoping (1993). Moore concluded that in same sex conversations, women tended to discuss the opposite sex or clothes; men discussed money, business, or amusements. Bischoping found that women's conversations about work and money have shown an increasing trend and that, more significantly, overall gender differences have declined in intervening years, reflecting possible changes in researchersi beliefs and attitudes about gender differences.
Whereas Moore felt that women's "original nature" was and would continue to be reflected by their choices of men and appearances as favored conversational topics, the Bischoping's1990 study (1993) found that the percentage of womenis conversations concerning work and money rose from 3.7% in 1922 to 37.5% in 1990, becoming the most frequent topic for both sexes. (The second favorite topic for both sexes is leisure activity. The least favorite, again for both, is appearances, these according to the categories provided in these studies.) While Moore's prediction was vindicated to the extent that there continues to be somewhat more inclination for women to discuss the opposite sex and appearances, and for men to discuss work and leisure somewhat more than women (Bischoping, 1993), the changing nature of society and social role expectations should be seen as clearly more influential than the inherent nature of sex characteristics. The application of this evident change should provide a cautionary note to educators and parents.
The self-confidence which the sexes hold for their abilities in three types of communicative tasks was the topic for a study by Clark (1993). These tasks involved comforting, persuading, and justification. Since a person's feeling of self-efficacy for a task is important to actual performance, the application of findings in this area could prove important for strengthening perceived weaknesses for either sex in one of these abilities. Clark found that some difference did exist in expectations for success in the domains studied. Men anticipated more success than they actually achieved in the area of justification (of decisions). Women anticipated more success in comforting of others, and achieved more successful results than did men. Significantly, women's performances was rated higher than men's in all domains measured, leading to the possible conclusion that women are generally seen as more competent in communicative tasks which are perceived as interpersonal. In only one area were men seen as more competent than women: persuasive tasks involving men persuading a woman, not unlike a typical dating or similar male/female interpersonal situation. Also noteworthy was the finding that each sex was rated higher in ability by their own sex than by the other. Overall, however, stereotyped ratings of ability were mirrored by actual performance, which would seem to lend credence to the effects of expectations, or nurturance, upon ability.
Stereotypical expectations for back channel, or listener responsiveness behaviors, have been commonly accepted to favor females in terms of frequency and quantity, i.e. women are accepted generally as better listeners than men (Marche and Peterson, 1993). Marche and Peterson found this attribution to be unjustified. Back channel communications are small verbal cues such as repetitions of a speakeris words, sentence completions, words such as "mm-hmm" and "right", which convey the listener's continuing attention to a conversation. This study challenged the common assumption that women provide greater conversational maintenance than do men. The authors found that the quantity of back channels in same-sex and mixed-sex conversations did not differ significantly, although women used more of certain types of comments. Men were no less supportive of women than women were of men. Gender could not be used to predict this behavior, and stereotypes for this element of conversation were unfounded.
In a study whose findings supported stereotyped expectations for nonverbal communicative behavior, Briton and Hall (1995) found that women were expected by members of both sexes to display greater skill at sending and receiving nonverbal messages. In this case, the researchers expected to find such differences since women have been observed to use certain nonverbal expressions more than men (smiling and laughing) and were found to be better interpreters of facial expressions. Participants also rated men higher on expected use of dysfluencies such as stammering and interjections of "ums" and i"ahs" on interruptions, being restless, speaking too loudly, and on touching themselves during conversations. The expectations of both sexes were found to be generally accurate for observed behavior, with the exception of female expectations for other females' abilities being higher than was found to be the case. The authors question the interpretation of why these difference exist. It is uncertain from these data whether the differences are attributable to actual sex characteristics or whether they result from our stereotypes about them.
The ability to discern differences in gendered speech was shown to exist by at least two different studies using experimental generated dialogue. Ferber (1995) found that there is a strong tendency for both genders to correctly determine the genders of authors of transcripted speech. He did, however, find a stereotyped scenario involving description of ihow to do a technical constructioni of being interpreted as man explaining to woman. Ferber interprets his findings as proof that gender differences in language use do exist. Wolfinger and Rabow (1997) concurred with the findings of successful identification of speakersi gender, with women being somewhat better at gender identification, and also showed that personal characteristics of subjects such as race and socioeconomic status had almost no effect at all on their ability to categorize speakers.
In summary, it would appear that gender differences in communication are commonly expected to exist at many levels. Research confirms the existence of these expectations, without question. In some types of communication, these differences are shown to actually exist, and in others they are shown to be insignificant or nonexistent. Differences due to sex characteristics are actually responsible for only 1% of variance between the sexes, and may reflect differences in brain structure and hormone production. Therefore, observed differences in communication behavior are most likely due to socialization and acculturation. In our culture, males are discouraged from expressing their feelings and therefore become less competent than females in some types of interpersonal communications.
In another regard, though, the feminist point of view has suggested that it is a male bias toward defining communication as influence which has served to deny legitimacy to and dehumanize alternative styles of communication favored by females. Shepherd (1992) calls for development of a transcendent definition of communication which would neither disadvantage women, who tend to use communication more for relational responsibility, nor men, who as children are discouraged from expressing and therefore becoming their true selves. From Aristotle and his definition of rhetoric as persuasion, to the recent past and even the present, Shepherd points out, male domination in philosophy and science has resulted in the characterization of interactive processes as primarily expressing influence, persuasion, and power. This has served to both devalue the feminine experience as well as to negate the true range of the masculine nature. It is the superceding of our natural abilities and predipositions by the socializing effects of nurturance which appear to result in observed differences in communications between the genders. The application of the findings of these examples in basic research are important to everyone responsible for the raising and education of children; for those involved in counseling where gender is in any way at issue; for those who are involved in organizational communications; and for anyone with a concern for being understood by others, or more importantly, for understanding them.
Produced by ProfEssays ( www.professays.com ) - custom essay, custom term and academic paper writing service. No plagiarism, high quality, prompt delivery.